The next thing that I want to say is our lack of biological knowledge and the general poor health of the of America of the American people Is being used to create the crisis they need to divide and conquer us to ruin Maybe America.
I don't know crash the dollar I don't know steal the rest of our our what limited Treasury value we have left.
I don't know But I know for sure
that they are combining our lack of biological knowledge and our general society's lack of good health and access to health care to create a crisis to usher in all kinds of changes that would otherwise never be necessary, and more importantly, never be possible.
vaccine, if you think about it.
You know, if we're defining vaccine really liberally, and these COVID vaccines are vaccines, the flu vaccine is vaccine, okay.
But actually, they're kind of cheating when they're calling these things vaccines.
And, you know, anything with really rapidly fading efficacy, such that you need shots within a year, you know, Canada's saying nine months, is as actually J.J.
Cooey's insistence, and I think he's right, on calling them transfections rather than vaccines.
Seems like yesterday, but it was long ago.
Janie was lovely, she was the queen of my night.
There in the darkness with the radio playing low.
And the secrets that we shared, the mountains that we moved.
out of control till there was nothing left to burn and nothing left to prove and I remember what she said to me how she swore that it never would end I remember how she held me oh so tight
We were running against the wind We were young and strong We were running against the wind And the years rolled slowly past And I found myself alone Surrounded by strangers I thought were my friends
I found myself further and further from my home.
And I guess I lost my way.
There were oh so many roads I was living to run and running to live.
Never worried about pay or even how much I owe.
Moving eight miles a minute for months at a time.
I began to find myself searching Searching for shelter again and again Against the wind A little something against the wind I found myself seeking shelter against the wind
Well, those drifter's days are past me now.
I've got so much more to think about.
Deadlines and commitments.
What to leave in, what to leave out.
Against the wind.
I'm still running against the wind.
I'm older now.
I'm still running against the wind.
Against the wind.
I'm still running against the wind.
Against the wind.
Still running against the wind.
Running against the wind.
Against the wind.
Watch the young men run against the wind Watch the young men runnin' against the wind I'll be runnin' against the wind against the wind Let the cowboys ride against the wind Against the wind Let the cowboys ride against the wind I'll be ridin' against the wind
He's scheduled for 60 minutes next.
He's going on French, British, Italian, Japanese television.
People everywhere are starting to listen to him.
It's embarrassing.
Good morning, everybody.
Welcome to the show.
This is Giga Ohm Biological, a high resistance, low noise information brief brought to you by a biologist out of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania on USA.
This is planet Earth, where antibodies apparently are a correlative immunity and our kids come out broken and need to be fixed by the by the national security state.
And these charlatans are going to continue to hold power over us.
until we take it back not just these charlatans of course but also these charlatans it is a wicked wicked madrigal of uh of harmonies um i'm i'm a i'm a patch clamp physiologist i'm a a wannabe academic biologist i used to be i wanted to be a tenure track professor i wanted to be a professor i wanted to teach biology at a university because i thought that's what they did there um and the
The stream's name is actually derived from the high resistance, low noise recordings that are made in patch clamp physiology.
Those seals are called gigaohm resistance, and so it just seemed right that if I was going to make a cool biologist
clothing brand that it would be called GigaOM and then little did I know that I would be using that instead of as a joke on myself and on everybody that that does the little kind of methodology that we do or did.
It turns out that GigaOM Biological is now actually the escape key on your
on your keyboard it's the escape key because biology is the way out and intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system is dumb.
Transfection in healthy humans was always criminally negligent and RNA cannot pandemic because viruses are not pattern integrities.
Once you start to understand these basic truths, then a lot of the big theater and the hoopla about who invented what starts to really come into focus because all of those hamster wheels actually kept us from usefully evaluating how much of the excess deaths that we were all told we were
we were supposed to pay close attention to, how many of those exodus deaths were really due to a mystery virus, as opposed to, let's say, oh, I don't know, a whole laundry list of other reasons why people might have died.
A long laundry list of ideas, bad ideas, and bad protocols, and bad incentives, which led to a catastrophe that around the world was painted as the start of something very terrible.
instead of painting it for what it was, which was, well, there's no epidemiological evidence of spread, so maybe we should be afraid of something else.
But no, of course, the United messaging around the world, including the anonymous accounts like Jikki Leaks, were all convinced that what was happening in America was about to happen around the world.
And if it wasn't for the magical lockdowns that were done down under, they too would have had a similar New York-like event.
And instead of talking about strict liability, none of the lawyers at CHD or ICANN ever mention it.
They talk about free speech, and they've been talking about it for a while.
They never talk about a Seventh Amendment violation where maybe you've been, you've had your, your, your, what is, as
colloquially in legal circles been referred to as jurisdiction stripping.
If you have no place to sue, then you really have lost a fundamental right.
And yet none of these lawyers seem to be able to explain that.
And the reason why is because they used murder and lies to cover things up.
Because the bottom line is the national security state would gladly use murder and lies to cover up the fact
The transfection in healthy humans was always going to be criminally negligent.
And so if they needed to test it on everybody, and the only way to test it was to test it on humans, then they would just lie about it.
And in fact, they would use murder and lies to disguise the fact that the vaccine schedule in America has always been a criminal enterprise, even before the pandemic.
And in fact, I think the national security state would use murder and lies to perpetuate a mythology where RNA can pandemic and only the national security state and people like Tony Fauci and Peter Daszak can save us.
And I think this is the illusion that they created using a limited spectrum of debate.
And I don't mean just the people on the left.
I don't mean just the people who claim to fear the gain-of-function viruses.
I also mean these people over here.
I mean all these people up here.
I mean all of them misled the young by sticking to a limited spectrum of debate.
And that limited spectrum of debate, of course, led to us being the guy in the chair grabbing the joystick and thinking that we were going to send the tweet that was going to push back on the empire.
And this is effectively what Aldous Huxley described to us all the way back in 1962.
We're talking about
the ruling oligarchy and its highly trained acolytes who are performing the show before our eyes a sort of limited spectrum of debate about where it came from and who's responsible and this slow roll of the truth which is that there really is no RNA pandemic and that the only way they could do it is with
DNA and RNA that they created themselves, by the time that truth gets out, our children will be effectively enslaved.
Enslaved by the very social media that ignores the biology that I just opened the show with.
And that's really where we are.
Hello, my name is Jonathan Cooey.
I'm right down here.
We've got a lot of work to do, ladies and gentlemen, because weaponized piles of money have used their acolytes on social media to convince us what to argue about and with whom to argue.
And that's really a problem because that means we're not really actually having a useful discussion, but we've got goggles on and a joystick in our hand and the
The pivoting of the chair and the brightness of the image has led us to believe that we're actually usefully engaging in public discourse, and we're not.
And that's why social media has to be completely discarded from our lives.
And especially, we must be sure that we do not allow our kids to inherit social media as their reality window.
Because this is exactly what our controllers would like to have happen.
And that's why GigaOM Biological is here.
So let me get over here to the desktop, please.
Thank you very much for joining me.
This is GigaOM Biological, a high-resistance, low-noise information brief brought to you by Biologist.
I'm having my 10th cup of coffee today.
It was the first day of school in Bethel Park, Pennsylvania.
My son just started at the high school that Matthew Crix graduated from in 2022.
He's very excited.
He's got a new pair of shoes on, a new haircut, and the only thing that can really
you know, go wrong is high school.
So needless to say, it's a little bit of a humbling moment for me.
Having a child in high school is now a little different than having kids in even middle school.
And now we have one in middle school, one in high school, and one in grade school still.
So it's quite a, yeah, it's quite a time to see children growing up.
And it's quite a time to field the questions that they have when they come home.
It's not the way it was when we were children and you could, your parents could count on the, the adults that walk in the door to have some, you know, consistency, and some degree of moral consistency with what one would expect from a community member.
And so it is with great trepidation that I enter this school year, but it's also kind of nice because that means my mornings are pretty free to focus on this and to make sure that I get my work done every day.
So thanks for the patience.
I've taken eight days off.
I spent a lot of time with my family, although I've never really logged off or stopped paying attention to the big show.
because I guess that's kind of what I do now, unfortunately.
It's the 29th of August, 2024.
We've been at this for about five years now.
And oftentimes people can forget that 2020 was also a year.
So don't let these people fool you into believing that, you know, we shouldn't talk about 2020 and 2021.
I've got a fan in the background.
That's that high frequency fuzz you hear.
2020 and 2021 are very interesting years because those are the years in which I was chasing the lab leak.
I was in drastic and trying to engage with them on Twitter.
2021 is the year when
diffuse proposal was released and I was immediately convinced that this was way too smack on point to be real and in fact it seemed laughable and then in 2021-22 very early on is when this whole
landslide of meddlers in my life started to reveal themselves simply because I wouldn't have it with regard to the diffuse proposal.
So here we are, 2024, we're very, very far down the road.
I think everybody in 2022, or sorry, in 2020 would have never guessed
that would be here in 2024, almost as if no time at all has actually transpired.
And so that's what this show is about today.
It is Throwback Thursday.
I think it's always very, very important, and I've said this before, to focus exclusively on
2020 and 2021 when trying to understand what happened, because most of the people who purport to be on our side now are actually people that in 2020 and 2021 were doing things very differently than they now are doing, saying things very differently than they now are saying, and having a level of skepticism and a level of, let's say, principles that they were missing in 2020 and 2021, either by
not being present at all in the public eye, not having their name and their reputation on the line, or even worse, advocating for everyone to shut up and comply.
And the people who were saying shut up and comply range throughout the spectrum.
But you can find them on the right and on the left.
You can find them in the orthodoxy and the heterodoxy or whatever you wanna call it.
Because Jordan Peterson and Brett Weinstein were cowering behind their masks and their lockdowns and their focused lockdowns or whatever else they said.
And saying that we should be careful of bushmeat and everything else because they had no,
special insight into the pandemic and they're doing everything that they told they're told to do too.
And so to come forward in 2023 and 2024 and claim that you were ahead on the lab leak is not the same as claiming that you were ahead on the moral mistakes
and the overt coercion that was going on as a result of the worst case scenario being amplified so greatly.
And none of these people were able to articulate that so eloquently as I did and some other people did, like Mike Eden and Wolfgang Wodach and Knut Witkowski in 2020.
Jessica Rose didn't.
Pierre Cory didn't.
Actually, also Mary Holland didn't, and Meryl Nass didn't, and Robert Malone didn't, and Steve Kirsch didn't.
And the list is very, very long how many people did not.
And this is quite extraordinary and something we really need to take note of if we're going to pass along an accurate history to our kids about how this mythology was generated and why it needs to be rejected.
And so I'm playing here, for example, a 2020, December, 2020, 60 Minutes episode that's part of this.
Those trucks don't show you anything.
Those tents don't mean anything.
But when they're on 60 Minutes and people are shown these pictures, and then you have a illusion of consensus across the internet, across these people, then you have a very big problem, especially if behind the scenes, amongst people like Robert Malone and,
and Jessica Rose and Kevin McCairn and Kevin McKernan there's all an agreement that there is a virus and gain-of-function is real and PCR does work and sequences are real and you know so it could be anything.
And so that's why it's also very important to pay attention to when did Robert Malone come out in 2021.
And what did he say in 2021?
Was it simply don't transfect your healthy kids?
Was it simply don't transfect your healthy grandmothers?
Was it simply be careful because this hasn't been and will never work in healthy humans because of the way the immune system works?
Of course he didn't say that.
And he's not saying it now.
And that's why it's also significant to see that this guy is still working in 2024 to continue the narrative of long COVID and how COVID is strange and it's weird and it has this interesting time course and it's like an out of body experience and...
It's a harmonious chorus.
This guy and Robert Malone are part of the same choir.
That's the argument I'm trying to make right now, that these charlatans have power over us because they are essentially working together.
George Webb is on the same team that the PBS NewsHour is.
These people over here are on the same team.
And if I'm wrong about a few of them, it's not going to hurt our
forward progress because the people that I'm wrong about will still synergistically work together with me because we will have the same goals.
So there's no reason to fear calling people out being part of this narrative because if they aren't a part of this narrative, then naturally our actions and our motivations and our goals will be synergistic.
because in the end we'll agree that RNA can't pandemic, that the vaccine schedule was a criminal enterprise, that there should be strict liability on all pharmaceutical products, and a lot of these problems would go away.
But if you're not on our team,
If you're working for them, then you will be focused on a limited spectrum of debate that has to do with blame, it has to do with details, it has to do with explanations, and you don't need to explain a crime.
You don't need to explain a crime if the main crime is a harmonious, malevolent chorus of liars that extends throughout the internet.
And that's what it is.
They might want you to look at Peter Thiel or Elon Musk or whoever, but those are probably the same equivalent as Bill Gates and these other people that are essentially the forward-facing people that have agreed to be on the covers of magazines and on podcasts to say these very controversial things for the people that are a couple levels above them.
a couple levels above them at the top of larger weaponized piles of money that nobody really ever names and nobody really talks about while they say State Street, Vanguard, and BlackRock over and over again.
They say Palantir over and over again.
And it may be that those players are very important, but I assure you they aren't the only ones.
just like we always talk about Goldman Sachs, but we never talk about Morgan Stanley.
And Morgan Stanley is the bank that owns all the streets in Chicago.
So if you weren't aware that all the streets in Chicago are just not owned by the people in Chicago, that the revenue that's generated from the very street parking in Chicago is not owned by Chicago, and in fact,
If Chicago closes too many streets and has too many parades, then the perceived loss of parking revenue needs to be paid to the people at Morgan Stanley that actually own the streets in Chicago and the parking meters on them.
And so if you didn't know that, then how can you possibly think that you can know what's actually happening with a national security state that I assure you
If it just takes one crappy mayor in a town like Chicago for 75 years of parking revenue to be permanently lost and leased away to a bank called Morgan Stanley, then I assure you that with this chorus of people, career, dedicated national security state members like Robert Malone,
And Tony Fauci could orchestrate such a malevolent, harmonious theater to the tune of trillions of dollars and decades or even generations of control and governance.
It's not about parking meters, ladies and gentlemen.
This is about the medical data, the genetic data.
This is about your grandchildren.
So if it only takes one mayor in Chicago to sell a couple generations of Chicagoans down the river and permanently lose the very lease on their streets.
then I assure you at the federal government level and in the biosecurity state back rooms, people like Robert Malone have been gladly selling away the future of our grandchildren for a couple decades, along with all these other people behind my head, like Burks and Gallo and all these other shysters.
And so the real question is, how do we identify these people if all of essentially they're the same?
The Human Genome Project, Kevin McKernan and Claire Craig are working together as collaborators from the very beginning of the pandemic.
This trader working with a foreigner to coordinate a message across Five Eyes countries about what PCR is and what PCR isn't.
This isn't by accident, this isn't grassroots, this is the national security operation right here.
Just the same as Jessica Rose and George Webb are part of the same national security operation, even if George Webb is FBI and Jessica Rose is NATO, I don't care.
Even if Robert Malone is DITRA and State Department and Zubin is just a guy that works for YouTube and Peter Thiel, I don't care.
The bottom line is, is that all of these people are traitors to our grandchildren because they are not genuine.
They are not trying to fight against the national security state that is going to try and govern us throughout the next few generations under the pretense of this mythology.
And so yes, they would use murder and lies, but there's a good explanation
for why PCR can be both highly accurate and a complete lie for SARS-CoV-2.
There is a great explanation for how it can be used with very high fidelity on the academic bench to do a whole host of things in terms of probing how a mouse brain works or a mouse physiology works or how human physiology works.
And at the same time, PCR could be used in a completely disingenuous way to bamboozle our children into believing a background signal is evidence of spread.
They both can be true.
It doesn't have to be just false positives and overcycling like they told you.
which is of course a very convenient explanation that allows academics to believe that it worked and it allows skeptics to believe that it didn't.
And at the same time, none of them will ever come together on a consensus about how both of those things could be true, especially if a biosecurity state wanted them to be.
Now, the next thing is, is we can be very sure about why so many different tests were used.
And that's because, of course, they were creating medical remnants.
Every time you test a college student and then throw that swab in the garbage, you're creating a medical remnant that in theory has only been inside of one person and so could be de-identified and then used as a genomic sample, as a nasal sample, which might be sellable to any number of private firms that are interested in testing and sampling.
Oh, I don't know, maybe like one of the firms that
Claire Craig used to work for in the UK when they were doing genomics and cancer and stuff as a clinical pathologist.
So what I'm trying to say is that one of the reasons why testing was pushed so hard is not because they wanted to save everybody, because they needed so many tests to make sure that the spread wouldn't happen.
The reason why is because tests generate medical remnants, medical remnants that could provide full genome sequencing to everybody that they sampled.
It could provide repeated genome sequencing
to the people.
We're trusting these private firms, many of which don't exist anymore, to have taken care of our private data.
But we don't know and we won't be able to know because many of them went out of business in 2022 and the FDA took over 200 of these tests off the market.
And so all of the police officers that were tested every week have probably been sampled and had their genomes restriction enzyme mapped.
Maybe even the data sent to China because the Chinese were supplying a lot of our PCR tests to begin with.
A lot of the college age kids that were going back to school in November instead of held back home like I said to do, those kids were tested every week and those remnants were definitely sold.
Places like Ohio State were having 40 or 50,000 remnants every week.
Boy, that's a pretty good gravy train there.
And so do not underestimate how the sale of medical remnants was already going on for decades.
It was already a thing that all the corporate hospitals were doing.
Now produce a whole new testing regime and relying people around the block
The Human Genome Project and those people couldn't have asked for anything better.
If you had told Mark Lander and Craig Ventner that we could get people to line up by the thousands to take a nasal swab under the pretense of a pandemic in order to get everybody's genome, they would have said, let's do it.
And finally, of course they would have used murder and lies to cover up the fact that both, there's a really good explanation for how virology can be a lie, but also, transfection and transformation can be misconstrued as virology in a dish, or virology in an animal model, and many, many, many biologists that are not sophisticated enough to see through their mentor
and their mentors weren't sophisticated enough to see through their mentor can believe that they're measuring something that they're actually not measuring.
When they're really just measuring the effects of transformation and transfection using synthetic DNA and RNA in a dish or in an animal and reporting that information as virology.
If they get grant money to do it,
And that's where we are.
We need a new consensus about the idea that they would definitely, National Security Institute definitely would use murder and lies to cover up the fact that the vaccine schedule in America was a criminal enterprise.
They would definitely use murder and lies to cover up the fact that the healthy humans should never have been transfected.
And they would definitely use murder and lies to cover up the fact that RNA cannot pandemic.
And that's why we've been talking about where the different shots are coming from.
Whether they echo different or whatever.
That's why we've been talking about that.
Because we don't want to talk about this stuff.
Because the idea is to keep us running, keep the clock running, and make sure we never really retrospectively look at our recent history and figure out exactly why so many of these liars were in place for so long.
Robert Malone has a career as long as Tony Fauci's in the same field.
It's not for nothing that he is the dissident leader that kind of helped form the FLCCC, that helped do all the international COVID summits from the very first one to the one in Romania, to the groups that spoke in front of the Senate.
These are all
DITRA, State Department, weird stuff going on there in my humble opinion and in the humble opinion of some of the people that I respect very much.
I want to go back before 2018.
I want to go back even further to like 17 or whatever this was because I think it's really important.
It's really important, I think, to really put these people in perspective and make sure that we check where they were.
So I want to go back to the earliest video that I could find.
I think it's 2017.
And I'm not gonna check now.
You can check it's still on YouTube and this video is Mary Holland On democracy now, which I don't think is a good show I think democracy now is obviously part of this little show and it's one of those things that maybe at one time was good, you know, like, you know Alex Jones was probably good at one time and and Joe Rogan was probably just some dude at one point in time But they've all joined in
Wittingly or unwittingly, they know that they're part of the governing structure of America and the world, especially now that social media has become the default sort of front-facing media outlets.
The window that we look at is our stupid phone.
So they all but have us.
I want to I want to just say one thing quick As a recommendation, maybe we can do it some weekend.
Maybe we can do it this weekend the boys and I and Freddy and V watched Enemy of the state a couple nights ago an enemy of the state is a movie from 1998 or 1996 98 I think And it's got all kinds of cool people that had their first movie then like Jack Black is some random and it stars
Will Smith, and the good guy at the second half of the movie is Gene Hackman, who I really, really like.
But if you want to watch Gene Hackman in a really good movie, watch Hoosiers.
That's a good one for Gene.
Anyway, the movie's really good, but what I think you would find quite surprising about it is how much of the technology and the mystique of
surveillance is, is exaggerated, the accuracy of it is exaggerated, the fidelity of it is exaggerated in the in the over the the
the overclass kind of power of it, you know, like they can see everything and do everything.
That stuff is all so over the top in that movie that the kids, my kids, were like, what?
They can't do that.
And I found it extraordinary, actually, that my children, who are growing up in this world where I think a lot of what they see is probably an illusion or at least exaggerated, they were right on top.
They were laughing about it.
So it gave me a lot of hope, but it also scared me a little bit because if you see that movie and what they were attempting to do, the conversation that Will Smith is having in that movie with his wife is hilarious because the wife is like a conspiracy theorist and she thinks that the government's listening to them and that if we allow them to listen to them because we don't have anything to hide, then they'll use it against us.
So he's not really thinking that.
And it's only at the end of the movie that he realizes that his wife was right.
And essentially, a couple years later, the Patriot Act gets passed.
And they were talking about a bill in that movie that was essentially the Patriot Act.
So it's a really good window, I think a very clear window into how these kinds of Hollywood mythologies, Hollywood stories were used to create a
a sort of cognitive space where these things were possible in our head, but these things were likely in our head, that these things were likely because, you know, if they show it in the movies, then it must be even more.
That was like the thing that I remember after that movie is that, well, if they're showing it in the movies then, and they show satellites that can read people, then I'm sure they have it 10 times better than that.
Just like if they tell us now that, you know, there's these sequencing technologies or these sequencing technologies and very soon we're going to have this or you see a presentation by somebody like James Giordano and you think, wow, if he's telling us this, then I wonder what the secret presentation looks like.
And so we've got to be very careful because if we should to find, for example, in this particular video, if we go back before the pandemic and the debate and the discussion about vaccines is similar to what it is now, what will that mean to you?
What would it mean, for example, if we go back to 2017 and we go to this video and we see that Mary Holland is advocating for free choice?
free speech, the ability to talk about vaccines, no mandates.
If we were there before the pandemic and after the pandemic, we're still only there, would that be a problem?
Or would that just be a strategy?
Because for me, I think it would be a problem.
Because if we were already there before the pandemic, then the pandemic should have been a great big slap in the head.
that got us to realize that arguing about free speech and mandates is not going far enough.
That we need to argue about the biology and the assumptions on which that biology is based and call it what it is, which is immunomythology.
It's a mythology based on very simplified models of the immune system and very simplified models of illness.
which give them carte blanche to advocate for and to require medical procedures for our children.
And so if Mary Holland before the pandemic is not
usefully fighting this, but instead already presenting these, what I would call limited spectrums of debate, where if you just argue about these terms, you're not going to actually make any useful progress, then I really think we have a big problem.
Watch the bells.
So let's see.
Let's see.
I'm not sure.
Yeah, I got to rewind it a little bit.
We'll go right there.
Here we go.
This is Democracy Now, democracynow.org, the War and Peace Report.
I'm Amy Goodman with Nermeen Shaikh.
As a growing number of parents raise concerns about vaccinations, we speak now with Mary Holland.
She's the mother of a child with regressive autism who she believes was injured by the MMR vaccination.
Holland is a research scholar at NYU School of Law and advisor to Health Choice.
She's also contributed to the blog Age of Autism and the co-editor of the book Vaccine Epidemic, How Corporate Greed, Biased Science and Coercive Government Threaten Our Human Rights, Our Health and Our Children.
Mary Holland, welcome to Democracy Now!
Could you talk about your position on vaccinations?
Yes, absolutely.
So, all vaccines, like prescription drugs, are considered unavoidably unsafe.
They carry known risks and unknown risks.
There's no question — and I don't believe Professor Rice or Dr. Offit would disagree — that death is caused by some vaccines to some children.
And severe injury, brain damage in particular, that's indisputable.
And for that reason, industry and the medical profession were given by Congress virtually blanket liability protection.
So we have now an industry with high profits and exceedingly low litigation risks.
I think that should set off some alarm bells for us, as it is.
Let me just, let me just say, you know, I don't want to be, I just want to be very objective here.
That's a pretty shitty explanation.
You could say it a lot simpler than that.
You could say, you could say that if you take a ladder from the hardware store, you'll find on the side of the ladder, all kinds of warnings about how not to use it because
they have strict liability for what they make.
And if they manufacture a ladder and they sell a ladder that's defective, they can be sued for the damages that it causes.
That's also why there are warning labels on it.
And so she could say that for all other products that are sold and for all other pharmaceuticals, we have strict liability.
That's why we have these crazy commercials on TV after they tell you all the wonderful things that will happen if you take their drug, they tell you all the wonderful side effects that might not happen.
It might not like, you might not enjoy, hopefully it won't happen to you because of strict liability.
And so if you're a professor at New York,
law school and you're trying to get a large audience to understand what's going on.
I don't think the litigation possibilities or whatever the hell she just said are combinations of words that are actually getting any useful message out when you could simply say it very simply.
And I'll play it again so you see how not simply she says it.
risks and unknown risks.
There's no question, and I don't believe Professor Rice or Dr. Offit would disagree, that death is caused by some vaccines to some children.
And severe injury, brain damage in particular, that's indisputable.
Some vaccines to some children, okay, so it's all part of the same limited spectrum of debate
where the presuppositions of the state are reinforced by this limited spectrum of debate.
So some vaccines hurt some kids is very different than intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system is dumb.
It's very different than saying transfection in healthy humans is criminally negligent.
some vaccines hurt some children is not the same and you will see that she's going to add details to this that include adjuvants like thalidomide or mercury and then we get even farther down this this limited spectrum deeper in this limited spectrum of debate we get more trapped in it because we start to talk about
specific some vaccines and specific some kids and now we're right back to Bernadine whatever her name is at the NIH who says that we should just look at all the genetic background of all these kids and figure out if there's a genetic predisposition to vaccine injury and then we really have this stuff figured out.
I think what you, what I'm implying here, especially because of my many interactions with Mary, which have always been negative or, or weird, she's not a, a happy, glowing, like if you contrast her to Polly, like when you, when Polly gets off the bus and she hasn't even seen you yet, and she's looking at other people, you can already feel the warmth.
you can already feel the happiness coming off of her.
And that's why people react the way they do.
When Mary gets off the bus, it's like when the CEO of a company that doesn't get the respect she thinks she deserves is getting out of the bus.
And so she looks around in a very different way and the energy that she sends is very, very different.
And I can't help but remember that when I went to the second
As a staff scientist working with Brian Hooker, we were asked as new employees to come and meet the board of directors or the board of trustees or whatever the hell they're called because they were having a little meeting at the end of the conference and they were all there.
that we were supposed to introduce ourselves and say where we were working and when we got hired.
And Mary was there, so I said, you know, I'm gonna take this opportunity also to say thanks to Mary for trusting me and hiring me.
And she did, said without looking at me, but looking at everyone else in the room, well, it wasn't me that trusted you, it was Bobby that trusted you.
And that was it.
It's like awkward, weird.
And it was always that way in private.
It was that way in Zoom meetings.
And here, what I see is not a mom who's advocating for her son, but advocating for her own suffering and her own role in this.
It's not a mom who's just, you know, I barely have enough time to sit here because I got to get home to my son.
It's not like that.
That's how Brian Hooker works.
Brian Hooker works just like that.
You got time with him, that's fine, but he might disappear because his son is still in the house and his son still needs him 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
That's not Mary Holland.
And it's interesting because they started out by saying it's the MMR vaccine that hurt her.
That's the same vaccine that Wakefield came out against.
And in fact, the story with Wakefield is that he advocated for single vaccines, and then the only single measles vaccine that was being produced was taken out of production.
So again, although it seems like he was fighting the good fight, he was fighting against one vaccine, not all of them.
And he was not fighting against it.
He was advocating for the idea that maybe a triple vaccine was partially responsible and that maybe a more intelligent way to do it would be single vaccines.
And that's not very dissimilar from her saying that her son was injured by the MMR vaccine, very specifically in that some vaccines can hurt some kids.
And so she's not saying that every parent should be afraid.
She's just really unlucky.
Oh wait, it's her son that's really unlucky, but it sure seems like it's her.
And for that reason, industry and the medical profession were given by Congress virtually blanket liability protection.
So we have now an industry with high profits and exceedingly low litigation risks.
I think that should set off some alarm bells for us, as it is.
I also think that the global standard for ethical medicine today is prior, free and informed consent.
And what Dr. Offit and Professor Reese are suggesting is that there should be no free consent for vaccination.
I think that's a very serious departure from medical ethics, and we have to look at it for what it is.
This is not just about tort liability.
It's about informed consent.
Now that I would totally agree with, and of course you know that I gave a comment at the ACIP meeting in 2022 or 2023, 22, 23, I don't know, about that very thing, that informed consent had been purposefully ignored for the duration of the pandemic.
And so I like that.
What she should say though, of course, is that informed consent means you can say no.
And as a law professor, I think it would be kind of good to get that ball all the way over the line.
If you say it's about informed consent, but you don't explicitly say that part of informed consent is the ability to say no,
I don't know.
I just would say that you're not quite there yet.
And if I was like her fellow law professor and critiquing this, I would say, hey, you know, Mary, you could have just said one more sentence so that everybody out there that isn't a law school person that needs to know the talking points, the talking point actually is that one of the most important aspects of informed consent is the ability to say no.
And unfortunately, she didn't say that.
about the issue of when a child goes to school who might be infected because they have not had a vaccine, that they then will infect other kids.
I think infectious disease is real, Amy.
Infectious disease is a serious problem.
I think what you do when a kid is sick is the kid stays home from school.
You make sure that you have medical leave for parents.
What's interesting about that is supposedly
Supposedly, God dang it, what's this all about?
Hold on a minute.
Supposedly, you know, let's see.
So she's all about, she's all aware of vaccines because she works at a law school.
And yet here's this book.
That was, where is the date on this book's printing?
Hmm, 2015 and 2013, 2013 is when Dissolving Illusions came out.
So, a woman who works at a law school, who purports to say that infectious disease is real, and purports to have a son that's injured by the MMR vaccine, apparently hasn't read this book.
and isn't aware that some of the stories about how infectious disease went away are actually kind of based on some, you know, iffy mythologies.
This book, 2013, it was probably available five years before this interview.
I want you to think about that very carefully because what she said right there might as well be something that anyone at NIAID would say.
Infectious disease is real.
It's very real.
I think that's a very serious departure from medical ethics and we have to look at it for what it is.
This is not just about tort liability, it's about informed consent.
What about the issue of when a child goes to school who might be infected because they have not had a vaccine, that they then will infect other kids?
Yes.
I think infectious disease is real, Amy.
Infectious disease is a serious problem.
I think what you do when a kid is sick is the kid stays home from school.
You make sure that you have medical leave for parents.
You make sure that there's health care for children.
And I believe in quarantine.
I have no problem with the government in certain circumstances that warrant it saying people must stay home or they even must go to other places.
I see.
So that's interesting because that's a little different than, um, that's a little different.
Uh, okay.
Uh, here we go.
But I absolutely have a problem with the idea that the state can force through criminal and civil sanctions that or failure to educate children that they have to take compulsory medical interventions.
Talk about your own personal story, Mary.
Just very briefly, my interest in this as a lawyer and as an advocate stems from my personal experience.
I watched a child reverse in their development.
That's one of the most horrible things any adult or parent can see.
You don't want to see, and it is not normal to see a child lose all speech, lose all sleep, lose all bowel function, lose all eating function.
And that's what I lived through with my own son.
I'm very fortunate that my son has
substantially recovered over the years, but through painful efforts, great expense.
And his injury is not categorized anywhere.
Doctors don't generally perceive things as vaccine injury, but there is no other plausible explanation for what happened to my child.
What happened?
So there was a temporal association.
He had received his standard vaccines, most of which contained thimerosal.
So that's mercury, ethyl mercury.
There's no question that that can
So there you go, now we're talking about ingredients in the vaccines that can be blamed for it.
And of course, thimerosal was something that was kind of on the resume of Brett Weinstein's father, who worked in the Department of Justice of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
At the formation, it was at the heart of the formation of what now is called the FDA, thalidomide and a scandal in Denmark.
And there's a Senator Kefauver that also was involved in this that somehow died for some unknown reason.
You can find out about all those people from Mark and his work.
But the point is, is that the history of these ideas is, is extremely compelling.
And if you hear how smack on narrative she is before the pandemic, where she says, I gets all the check marks, right?
Infectious disease is real.
Quarantine can work.
This is extraordinary, ladies and gentlemen, and now you can see why.
I think it's very real that Mary Holland, wittingly or unwittingly, is part of this, and no different than she might be very, very similar to Peter Hotez.
And in some ways, she's probably just standing in front of the hero, Brian Hooker, because if Brian Hooker was the boss, and Brian Hooker was fighting this, then he would be fighting it on a lot of different fronts.
but instead he's fighting it under the direction of this woman and they've wasted so much of CHD's money.
So much of CHD's money was thrown out the window on CHD EU that never happened.
So much of CHD's money was thrown out on an extravagant conference in Georgia that didn't even promote the organization, but promoted the organization of all the speakers that were present and the person that organized it, hired by Mary.
And so what you have inside of CHD are people who are loyal to Mary and people who are fighting the good fight.
And that sabotage is ongoing.
Most of the people that are fighting at CHD that have children that are injured are there because they want to be there.
They want to be part of something that's going to fight that, but not when this woman's at the front.
And you can see it very clearly.
It's not about her kid.
It's not about other kids.
It's not about the criminal vaccine schedule.
It's not about strict liability.
It's about some vaccines and some kids, just like it was for the NIH.
You know, it could be genetic predisposition.
The Human Genome Project is behind all of this and its shortcomings and its exaggerations and it's the mythology that it created about what had been accomplished versus what they could accomplish versus what they might be able to accomplish if they could just sample from everybody all the time.
can compromise the immune system.
And then he received the MMR vaccine, which is three live viruses simultaneously.
And he, within a very short period, regressed precipitously, precipitous regression.
At the age of?
Two and a half.
He got his vaccine slightly before that juncture.
It's the only plausible explanation for what happened to him.
So he's recovered?
He's significantly recovered?
after a lot of effort and great expense?
And so she's advocating for other kids then or what?
Do you see it?
She's advocating for herself.
He had EEGs that were abnormal.
He had epileptiform brain waves.
This was all in very close temporal associations.
So, then, when I studied, what do—what does brain injury look like?
And I studied the federally funded vaccine injury compensation program.
Lo and behold, encephalopathy, brain swelling, brain damage is a common side effect among side effects from vaccines, as is autism.
See how precise she was there?
It's a common side effect among side effects of vaccines.
So that she can then agree with Paul Offit that the side effects are pretty rare.
That is covered up.
The federal government doesn't track it.
They would say that there's no association.
If you look at compensated cases of brain injury in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, you will see autism left, right and center.
So, I think what happened to my son is what I've heard happened to thousands of parents.
I work in this area.
It's not an atypical story.
One story is an anecdote.
What then should happen is there should be rigorous science.
That science hasn't been done.
Why do you think that science hasn't been done?
That's a great question.
I think that's a question I'd love to hear you put to Dr. Offit.
The reason why the science hasn't been done, Mary, professor of law, is because there's no strict liability for vaccines.
Holy balls, are you that dumb?
You just explained it five minutes ago.
There's no reason for them to do the science if they're not required to do it by Paul Offit's own FDA.
It's like arguing about whether Donald Trump paid taxes or not when the tax code allows him not to pay taxes.
Well, Donald Trump's a really bad guy.
Vaccine makers are really bad people.
No, they're not.
They're just business people taking advantage of the business opportunity that they created by co-opting and by getting traders to do their bidding.
And so this is just a lawyer, a professor, not
really doing anything effective against this, even though she claims to have a vaccine-injured child.
She's not making any useful challenge at all, just saying that, yeah, there are some other vaccine-injured kids, and so I agree, they're also vaccine-injured, but there's nothing to be done.
We need to do some more science, and in the meantime, what, keep vaccinating people?
Do you see the problem here?
either children are being unnecessarily injured and endangered because there's no strict liability and there's no biology to support the need for these these vaccinations or they're pretty good they work almost all the time but some people are genetically vulnerable and so we better test everybody there's no this is exactly
what Bernadine Healy was saying when she was the head of the NIH, and exactly what she said in that video that Children's Health Defense just posted on X saying that, oh, whoa, isn't it amazing that somebody at the NIH actually said something so insightful?
And now you can see that CHD has gone all the way back to the start.
It's like we're on a game board and we got all the way back to go.
And we're right here again, arguing about mandates, arguing about the freedom to talk about it, arguing about informed consent, but not saying that informed consent requires the ability to say no.
Advocating for quarantine if it's needed.
And we just need to do the science.
And I don't know why the science hasn't been done.
It's because these products don't have strict liability, so there's no reason to do the science.
Mary Holland.
say that that science has been done.
One of the key scientists in the autism vaccine science is Paul Thorson.
He's an indicted felon.
He's in Denmark.
The Department of Justice has done nothing to bring that man back.
Another key question about the corruption is Dr. William Thompson in the CDC has come forward and said that he colluded with other key scientists to mask a signal that vaccines.
So again, here we are talking about Brian Hooker's work, but actually it's Mary Holland talking about Brian Hooker's work.
before CHD even existed.
Essentially she's standing in front of the hero already.
autism are linked in African-American boys who got the MMR before age three, before age five.
He's now been granted, according to one report, immunity and can testify in Congress.
So maybe it's black kids that are vulnerable.
Maybe black kids are especially vulnerable to our vaccines, or maybe the vaccines are made for white people.
How ridiculous does it seem in retrospect that this is the argument, the limited spectrum of debate,
that there's this one study that showed this one vulnerability and this one class of kids.
So the assumption automatically is that that is correct, that the other kids are safe, that the only danger is in that one class, and that that's why they covered it up.
instead of talking about what she might have learned if she actually read the papers and actually looked into the biology and found out that, wait, this doesn't make any sense.
Intramuscular injection of a combination of substances isn't enough to augment the immune system in a useful way if you fools don't understand it.
That's what a parent who was advocating for their kid would say.
That's what a lawyer who understood the argument that she was trying to make and how it could be won would say.
That's why you would define strict liability.
That's why you would say that
There's no reason to test them if there's no liability.
No one can be sued.
We've jurisdiction stripped everybody in America with the CICP and the VICP.
She doesn't say any of that, but she's a lawyer who supposedly teaches law and that her specialty is this.
Big shout out to Joe Marshall of the Liberty Perspective on Rumble.
He's done a couple of really good videos about the sort of, you know, human rights versus individual rights kind of thing.
And the human rights thing on a global perspective and how she advocates for things that are UNESCO oriented and UN oriented and human rights oriented instead of individual rights and individual sovereignty.
And even when she says informed consent, she can't explain it.
well enough for anybody to exercise informed consent.
That's the trick.
If you tell people what informed consent is and you include that it's the ability to say, no, now Joe Mainstreet can exercise informed consent, but she didn't say that.
Hope to God we have that hearing.
This is critical.
One in 68 kids has autism.
There's plausible science that there's a link.
It needs to be followed up, not suppressed.
What is the most convincing scientific study to you that makes a link?
There's many in my book.
We include 20 scientific abstracts.
One is Ray Palmer's work showing environmental mercury.
The closer somebody lives to the environmental source, the higher the rates of autism.
Another is related to special education reports.
Boys, neonates who receive the hep B vaccine were nine times more likely to end up in special education, three times more likely to have an autism diagnosis.
There are many pieces of science that suggest to us that there is a link.
We need to look at the children who regressed.
We need to look at the crash reports, the people in the vaccine injury compensation program.
Just last year, in 2014, a child was compensated $500,000 because she died after getting the MMR.
This is not controversial.
Again, remember, number one, it's the MMR vaccine.
Then she also says hep B. But if we're really talking about biology here, we also have to admit that exposure to toxins during this crucial window of development, I'm talking about newborn to age what?
Four?
Six?
When brain development and physiological development and bone development and immune system development are all at their absolute maximum rate,
There is an increased vulnerability to intramuscular injection of any combination of substances really screwing that pattern integrity up.
Whereas if you just inject some mercury and some recombinant proteins into a 40-year-old man, it's possible that his immune system will deal with it in a very less catastrophic way simply because the 40-year-old man's body is not in development.
It's not in the middle of building bones.
It's not in the middle of building a brain network.
in which many synapses are still going to be pruned and many neurons are still going to reconnect or disconnect.
And so the stability of a pattern integrity and its rate of change in its mature form at age 40 versus its immature at age 4 is orders of magnitude different.
And so rather than bringing up these absolutely paramount to discuss biological
crucial biological points about development, about vulnerability during development, about the contents of and the application of these pharmaceutical products, where they are, how they are applied, and having any nuance to it.
Infectious disease is real, and vaccines hurt some people some of the time.
And it's some vaccines, it's not all vaccines, and it's some people, not all people.
She's arguing exactly the same thing as Bernadine Healy, and exactly the same thing as Clara Craig, and exactly the same thing as Kevin McKernan, and exactly the same thing as all of these other players are arguing.
And that's essentially advocating for the continued transfection and transformation of all of humankind under the pretense that eventually we will get it right.
And what you have to come to terms with is that they put people like Mary Holland in place early.
That's why her schtick is so well developed right here.
She's not stumbling around.
She knows exactly what to say and how to say it.
She knows exactly how to walk around the little mines and miss them while pretending that she doesn't see them.
And that's how you know she's as good as Meryl Nass.
These are people that are players.
Should happen with the crisis of measles outbreak right now in this country.
Are you opposed to children getting the MMR vaccine.
I'm pro-choice Amy.
I'm not anti-vaccine that that labels thrown around as a way to marginalize people like me.
I'm not anti-vaccine in the slightest.
I'm
I am anti-vaccine.
How do you like them apples?
I wasn't anti-vaccine in 2022.
I was dumb.
I was naive.
And I was completely bamboozled by the limited spectrum of debate that people like Bobby Kennedy and Meryl Nass and Mary Holland and all of these people have been reinforcing in my brain and yours since before the pandemic and right through the beginning of it.
Even when Bobby Kennedy went and spoke in the square of Germany, he was very, very careful to stick to the same talking points that Mary Holland is sticking to right now.
And once you see it, you can't unsee it.
Pro choice.
I think parents have to make informed choices.
That's the standard of ethical medicine.
So what should happen right now?
Look at your titers.
See if you need a measles vaccine.
If you think you did.
I think industry should make measles, mumps and rubella available separately.
If somebody has a low titer for measles, why should they go get an MMR?
They should get what they precisely need.
I think people with young children who are too young to be vaccinated because the risks of injury are so great, they probably should
go to places like Disneyland where there will be people from foreign countries where measles is endemic.
We don't have herd immunity for measles.
We don't have herd immunity for any of these childhood diseases.
And again, explain what you mean by herd immunity.
What I mean by that, herd immunity.
Herd immunity and we don't have it?
Does this sound like a mom who was a lawyer whose kid got injured and then she decided to go into vaccine laws and public health?
Is that what she sounds like?
Or does she sound more like Peter Hotez?
Sounds like Peter Hotez to me.
It means that everybody is, that because most people vaccinated, it's not possible that people, that the disease will spread.
That's just not possible when something like measles is in the Philippines, it's in Germany, it's in France.
People come and go.
Unless you're going to seal the borders, we don't have herd immunity and no- You can seal the borders.
That's kind of cool.
It probably worked in Australia and New Zealand.
Vaccine is perfectly effective.
There may be 85 to 95% effective.
They wear off over time.
That's why there's a mandated MMR booster.
Wow.
So the boosters are necessary.
That's cool.
So the boosters make total sense to Mary and the booster schedule is just based on reasonable assumptions about how vaccines and immunity work.
Boy, before the pandemic, she was a real immunologist.
She is really on it.
She knows everything about this shit.
We don't have herd immunity.
We have herd effect.
So people have to make up their own minds and voluntary choices, like in Australia, like in the UK, like in Japan, like in Sweden, like in France, like in Germany.
They achieve the same results as we have.
We would be so much better.
Wait, those other countries achieve the same results as us with tens or 20 less shots?
Are you really making a reasonable comparison here?
Because some of these countries don't even start giving shots until two or three after the breastfeeding has stopped.
So even here, stop lying.
She doesn't know, and she's not telling you.
And if she knows, she's not telling you on purpose.
Because already back then, the U.S.
vaccine schedule could be shown to be criminal by just, as she said, comparing it to the schedule in other countries and the results that they get.
And very quickly, instead of saying, yeah, that's why we need boosters, it would become obvious that those two things are highly contradictory.
You can't say one sentence and then say this sentence and not realize, oh wait, wow, that's weird.
Unless you're Mary Holland and unless you're already working for them.
Not mandates for school.
In none of those countries are there mandates.
In most of those countries, there are blanket rights of conscientious objection.
We should have the same thing.
Conscientious objection.
Is that the very, very big word for no
There should be a right of exemption that is federal in this country.
So this has entered into the presidential debate.
Yes.
Possible presidential candidates.
Chris Christie, ironically, the governor of New Jersey, who said that the medical professional who came back from Africa, who was Ebola-free, should be quarantined, then said he—well, he's had to walk back these comments about parents having choice around vaccines.
So there was a discussion about an Ebola guy who needed to be quarantined or not, I mean...
The narrative has been building, the discussion has been building, and these people have been constructing and orchestrating a limited spectrum of debate about infectious disease for more than two decades.
And all of these people are involved.
Then you have Kentucky Senator and Dr. Rand Paul making the point you do.
He says that kids who have had vaccines have then had mental disorders.
Well, I didn't use the term mental disorder.
He did.
But this is not my opinion, Amy.
If you look at the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, people have been compensated by Health and Human Services with their counsel, Department of Justice, for brain damage, for encephalopathy.
Encephalopathy is cognitive impairment usually associated with behavioral disorders, OK?
So I think it's great that this is a 2016 presidential issue.
I think that childhood health is critical.
So we still haven't said, for example, that lots of other kids with vaccine injuries that aren't on the list or aren't acknowledged are not being compensated.
We're just saying that the few kids that are compensated are evidence that kids like my son are actually injured.
She's not advocating for expanding this.
She's not advocating for the kids that aren't getting paid.
She's just saying that, yeah, see, kids get hurt and they, some people even get money for it.
So it's not really a fighting against it more than just saying, yeah, it happens.
And my son was one of them.
I think the role of vaccines is grossly understudied and we must look at this.
Chronic health disorders are about 50% of American kids today.
Is there a relationship with vaccines?
She keeps looking over this way a little bit.
I don't understand where she's looking like this.
Like she almost like she's looking at a list.
watch and there she looks again and there she was almost reading it
Is there a relationship with vaccines?
I don't think we know the answer to that.
We don't even have a decent study of vaccinated versus unvaccinated.
That's extraordinary.
That looks like reading to me.
And if we have cue cards here, then you see what's happening.
It's not shooting from the cuff.
It's not me on stage.
It's not me on The Cool Show talking about my experiences and advocating for all of us to reevaluate the role of public health in our governance.
It's not that at all.
It's her saying we should accept the role of public health in our governance.
We should accept vaccines.
but we should have some ability to conscientiously object, which I agree with the people in the chat that say that sounds kind of like a dude who doesn't have the guts to fight a war.
Sounds like a dude who doesn't want to pick up a gun and fight for his country.
Conscientious objector.
It is the ability to say no.
And this law professor, if she really wanted to teach the audience of this show that, she would say that instead of using conscientious objector.
It is weak.
Unvaccinated health outcomes in children.
What do you mean?
Rudimentary science.
We have not looked either retrospectively or prospectively at what is the health of children who've gotten the CDC-recommended schedule, what is the health of children who've gotten state mandates, and what is the status of children who are unvaccinated?
That's a totally doable study.
Okay, she could be looking at the other woman.
You're right.
Sorry, my bad.
That's true.
There were two ladies sitting at that table.
You're correct.
My bad.
Not reading.
Done.
never been done your response to those who call you and the people of the org now I actually see it as a little lame that they never show the other lady if she's still sitting there it's like a conversation between Amy and Mary and they're just kind of ignoring the other lady now I see that that's funny whoops
Didi, come on.
Organizations are a part of anti-vaxxers sort of see you as kind of climate change deniers that the overwhelming scientific.
That's pretty interesting that before the pandemic on Democracy Now, they're already painting climate denial and anti-vaxxer in the same general category.
So again, it feels very much like to me, we're painting
the limited spectrum of debate in place that then everybody would run with at the start of the pandemic as the starting point for the discussion.
They're seeding that narrative right now.
Body of evidence goes in the other direction and that- I don't know, but I think her brother works for the CDC or no, that's, so David Martin's brother works for the CDC and Mary's
brother, I think, works for the NIH.
Time when a child is getting these vaccines is also the time if they might develop autism.
And so the fact that these are contemporaneous does not mean that one causes the other.
Amy, I agree that... And that's extremely shitty.
So what she just said is that because kids develop autism when they're young, and because kids get a lot of vaccines when they're young, it's hard to tell whether or not the vaccines are causing it or whether it's just a consequence of autism developing as young kids.
And that is awful.
That is a question that certainly is
feeding right into this narrative that again, there is a genetic cause for autism, there is a genetic predisposition to autism, there is a vulnerability to autism that might be related to race or sex because black kids in Will Thompson's study were more vulnerable and they covered it up.
And so they are painting the exact mythology that everyone from the Human Genome Project would love to have our children absorb, would love to have college age kids absorb as they go through the pandemic and come out of it on the other side.
They should absorb the idea that genetic data is easy to collect, it's easy to measure, that PCR is high fidelity, that infectious disease is real, and that we can track it around the world, and that vaccines work, but they wear off, and that's why you need a lot of them.
That's all of what Mary Holland said.
It's just that sometimes people get hurt.
And so there should be ability to conscientiously object.
Not everybody should have to pick up a gun and fight.
That's exactly what she said.
Correlation is not causation.
We have to study this.
I couldn't agree more.
But in the 1980s, that's a mere 30-plus years ago, the rate of autism was 1 in 10,000.
It's now, according to the CDC, 1 in 68.
And that's looking at 8-year-olds, you know, and it's four years to do the study.
We don't even know what the rate is among 2-year-olds today.
To say out of hand that vaccines could be playing no role, in my view, is reckless and irresponsible.
And it's not looking at the existing science.
In our book, we include 20 abstracts.
There's far more.
There's good science that shows how plausible a connection is.
But it needs more rigorous study.
Could you talk about, you've mentioned this, the importance of the schedule of vaccines.
So it's not so much that certain vaccines necessarily not be given at all, but that they be spaced differently.
Rand Paul?
Why not make the biological argument that you know could be made and could score a touchdown, which is that the earlier you put it in,
the less likely it is that the effects of the vaccine will be noticed.
It's less likely that injuries will be tied to that particular vaccination.
Why not just do it?
And you get it on the kid's schedule and you get it as early as possible.
And that's why at the start of the pandemic, they were advocating for these vaccines to be put on pregnant women.
And back in this time, they would have never, ever, ever advocated for that.
They're not talking about that now, but they were given the flu vaccine to pregnant women at this time.
She's not worried about the developing fetus and flu vaccine right now.
She's still talking about some vaccines in some kids, depending on when they're given or whether they're vulnerable or not.
Stop lying!
A vaccine that will wear off by the time they're sexually active.
What do you mean by that?
The vaccine will wear off by the time they're sexually active, so why give it to them so early?
Give it to them later!
Stop lying.
Wow.
The single doses, rather than MMR, M, then M, then R. Well, MMR is measles, mumps, rubella.
But while a baby is in the hospital, the federal recommendation is that they receive a hepatitis B vaccine.
That, to me, is irrational.
And that's one example of what's wrong with our vaccine schedule.
Again, many other developed countries have no mandates for hepatitis B. It's something you give to somebody whose mother is hep B positive.
So how does, did her son get a hep B shot?
Could the application of shots earlier and earlier contribute to this?
She's right that we don't have any data about it except for all of the data on development.
We understand that development is a terrible time to be exposed to toxins, a terrible time for an immune challenge.
We know that already.
We've known it for decades.
We've known that exposure to toxins during development in an animal model like a gestating rat or a gestating mouse, we know that terrible things can happen.
We know from our experience with thalidomide that terrible things can happen if toxins are present during development.
But yet somehow or another, Tony Fauci and Mary Holland and Meryl Nass have all very ineffectively managed to get anyone to understand that it's absolutely absurd to give a newborn baby a shot.
of a vaccine intramuscularly, it's absolutely absurd to give a pregnant woman a vaccine.
They're not saying those things.
So what are they really advocating for?
They're not even advocating for informed consent without obfuscating it behind great big words like litigation profanity and conscientious objection.
somebody who's engaging in very risky behaviors where there might be transmission.
I want to get your comment on President Obama, who talked about—said his message to parents was, quote, get your kids vaccinated.
It is preventable.
I understand that there are families that, in some cases, are concerned about the effect of vaccinations.
The science is
know, pretty indisputable.
We've looked at this again and again.
There is every reason.
That's just the military industrial complex saying that it's just the biosecurity state saying that it's just Tony Fauci and Francis Collins speaking and channeling Hillary Kaprowski and Joshua Lederberg.
and Gardner and Gallo and Baltimore and all these people who have lied about this biology consistently to get us to where we are so that they can take a shot at inverting the sovereignty and the very understanding of who we are as a species in our children.
They took a shot at it and they're still playing as though they made the goal.
as if they're not off script, as if they got everything under control and it's right on plan, but it's not.
But it sure looks like that on social media, doesn't it?
The reason to get vaccinated, there aren't reasons to not get vaccinated.
Are you telling parents you should get your kids vaccinated?
You should get your kids vaccinated.
It's good for them, but we should be able to get back to the point where measles effectively is not existing in this country.
Mary Holland, what's your response to President Obama?
I think it's extraordinary that we need the president to tell parents to get their children vaccinated.
I think that if you look at it in isolation, yes, the vaccine usually works against measles.
Are there risks with the vaccine?
Yes, there are.
And should we look at that in isolation?
No.
Are you getting your kid vaccinated?
My child has been vaccinated with the MMR, obviously.
He suffered developmental regression shortly thereafter.
But for other parents, would you say do or don't?
I would say it's up to them and their doctors and their health care practitioners.
I think it's an individual choice.
Mary Holland, we want to thank you for being with us, research scholar at NYU School of Law, advisor to Health Choice, a contributor to the blog Age of Autism.
She's co-editor of the book Vaccine Epidemic, How Corporate Greed by a Science and Coercive Government Threaten Our Human Rights, Our Health and Our Children.
And she is the mother of a child with autism who she believes was injured by the MMR vaccine.
This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report.
When we come back, we'll be joined by Dr. Paul Offit, professor at University of Pennsylvania, author of among other books, Deadly Choices, How the Anti-Vaccine Movement Threatens Us All.
Stay with us.
So essentially, she was put as one side of a limited spectrum of debate with Paul Offit before the pandemic.
and was able to very succinctly explain why infectious disease is real, why vaccines work, but some kids are hurt by some vaccines and it might be particular components of vaccines.
And so we just need to do the science that hasn't been done.
And she can't find any reasonable explanation for why the science has been done, even though that she's a lawyer and probably could have said the words strict and liability together as one concept, but failed to do so.
She could have also said,
very succinctly that informed consent involves the ability to say no, but instead she kind of hid it behind some mealy-mouthed multiple-sentence explanation that included the phrase, a conscientious objection.
This is a meddler.
This is somebody who is playing for these globalists.
This is somebody who I believe almost single-handedly sabotaged CHD over the last four years, including with intimate help from Merrill Nass.
And I don't make those accusations lightly.
I really take that very seriously.
I really think it's true.
And that's why I say it.
Anyway, that was a video of her from 2000.
What would that be?
17, I believe.
And so let's see what Mary Holland says.
Let's see what she says here.
This is watch.
I'm Tony Perkins, your host, along with Meg Kilgannon, our co-host today.
On Monday, Parental Rights Foundation and Children's Health Defense filed a lawsuit against Washington, D.C., arguing that a 2020 law permitting minors to obtain vaccinations without parental consent is unconstitutional.
The D.C.
Minor Consent for Vaccinations Amendment Act of 2020 allows minors 11 years and up to consent to vaccines.
including the COVID shot, without parental knowledge or consent if the health care provider believes the minority is capable of meeting the informed consent standard.
Wow.
Well, joining us to talk about this is Mary Holland, President and General Counsel of Children's Health Defense.
She is also the co-author and co-editor of the books Vaccine Epidemic
and the HPV vaccine on trial seeking justice for a generation betrayed.
Mary, welcome to Washington Watch.
Thank you so much for having me.
Mary, can you tell us about what prompted you to file the lawsuit?
So this is a very dangerous law that the Washington DC City Council passed and Congress did not override it.
We were sort of watching this process.
This is potentially precedent setting.
The pharmaceutical industry had tried this in many states, but they have bicameral legislatures and they did not succeed because parents opposed it.
But in D.C.
with only a unicameral legislature, they were able to get this through.
This is so dangerous for children because parents won't know what vaccines their children get.
It goes beyond just the parents don't know.
This is active concealment required by this law.
So the parents who filed religious exemptions will not know that their children got vaccines, whether it's the human papillomavirus vaccine, or whether it's COVID shot, or whether it's a meningitis shot.
The kids allegedly can consent to any federally recommended vaccine on their own
And the parents won't even find out about it from their health insurer.
It will be concealed from the parents.
The school will have access to this information and the healthcare practitioner.
But the health... Now we're talking about COVID vaccination in particular now, because this is during COVID.
And so the crazy part about this is, is that through this whole interview, through this whole explanation, she's never going to say that the whole vaccine schedule in America, especially when you compare it to other countries that get the same results as us, is obviously a criminal enterprise lacking strict liability and forcing children to take way too many shots way too early.
That would have been the very least she could have said as an intro into this, but instead, the limited spectrum of debate is repeated over and over and over and over again.
It's about this law and these circumstances and why this isn't fair, even though this law, if it was put into the real context,
would be put into a context of 20 years of lying about infectious disease and why they went away, 20 years of lying about the effectiveness and the necessity of vaccines, and 20 years of lying about how many of the shots we need.
But instead, after all of these years, five or six years later after she was on that show Democracy Now!, she's still fighting for the same nonsense, still reinforcing the same limited spectrum of debate, still has no real consequences on the line here.
She's not risking anything by litigating against a law.
She's not risking anything
She's not fighting anything.
not like you could fight against the jurisdiction stripping that is represented by these laws, not like you could fight against the absence of strict liability because of these laws and fight with real legal terms and fight with a real legal strategy.
Instead, she agrees to get well-paid to fight these very limited spectrum fights like, you know, for Merrill Nass' license or for some retired guy in Washington.
not organizing a class action lawsuit, or, you know, trying to get as many doctors on board as possible with being able to say no to the vaccine schedule, not trying to disseminate information to as many doctors as possible about the vaccine schedule.
No, no, we're gonna fight about particular laws in particular states about particular things.
And for people like Merrill Nass and Pierre Corey.
practitioner and the school are disabled from giving that information to the parent.
This is unconstitutional.
It also violates the federal statute that put in place the vaccine program that we have today.
So we strongly oppose it.
We believe that we will prevail on this.
We have four parents on behalf of their children who are enrolled in the DC public school system.
And we think that we feel that this is an incredibly important law to challenge because it is so potentially oppressive.
So don't challenge the PrEP Act.
Don't challenge the National Vaccine Whatever Act.
Don't challenge any of those.
Don't challenge the VICP or the CICP as being unconstitutionally jurisdiction stripping of everybody that participates in it.
Don't have any meaningful challenge against the system.
Just let the system make some funny law in D.C.
and then you waste all kinds of money paying people to do that in D.C., which will, I guess, save four families from a mandate.
that four cities have already sort of declared this mature minor act.
And so Seattle and New York City and in Philadelphia, they have been inviting children without their parents' knowledge to come and get COVID shots.
This is tremendously concerning.
It's tremendously concerning in my mind that after five years of leading this fight, that they haven't gotten any better at saying that this whole thing is a criminal enterprise.
They haven't gotten any better at starting out with, look, we've been saying it for five years.
We got to put a pause on this crazy vaccine schedule in America.
And at the very, very, very bare minimum, until we do something reasonable with regard to figuring out why it is that they get all the same outcomes in Europe, but they don't have the same schedule as us.
and under the possibility that we're wasting money, we're wasting resources, we're giving away profits and we might be injuring kids, we should pause our vaccine schedule.
But no, after five years of fighting, five years of advocating, she has gotten nowhere.
And now she's advocating for a law or litigating against a law that only affects people in Washington, DC.
I mean, this would appear to me, as you've described it, Mary, intentionally designed to deceive parents.
And with this being concealed, I mean, I have to think about, you know, there could be complications, you know, when you get this, the COVID.
She could be Paul Offit's sister.
There's others that this would open the door to.
She looks like Paul Offit.
Like right there, that's Paul Offit in drag.
Like, it's incredible.
She could be Paul Offit's sister.
Not limited to the COVID shot.
But let's say they get the COVID shot.
And we already know that there have been some health complications for some who have gotten these shots.
And a parent doesn't know all of a sudden.
If her mom worked at Sloan Kettering, where Fauci's dad also worked, then what are we talking about here?
And their child could be deathly ill and they don't know why.
Tony, there have been other over 9000 reported death.
There have been over 400,000 reported injuries.
The COVID shots in particular are very serious medical interventions.
But every vaccine, like every drug, carries potential benefits and potential risks.
That's why parents have to play a role.
See, she could have already been calling it a transfection right now.
She was saying the COVID vaccines, she could have said that they're different.
They're not even the same.
has these things that were injuring kids in the past where a combination of substances was injected intramuscularly and I was advocating for there to be vulnerability to particular toxins like solidamide or mercury or aluminum.
She's not even articulate enough and nuanced enough in her progression of understanding to at least admit that she had a particular bent and understanding on this in 2017.
And that is still informing her today.
It's there.
It's right there.
She's not usefully fighting.
She has sabotaged CHD and made them absolutely part of the pandemic narrative and essentially cooperating and collaborating in the national security operation that was COVID.
in these decisions.
These are minors.
It is inconceivable to me that an 11-year-old can adequately research and understand the potential benefits and risks of a COVID shot.
Especially if somebody like Mary Holland is going to call it a COVID shot and not a transfection, and Mary Holland is not going to tell you the transfection was on Robert Malone's resume for 15 years.
Of course, then young people are really not going to be able to figure it out, are they?
is nonsense.
This is the pharmaceutical industry coming in and exploiting children.
I think it's the pharmaceutical industry coming in and funding CHD to the tune of millions of dollars that put her in charge.
That's what I think.
You know, at the children's expense and trying to cut parents out of the picture.
It's just unexplained.
I think that's why Mary Holland and her collaborators wasted hundreds of thousands of dollars on CHD EU that never happened.
I think that's why she wasted thousands of dollars on a conference in Georgia that promoted everybody but CHD.
I think that's why she will continue to waste money on things like rise and resist or resist pharma or some other nonsense that never goes anywhere or does anything.
Because her job is to do that.
to not usefully advocate for any goal to make sure that CHD never reaches any goal and therefore can suck up all this money eternally and keep all these parents busy eternally.
And that's why Mary Holland and Meryl Nass, instead of trying to make CHD more important and more pivotal, have decided to work together to start another nonprofit called Doors to Freedom, which supposedly opposes the who.
because she and Mary Holland and Meryl Nass are collaborating to be traitors against America and specifically undermine CHD.
It wouldn't even surprise me if Bobby is their victim as well.
It's un-American, it's unconstitutional, and it violates federal law.
We're really grateful that you filed this lawsuit.
Remember that when Bobby went and started his presidential campaign, Mary left to be his campaign manager.
And Mary only came back to CHD and left Bobby's campaign when I was hired at CHD.
And it was actually two weeks later, or a week later, she started back as the CEO, specifically when I had been hired.
Make no mistake about it.
Make no mistake about it, Laura Bono hired me, because Brian Hooker wanted to hire me, because other people that worked on the book wanted to hire me, and they were all into me, and they all liked me, and they all liked my message, and they all liked my tenacity, and they all liked my passion, and Mary came back the next week.
Mary Holland and Meryl Nass are the saboteurs of CHD.
And my guess is that they also misled Bobby about what they were accomplishing and how to accomplish it.
And that maybe is why Bobby will continue, continue to have this as baggage rather than something that he can stand on because they misled him about this.
and misled him about the biology that I was teaching and made him discount it.
I mean, if he could actually understand the implications of cloning and the implications of transfection and transformation in cell culture and animals being misconstrued as virology, he could actually make very big progress as part of a Trump administration.
But whoa, would that be dangerous?
I think it's incredible to me that a governing body, which in this case is the school board and the city council, that they would think that 11-year-olds could know their medical history sufficiently to actually form intelligent consensus.
So what are we arguing about?
We're not arguing about the effectiveness of vaccines.
We're not arguing about the, their fidelity of understanding or lack thereof.
We're not talking about infectious disease and what they are and what they aren't.
We're not talking about whether pandemics are real or not.
We're not talking about whether the sequences are real or whether there was, there is really something happening or whether the, nothing.
This is an entire program at the heart of the pandemic, at the worst moment when we could have woken up and we're arguing about a law in one place, one little tiny corner of America and four families affected by it.
And now you can see why she's a liar and a meddler.
There's no question in my mind she is a liar and a meddler and that's why she fired me from CHD because she is part of a group of people that does not want us to realize that a national security state would use murder and lies to prevent a consensus from forming.
that rejected public health, that rejected the national security state.
They have to murder and lie in a coordinated fashion in order to prevent your children from realizing that transfection in healthy humans was always criminally negligent.
and a lot of my kids' classmates are permanently injured because of this illusion of consensus, created by and enabled by people like Mary Holland, who sabotaged the real heroes of CHD into ineffectively putting this message out.
RNA cannot pandemic because viruses are not pattern integrities, and I believe people like Meryl Nass know it, just like Robert Malone knows it, just like
David Baltimore knows it, and Vincent Racaniello is probably too dumb to know it.
And vaccine schedule in America was always a criminal enterprise.
And before the pandemic, you heard Mary Allen say that if you just compare it to these other countries that get the same results with far fewer shots, it's kind of a head-scratcher, isn't it?
It's kind of a crime, Mary.
And you should have been saying it in 2017.
You're still not saying it in 2024.
And that's because you are a traitor to America and our children.
Ladies and gentlemen, if you liked what you saw, please find a way to support the stream at gigaohmbiological.com.
If you want to share it, please share the stream at stream.gigaohm.bio.
And remember that starting Tuesday next week, we are going to have a biology course in the morning and a statistics auditing course in the mid morning or early afternoon.
I think it's going to be both before lunch, but I'm going to see how that's going to work out for sure.
Biology
In the morning we'll start at 1010 and then either the statistics will follow after lunch, which is probably more likely, or follow right after with a brief pause to make it a different program and a different recording on PeerTube.
So I'm really looking forward to that.
Today was the first day of school.
Exciting times in Bethel Park, PA, and I hope exciting times wherever you are.
as you look forward to the fall and you look forward to the many many aspects of this theater that are obviously going to ramp up as long as you're prepared for it and as long as you have yourself grounded in the truth of our biology our sacred irreducible complexity then you have nothing to fear and
I guess I'll see you tomorrow.
This has been Giga Ohm Biological, a high resistance, low noise information brief brought to you by a biologist.
It's been my pleasure to have a week off, and I assure you the hard work is starting today.
So thanks.
I'm going into prep mode now, and I'll see you again soon, possibly this afternoon for a study hall.
Otherwise, definitely tomorrow morning as scheduled.
And then class starts on Tuesday.
Thanks very much, guys.
Also, Substack is going to get a little more happy now with all this time during the day where I'm a little bit free.
Basketball will be in the afternoon at 3.30, and we've got a lot in store with that little plan as well.
Lots of stuff happening in the background.
The case in California, I think, is still going to go forward.
because uh they didn't beat us yet i hope they didn't beat us yet um but we'll see um the fraud is still available for people to to fight against um we can still do it so all you got to do is find find the people who were frauded and uh let's take them to court ladies and gentlemen thank you very much for joining me and i will see you again tomorrow
Thanks, ladies and gentlemen.
I'll see you tomorrow.