EpochTV - The Epoch Times
Live Chat

'THE UNSEEN CRISIS' WATCH PARTY & LIVE Q&A: Dr. Robert Malone, Dr. Paul Marik, Brianne Dressen, Angela Wulbrecht, and Cindy Drukier

Views 81K
[FULL TRANSCRIPT BELOW] Join us for a watch party of "The Unseen Crisis" on Thursday, May 25, at 7:30 p.m. ET followed by a live panel and Q&A.
Dr. Robert Malone, mRNA vaccine technology pioneer
Dr. Paul Marik, pulmonary and critical care specialist and co-founder and chairman of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance
Brianne Dressen, AstraZeneca trial participant and co-founder of React19
Angela Wulbrecht, Vaccine Safety Research Foundation
Cindy Drukier, Director and Writer of "The Unseen Crisis"
About the Documentary 'The Unseen Crisis: Vaccine Stories You Were Never Told'
The documentary provides an intimate, uncensored look into the lives of those who live with the vaccines' after-effects. It examines the issue in a fresh, honest, and comprehensive manner with expert interviews, whistleblowers’ statements, and government health data.



Jan Jekielek: Hello everyone. Thank you for joining us for this very special edition of American Thought Leaders. We have a number of panelists here who are in the movie. They don't need any introduction, and I'll just list their names. We have two doctors, Dr. Robert Malone and Dr. Paul Marik. We have two vaccine injured and also advocates for the vaccine injured, Brianne Dressen and Angela Wulbrecht. Welcome.
In the live chat, you are welcome to ask questions. We won't be able to do all of them, of course. We've picked up a few from the chat beforehand. Finally, many of you that were in the film are actually watching tonight. I'm sorry you couldn't be on the panel, there was a limited number we could take. After watching this film again, I’m so glad I could take part in it. You are all the heroes of this film, thank you all so much.
I'm going to jump in with a question. We also have Cindy Drukier, the writer, producer, and director of the film. This is her opus. She's also my wife, I might mention, so I'm a bit biased here. But this is a question I haven't asked her before and we'll start with this. What is one thing that you learned that you hadn't picked up before. We've been studying this issue for a long time. What would that be?
Cindy Drukier: There are actually a lot of things I learned, so let me pick one. I didn't know a lot about the "compensation program," CICP [Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program]. It's pretty alarming how inadequate it is. But the biggest thing I saw was the psychosis, not only how it is not really recognized, but the gaslighting and actually getting diagnosed with psychosis and having that follow people in their medical records. To me, that was just adding insult to injury, and just a devastating reality.
Mr. Jekielek: Let me jump to Dr. Malone here. One of the things that you mentioned in the film, I was hoping you could expand on a little bit. The cost-benefit analysis for typical medical interventions and drugs is very different from something that is a vaccine. I'm wondering if you could expand on that.
Dr. Robert Malone: Sure, but first I want to say a couple of things. Number one, Cindy, what a good job you guys have done, along with the whole Epoch team. I teared up at the end. I'm still a little emotional over it. The other thing that stunned me was Brianne's comments about Peter Marks and the messaging he'd given to her about not speaking publicly.
I heard exactly the same thing when I had a scheduled Zoom call with him, and I was raising concerns about the Pfizer dossier, the Common Technical Document, that had been obtained from the Japanese authority. He told me exactly the same thing—to withhold commenting publicly. He said that he had reviewed all that data and that there were no concerns and no safety signals. That really influenced my holding back just as it did to you in some part. I still think we need to get to the bottom of that.
In terms of your question, Jan, there's a bunch of nuances about vaccinology and vaccine clinical research, which I have done for decades, that make it different from cancer research, and that's a great way to look at things. If you have somebody who may have a two-year life expectancy for their breast cancer diagnosis, and you decide to test a novel therapeutic, a cancer immunotherapy, let's imagine it's an mRNA vaccine for breast cancer, you're giving it to a patient who already has this clinical condition.
They've already been in the selected population that is over a two-year horizon of a large, significant risk of death. Intervening in that with proper informed consent is a much different situation in terms of risk-benefit analysis, since they already have the disease, than intervening with somebody who might have a 10, 5, 2 percent, or if it's a child, a 0.0001 percent chance of death.
They don't actually have the disease at the time when you intervene, and so it's absolutely necessary that vaccines be extraordinarily safe, because you are intervening in a patient who does not have disease at that point in time. If you create myocarditis, neuropathy, coagulopathies, a large cluster of autoimmune diseases, or Guillain-Barre, which was mentioned by the CDC as something we're allowed to say now, those people might not have ever been at significant risk of a disease from that virus.
You're creating an iatrogenic, a medically-induced disease, in some fraction of the population that might by probability never have had a disease from the virus itself that would have been life-threatening. We now know that to be the case. The other example I use is; imagine that this was a respiratory Ebola, just for the sake of argument. I'm not trying to scare anybody.
Ebola is an ugly way to die and it drives people absolutely frantic. Let’s say we had a respiratory transmitted Ebola, which doesn't exist, but let's imagine that we did. There was a scenario worked out by the Pentagon during the West African outbreak that we would have over a billion dead worldwide from a respiratory transmitted Ebola.
If that was the case and we had a fairly reactogenic or toxic vaccine that might cause toxicity in one in 3,000 to 4,000 children, if you got the disease and your probability of living was maybe 50 percent, people would be lining up for it. You wouldn't have to have any mandates. They would be glad to take a pretty harsh vaccine in the face of respiratory Ebola.
This current virus was never like that toxin. It was never that pathogenic, infectious disease. These current vaccines are clearly toxic at some level, that can't be denied. When you really didn't have that pathogenic of a virus, it's just not supportable. That was long-winded, but I hope I answered the question.
Mr. Jekielek:
Yes, thank you. I want to mention to the panelists that we do have to answer quickly. We only have 45 minutes and so much to cover, but that was very comprehensive. Thank you very much, Dr. Malone. Dr. Marik, I want to jump into this signal question that Dr. Malone mentioned. Basically, there is this system called VAERS [Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System]. For a long time, it was considered to be the standard system used to show signals and vaccine injury. But these days, we hear that it has problems. Does VAERS show signals or not?
Dr. Paul Marik: You'd have to be completely blind and dumb and mute not to see the signal. We know that there is massive underreporting just because it's not a very well-designed system. But if you track the VAERS data over the last 15 years, there's this massive sudden exponential spike and that spike happened with the rollout of the vaccine. It's their data. It's VAERS data.
We know the underreporting factor varies between 20 to 30 to 50, so there's more than a signal. Actually, this is not a signal, it’s a nuclear explosion that's happened and it's there to be seen by everyone. It's not subtle. There are more deaths in 2021, because we know it starts in 2021, than there have ever been in the entire history of VAERS. There has been this massive explosion.
If you actually look at the number of diagnoses associated with these vaccines, it's pretty astonishing. There are now over 600 to 700 different diagnoses associated with these vaccines. The breadth and the depth of the pathology and the disease that these so-called shots have caused is truly astonishing.
Mr. Jekielek: Dr. Marik, in the film you mention that correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation, and it's hard to establish that. How do you respond that it's hard to really establish that signal?
Dr. Marik: There's something called common sense which is distinctly uncommon. In 2021, we see this massive increase in the number of vaccine-associated injuries. How do you explain it? There's been a massive increase in myocarditis. We can talk about myocarditis, which in children is a reasonably uncommon condition. There's been a massive increase in the incidence of myocarditis.
Look at the number of athletes that have collapsed on the sports field. Up until recently, it was a rare event. We now know there are at least 1,200 professional athletes that have had a cardiac arrest on the field. What is it due to? It could be due to aliens, but the more likely explanation is it's these shots. It's just common sense. You need to have a logical explanation to explain these findings, and how else can you explain them?
Mr. Jekielek: Thank you, Dr. Marik.
Dr. Marik: With all of these athletes dropping dead, these young people dropping dead, and these pilots having cardiac arrest, how do you explain it? There must be a logical explanation. If you have your eyes and ears open, it's clear what the association is.
Mr. Jekielek: We can jump to Bri Dressen. In the film you talk about getting the golden ticket. You say that the NIH [National Institutes of Health] is very familiar with all of these injuries, and in fact, knows how to treat them. Please expand on that and why this information isn't being spread further.
Brianne Dressen: There's a lot of explanations for why. I definitely suspect that it's politically motivated. My main concern is they flew a bunch of people out and it didn't stop there. We've received reports they've been flying more people out, people with ALS [amyotrophic lateral sclerosis], and other people with these strange pseudoseizure-type disorders. These are things that the public at large still remains completely blind to—the possibility that this could happen after a Covid vaccine.
I'm a taxpayer just like anybody else, and I would expect that my tax dollars go to research that I am told about. The agencies definitely need to provide some transparency into what they know. Even if they don't have conclusions for what they're looking at, it would be useful for researchers across the globe to see what their findings are showing, even if there are no conclusions.
Mr. Jekielek: You're one of the co-founders of React19, which is mentioned in the film as well. You have something like 30,000 people in your membership. How many of those people are getting this, let's call it, boutique support or help?
Ms. Dressen: From the government, or just in general?
Mr. Jekielek: Yes.
Ms. Dressen: From the government, it's a small handful. I would say there were probably 50 people that got help from the federal government. Everybody else got help through the patients that received the information from the federal government or from good physicians like Dr. Marik at the FLCCC [Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance] who really have dug in. They have risked their careers and their livelihoods and their reputations for the truth, but also to save lives.
Mr. Jekielek: Brianne, I want to get back to you about a lawsuit that you're involved in that we reported in The Epoch Times just a few days ago. Angela, I understand that you are also involved in a new lawsuit related to vaccine injury. If you could tell us about that, that would be great.
Angela Wulbrecht: Yes. I am involved in a class-action lawsuit against the UC [University of California] systems and hospitals. It was brought on by Dr. Chris Rake who was a UCLA [University of California, Los Angeles] anesthesiologist. Our counsel is Warner Mendenhall and Jeremy Friedman. We are going after these unjust discriminatory rules with the vaccines and the mandates. The lawsuit is involving the California expressed constitutional right to privacy and bodily autonomy, including the right to be informed of what the universities know about the adverse events and the negative efficacies, the fact that it's experimental, and that it should not be coerced.
I'm really excited to join. After teaming up with Warner Mendenhall doing the first annual Covid Litigation Conference, that's what we need to do going forward. We can talk until we're blue in the face about these injuries. They know about us. We've had meetings with them. I've been in communication with Dr. Nath at the NIH. They know, but at this point, they're doing nothing. In order to make change, we have to go forward with these lawsuits to put them on the stand to get discovery. I'm really excited that we're doing this.
Mr. Jekielek: We will definitely be covering this at The Epoch Times. While we're talking about lawsuits, Brianne, can talk about your lawsuit against the current administration related to censorship?
Ms. Dressen: Yes. Last Monday, we were lucky enough to be included in a lawsuit filed by the New Civil Liberties Alliance that challenges the White House administration, the CDC, the U.S. Surgeon General, and several individuals at Stanford University for impeding our constitutional rights to free speech, as well as our right to freely assemble.
The reason why this lawsuit had to happen was because the injured were not allowed to talk about their injuries and their true lived experience online. This includes the experience of Nikki Holland, a fellow plaintiff, and Shaun Barcavage, an injured nurse practitioner who is a fellow leader in the support groups that have been shut down. Also, there's Ernest Ramirez who lost his son, as we saw in this film. He's also a fellow plaintiff in this lawsuit. He had a film video that was shut off at YouTube that was just him driving his son's truck down the road.
It didn't matter where we went. It didn't matter how hard we tried to break through that barrier. Big Tech definitely had decided that our voices were less worthy of hearing. As we saw through the Twitter Files and through the Missouri v. Biden lawsuit, this was largely driven by the federal government. The entire purpose of this lawsuit is to right these wrongs for not just a select few, but for all Americans who have had their freedom of speech suppressed by the federal government.
Mr. Jekielek: Indeed. I'll mention to our viewers that the purpose of this film is to break through the censorship and narrative formation around this issue. We have encountered so many people that have had serious issues with these vaccines.
I'm going to jump back to Cindy, and this is a related question. We're going to the audience now, and thank you for providing your questions. If you have any more questions, please put them in the live chat. We may collect one or two of those. Here's the question and there's a few similar ones. After having studied this issue in depth and having met many of the vaccine injured, how would you recommend that the audience support these victims?
Ms. Drukier: To speak on behalf of most of the people, the two big things that I learned that are needed are recognition and money. Just a data point, at the end of the film, I show that Brianne Dressen's organization, React19, has dispersed a half-a-million dollars to specifically help vaccine injured with their medical bills. With the federal government, and there's a small update from the film, it's now $8,600 to exactly four people. That's it. That's all the CICP has provided.
Clearly, the federal government isn't doing it. It is these amazing people, as you saw at the end of the film, coming together and saying, "All right, we've got to do it ourselves." The FLCCC is a nonprofit and the VSRF [Vaccine Safety Research Foundation], is a nonprofit. All of these lawsuits, they're expensive. Medical bills are expensive.
I would say just spread the film, and spread what you know. When both Angela and Brianne were talking, I was thinking that so much of the work that needs to be done is for next time. Because a lot of people think, "I’m not vaccine injured, Covid is over for me. It's time to move on.” Nobody wants to think about it anymore, but the next pandemic could arrive next month.
There's already a new variant in China that's getting some attention. The next pandemic could come, so these lawsuits and trying to hold the government accountable is for next time, to protect our freedom of speech and all of our rights. It's super important to keep pursuing these things.
Mr. Jekielek: I want to jump to Dr. Malone here. There were a number of questions about mRNA vaccination of livestock. We'll save that for another day. Perhaps I can invite you for a quick hit on American Thought Leaders Now to discuss that, because there seems to be such an interest.
But let's talk about something closer to the film. Here's a question. We talked with Dr. Marik about VAERS and that he believes there is a very strong signal and I'm pretty sure you concur with that. Now, we have flu shots being developed of the mRNA type. What do you make of this, and how can we trust the safety of any other vaccines going forward given the current situation?
Dr. Malone: I'll try to be succinct. We put out a Substack last winter in which we tallied up, using the database which the government maintains for clinical trials, that there are 50 ongoing mRNA vaccine trials currently enrolling, and over 200 trials of mRNA-based technology using these formulations that are planned. The data from Moderna was only released to their stockholders.
In another Substack, we also covered that at the hundred microgram dose, the influenza vaccines had something like a 30 percent grade 3 toxicity event rate. It's clear that it's not just spike. It appears to be that each component, the lipid nanoparticle formulation, the [inaudible] lipid complexes have intrinsic toxicity. The mRNA with the pseudouridine is not really mRNA, it's a synthetic molecule that has immunosuppressive properties. That's why it was used, because of the inflammation from the complexes. Clearly, that has not been overcome.
In the case of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, the spike protein is toxic. We can anticipate that there will be more toxicity and very similar toxicities. The position that was engineered at the World Health Organization in a meeting about a year-and-a-half ago was that these two formulations, Moderna and the BioNTech/Pfizer formulation will now be grandfathered in and considered safe. It will be acceptable to swap out different mRNAs using the same formulations for these new vaccines without having to have extensive additional safety testing, including non-clinical testing. It's a monopoly of perpetuity and it is absolutely of concern. I'll leave it at that.
Mr. Jekielek: Dr. Marik, you and I just did an interview on the most recent American Thought Leaders episode about how to deal with spike protein in the body, the reaction that's created which is actually somewhat long-lasting. There's another question about that, and I'll get you to speak to that in a moment. What types of routine screenings would someone who was vaccinated get to stay on top of monitoring for vaccine injury or to catch it early? Because we know that early treatment is always important when it comes to the spike-related disease.
Dr. Marik: Yes, I'll come to that. It is astonishing that the CDC is so dishonest and deceitful in their assessment of the vaccine. We know it's not safe and we know it's not effective. They need to stop lying to us because it's neither safe nor effective, and that narrative has to change. It's absolutely clear it doesn't prevent transmission, and it doesn't prevent hospitalization. We are not sure if it prevents death, and we know it's extremely toxic. It's extremely toxic. The pathologist knows all the answers.
Unfortunately, it's always a little bit too late. For reasons that aren't clear, in the U.S., if you die after a vaccine, they will not do an autopsy because they don't want to discover the truth. But there have been autopsies that have been done in other countries, particularly in Germany. What is astonishing is that the body is packed with spike protein. The body becomes a spike protein factory, and these patients die from the pathological consequences of spike.
It's one of the most toxic proteins we know. Cyanide kills you quickly. Spike kills you slowly, progressively and relentlessly and it does all kinds of terrible things. Your question is a good one. We've changed our approach slightly. If you actually have a look at the VAERS data, most patients who develop an adverse event do so in the first two weeks or month.
What we used to say is that after the month you've been vaccinated you have no new onset symptoms, that's really important. We now know many patients have new symptoms that they don't associate with the vaccine, so they're missing the diagnosis. We used to say, “The month has gone by, you don't have new symptoms, you've dodged the bullet. You played Russian roulette, and you were lucky”
But we now know that is not true, because of these delayed cardiac events. Patients can have acute cardiac events six months, eight months, or 12 months after the vaccine. We don't know exactly.
There is also the question of turbo cancers. The fact that you seem to have escaped the first month doesn't mean that you're off the hook. The problem is how do you screen for these patients, and that's what we are struggling with. No one is studying this. We're hopeful we'll be able to do a pilot study looking at people who've been vaccinated, looking at some biomarkers, and seeing if we can use some biomarkers to predict which patients are going to develop late cardiac events.
But currently, we don't have a good way of screening these patients. What we say is that if you've been vaccinated within the last year, you haven't dodged the bullet. If you are concerned, there are interventions that you may want to consider to lower your risk of having an acute event.
This is such an important issue. It should be studied. The federal government should be studying this. We're talking about billions of people who've been vaccinated. We need to know, do they still have a circulating spike protein? Do they have ongoing inflammation or do they have a risk of having a cardiac event?
These are critical things to know. Unfortunately, we don't have good data. What we do recommend is that people take this seriously. There are very low cost, simple interventions people can make to minimize their risk.
Mr. Jekielek: There are two things I want to add. The interventions, we should probably comment on what those are to minimize the risk, because that would be of great value. Also, what is the difference between the spike from the vaccine and the spike from Covid itself? Let’s get Dr. Malone to say a few words on that.
Dr. Malone: It was originally asserted and the fact-checkers all agreed that the spike protein in the vaccine had been engineered so that it would not have the toxicity of the spike protein in the virus. That was a lie. In fact, the data clearly indicated, and consistent with Paul's comment, that the mRNA-based products produce a spike protein which does have a mutation. It locks the receptor-binding domain into an open confirmation.
This is techy, but what it means is that the engineered spike protein binds its target more avidly than the natural protein. We absolutely do know from a series of publications that the vaccine products produce considerably more spike in your body. It's distributed throughout your body. Whereas, with the natural infection, it tends to stay localized in mucosal membranes and it persists for months.
You have more protein with a totally different course of production and for a much longer period of time. It has the characteristics of having mutations to prolines, which ostensibly make it more immunogenic. That was the intention apparently. But it absolutely alters its binding properties for its receptor ligands, which are the things that are regulating all kinds of biology in your blood vessels. It's part of the toxicity that Paul and his colleagues are battling with. I hope I've answered your question.
Mr. Jekielek: Very much so, thank you. Let's jump to Brianne. This is a big question a lot of people have. What is the situation with insurance and vaccine injury? The question was, “Why does insurance not cover the vaccine injuries, but are there cases where it might?”
Ms. Dressen: Yes and no. Sadly, insurance cannot cover something that it cannot code for. Currently, there is no diagnosis code for Covid vaccine injury available here in the United States. These diagnosis codes do exist through the WHO and in Europe. We have asked the U.S. government several times to implement those codes here in the United States so we can start tracking that through the medical system. Without a billing code, the way that people are able to get properly covered through their insurance, sadly, is through other codes.
I'm pretty sure that Angela may agree. There's a lot of people out there that get a long Covid diagnosis slapped on their record instead of a Covid vaccine injury. I'm one of those. Through a long Covid diagnosis, you are then able to get a pathway for treatment. Is that treatment usually correct? Sometimes. But the sad reality is insurance will only cover a certain amount, regardless of whether it's long Covid or a vaccine injury.
There's a lot of financial need for these people. I don't know a single person that's still dealing with a lasting Covid vaccine injury that is in a financially stable situation. All of our money goes to these medical bills.
Mr. Jekielek: Let’s jump to Angela. I've seen variants of this question many times, and not just in this chat. Here it is, “My nine-year-old daughter is being forced by the New York state court system against my will as a parent to get the Covid jab, because their father wants it and the state agrees. Is there absolutely anything I can do to stop this from happening?”
Ms. Wulbrecht: This is so heartbreaking. This is something that I've seen drive parents apart and they end up getting divorced over this. I've seen horrible cases where courts have made the decision to force these vaccines. I was just encouraged to keep on resisting and hire an attorney. Unfortunately right now, the data is so damaging.
Going back to what Dr. Marik was saying regarding VAERS, we have the data there. We have so many kids that have been injured and harmed. I personally think that they created this system. It's designed so perfectly to hide these adverse reactions. It's their system to keep us safe.
Yet, they say that there are faults in the system and that correlation isn't causation, but they created it. It's theirs, and they're not wanting to look at this data. I actually got rejected from the NIH communications with them. I think Dr. Marik or Dr. Malone wants to say something. Do you want me to finish?
Dr. Malone: No, please finish your thought. There's something I want to say after you're done, if Jan will recognize me.
Ms. Wulbrecht: Sure, yes.
Dr. Marik: I'd like to say something after Angela finishes, and after Robert says something
Mr. Jekielek: We'll do that.
Ms. Wulbrecht: I was in frequent communication. I had to prove myself to Dr. Nath at the NIH showing him all of my credentials from the hospital where I had worked. He responded right back to me. I would reach out to him with needs. I'd have this vaccine injured that were these young kids harmed by the vaccine. I would reach out to him and he would email me back right away on the weekends, on Saturday and Sunday.
He would give me referrals for doctors to try and help these injured. We had a really good rapport and relationship. The email that cut me from the NIH was asking him to look at the data. I developed this relationship and finally I said, "You know what, Dr. Nath? You need to look at the data. Here it is. I want you to look at this. We have a major, major problem."
The minute I sent out that email to him, shortly thereafter, I got an email back from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, [NINDS], saying, "I'm sorry. You cannot reach out to Dr. Nath anymore. If you have any questions regarding the Covid vaccines, please visit the CDC website."
At that point I realized that they don't want to see the data. We had meetings with the FDA and the CDC. Dr. Malone was actually with me in one of those meetings. We sat there before them on a Zoom meeting and they said they'd get back to us. They would have follow-up meetings. That never happened. At that point I realized we can no longer trust the system.
To go back to your question, it's really heartbreaking. It's really, really heartbreaking for these children and these parents. I don't know. It's so sad. I don't really have an answer to this. I get a lot of emails regarding this, and I don't know how to help these people. I wish we had a better system in place.
Before I end this, I want to thank you, Cindy, for doing this documentary. It really was healing for me and for my vaccine injury. It is going to help move the movable middle because of the way that you carried out these interviews. You traveled all across the country for months and months and months. People came out to my house and I was down in LA. Your compassion and your love for the vaccine injured was so heartfelt, and it was so comfortable talking to you.
There were so many tears shed and it was really healing for all of us involved in creating this documentary, because of the love that you had for us. We've done so many interviews and they just felt very stale. We were just talking, but you had such a heart for us, and I thank you so much. I can't wait to share this film everywhere. I hope everybody watches it. We've been promoting it for the last couple of weeks on our show with VSRF [Vaccine Safety Research Foundation]. I just want to thank you and Dr. Malone.
Mr. Jekielek: Let me just mention one thing before Dr. Malone jumps in here. On Saturday we're going to do a proper American Thought Leaders episode. We're doing it as a livestream with Cindy, so we'll have a chance to really deep dive into some of the work that she did traveling across the country and what she discovered. Dr. Malone, you're on.
Dr. Malone: Two things. Number one, Cindy kindly did not include one of the other major categories of adverse events that has been so badly gaslit, which is the reproductive harm and particularly the dysmenorrhea and menometrorrhagia, altered menstruation. That was denied for a long time and yet it was quite self-evident. Pfizer, through that interesting interview with Project Veritas, believes it's due to actual central damage to the endocrine system.
The second point I wanted to make is one that Del Bigtree made and I'm indebted to him for that. In your closing arguments with the quote from the CDC, the CDC makes the point that this is the most studied vaccine in history. The sad, sick truth is that this is true. That is a true statement.
Despite the shocking data, the shocking cover-up, we actually know more about these issues with these mRNA vaccines than we know with most of the vaccines in the pediatric schedule, let alone their interactions with each other. I recommend the book, Turtles All The Way Down, written anonymously. It's so sensitive that the physicians that wrote it were afraid they would lose their licenses. Shockingly, the truth is these are the most studied vaccines. What that says is all the other ones are incredibly poorly studied.
Dr. Marik: Yes. I want to echo what Angela said to Cindy. This is a truly astonishing documentary. It will move people, just because it's so objective and it's so human. To get back to the question about kids being vaccinated, I'm not going to mince my words. This is a crime against humanity of unbelievable proportions. As Robert has said, the chances of a healthy child dying from Covid is almost zero. In some of the states, there hasn't been a single death in a healthy child due to Covid. The mortality is like 0.00003 percent. It's infinitesimally small.
You need to look at the data prospectively. There was a prospective study in Thailand, which looked at young adolescents who had been vaccinated. One in three—let me say that again—one in three developed evidence of cardiac dysfunction. You have to be kidding me.
The risk-benefit is completely and utterly distorted. The risk of the vaccine is 10,000 or 100,000-fold greater than the risk of Covid. It's not an argument because the data is absolutely clear. In young healthy children, it's a crime to vaccinate them. Then, as Robert alluded to, there's the question of long-term fertility, both in men and in women.
We've seen that the fertility rates in most developed countries have fallen by 20 percent. There is at least a 20 percent reduction in live births. We know that the spike protein has terrible effects on spermatozoa. We know that it goes to the ovary. We know it affects ovarian function. The reproductive health of these young people is going to be in serious jeopardy. I'm sorry, there can be no logical reason to vaccinate a child.
Dr. Malone: Paul, can you comment on the ALS risk, which Luc Montagnier, before he passed away, was so alarmed about? We have a new publication that is supporting that thesis. Are you comfortable commenting about ALS?
Dr. Marik: Robert, that's a good question. You talked about being the most studied vaccine. In fact, that's true. There are now over 3,000 peer-reviewed publications describing the adverse events from these vaccines, which is truly astonishing. Many of them are autoimmune diseases.
Because of molecular mimicry between human antigens and the spike antigens, people develop autoantibodies, and so there is an enormous spectrum of autoimmune diseases, without question. Guillain-Barre is accepted by the CDC, but the list of autoimmune diseases goes across the board. You name it, this can do it.
Dr. Malone: Thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura being one that's notable. It was known very early. Is that true, Paul?
Dr. Marik: That's true, yes. That was mainly with AstraZeneca, but also ITP, TTP, transverse myelitis, and antibodies against the pancreas, you name it. It's truly astonishing the number of diseases associated with autoimmunity. As Brianne and Angela know, one of the commonest adverse events is small fiber neuropathy, which is very disabling to these patients that develop these severe symptoms. It's due to autoantibodies. We know that these are antibodies against iron channels on nerve tissue. So this is an autoimmune disease.
Dr. Malone: Which by the way is why clinical trials and vaccines for my entire career have required a long-term follow-up, because of the known frequent incidents risk of autoimmunity associated with vaccination.
Dr. Marik: Absolutely. That's why what Pfizer did is unbelievable, is that they wanted to prevent long-term follow-up in their study, so all the people in the placebo arm got vaccinated so that they could cover up their crime.
Dr. Malone: The same strategy was done in the pregnancy study.
Dr. Marik: Yes. So the long-term consequences, particularly autoimmune diseases, malignancy, fertility, are real serious, serious medical issues.
Mr. Jekielek: This is very important, and we've learned about a number of new diseases. We're going to give Cindy the last word here, because she was going to jump in.
Ms. Drukier: I want to draw attention to the card at the end where the CDC responded and they said that the benefits outweigh the known or potential risks of the vaccine. How can they make this statement that the benefits outweigh a bunch of things we don't even know yet?
Dr. Malone: Paul has a word for it. It begins with L-
Dr. Marik: Lie. There's no other way to say it. They are lying. Cindy, you have the last word because the women always have the last word. But I will say they are lying. There's no other word to describe what they're doing. It's an outrage that the federal government and the federal agencies are lying to Americans openly, blatantly, and flagrantly.
Mr. Jekielek: I am going to give a final word to each of you. Dr. Malone, where can your Substack be found?
Dr. Malone: Rwmalonemd.substack.com. Thanks, Jan. It's free, unless you want to help us.
Mr. Jekielek: Dr. Marik, the FLCCC, which you co-founded.
Dr. Marik: Yes. We have a lot of resources at flccc.net, particularly for those who are vaccine injured. We have protocols that can help them. We also have preventative protocols for people who are concerned that they may develop long-term consequences.
As I've said before, these sneaky people who invented the spike, they didn't come up with an antidote, so we've had to come up with the best solution we can. It's not perfect, but this is what we're working on. If people are interested, this is available for free download and it's a good resource.
Mr. Jekielek: Angela, you were vaccine injured as we learned through the film. Then, you started working with Steve Kirsch at the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation. Where can people find that?
Ms. Wulbrecht: You can go to vacsafety.org, and it's V-A-C safety.org. Then my email, if people need to get in touch with me, it's nurseangela@vacsafety.org.
Mr. Jekielek: Wonderful. Let’s finish up with Brianne. You're the co-founder of React19, which has distributed over $500,000 to support treatment of vaccine injury. Where can people find out about this, and how they can get help through React19?
Ms. Dressen: Patients and the community that supports us can find us at www.react19.org. You also can text REACT to 50155 if you feel so inclined to donate. Actually, 100 percent of the donations into that fund, if you text to 50155, goes into the hands of the vaccine injured for medical expenses.
Mr. Jekielek: As Paul suggested, we need to give Cindy the last word here.
Ms. Drukier: Brianne and Angela, there were a bunch of questions about people who are vaccine injured and want to find community, find others, and ask their questions. Are both of your organizations places to go or associate? Where should they go?
Ms. Wulbrecht: They can always reach out to me through my email and I can get them connected with groups. Brianne can do the same as well.
Ms. Dressen: We have an advocacy program that's launched nationwide. We're working at building our international coalition to do the same. If people want to fill out the form at react19.org, we can also help.
Mr. Jekielek: Wonderful. Thank you all for joining this panel on this special live episode of American Thought Leaders. If you haven't seen the film, you can get to it at unseencrisis.com. That's the easiest way. Of course, this livestream will also be available to watch again. I'm going to wish you all a good night.
This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.