So hello, welcome back, we're coming into our Saturday afternoon
and I hear the internet's been worked out, everything looks good again.
So I'm very excited for this next presentation here.
We have a survey of the vaccine injured, it's just wonderful.
I remember you presented a portion of the survey last year and I assume it's part of our first two surveys
and this is the third.
The third survey, so more data, more inputs, more conclusions hopefully we can see from that.
And look, a lot of people just don't know still the degree to which these chronic issues
that have been experienced by so many, I wasn't in peer session but I heard, right,
that this awful thing that we all know about where people get gas lit, told it, it's all in their head.
Also that the person on the other side, the so-called provider, doesn't have to maybe possibly ask themselves a difficult question or two
or allow some real data to come in or some light.
Everything's being censored, there's misdiagnoses, all of that.
So I'm very, very pleased to be introducing here today one of the founders of React 19,
orthopedic doctor and vaccine injured himself, Dr. Joel Walskog.
After being exposed to COVID-19 in August, September of 2020, Dr. Walskog followed CDC recommendations to wait three months
before getting his first COVID vaccine and he subsequently developed numbness, weakness,
balanced difficulties and in the following months experienced periods of severe lower thoracic back pain.
He was subsequently diagnosed with transverse myelitis and a demyelinated lesion at the T8-T9 level.
Although he has been treated with high-dose steroids and IVIG and has participated in physical therapy,
his symptoms are essentially unchanged since his diagnosis in January of 2021.
So he helped found React 19, a non-profit that offers financial, physical and importantly emotional support
to tens of thousands of people injured by the COVID shots in the United States.
FLCCC, 100% values its collaborative relationship with React 19 and with Joel and Bre Andresen, both founders.
So we encourage posting questions via Slido again and share your thoughts if you've already signed up the FLCCC forum.
That's where we will be taking those questions. Joel, thank you very much and thank you all for having me here.
So I'm going to do something a little different today and I, although we're talking about certainly a very serious subject,
I have a dry sense of humor and I think humor is the best medicine and we're going to kind of keep us a little lighter today.
So I have several announcements and several thank yous. So first of all, to the FLCCC team, Kristina especially, Kelly,
these events are a lot to put on, you know, and I'm sure they started the day after Fort Worth.
So, and also certainly the support of Pierre Corey and Paul Merrick.
So let's all give a round of applause to the whole FLCCC team.
Their meetings clearly are the best of, you know, our side, if you want to say so.
The other thing I want to make a couple announcements, if any providers here want to join the React 19 provider list,
we, someone's raising their hand over there after the completion or later today, you can certainly sign up.
We do want to get more providers on our provider list.
We're also going to be having some people kind of doing some funny things and walking around the crowd.
Don't worry, they won't hurt you.
Or we're also selling M&M's with the letter 806 on it.
They're ivermectin M&M's.
I brought her.
So, for a $5 donation, you can buy ivermectin M&M's.
Hi, my name is Ivy.
I can't read.
Oh, I'm really safe and effective.
Two of my favorite words.
Not just for horses.
I love Joe Rogan.
2015 Nobel Prize winner.
I'm cheap, but Dr. Corey loves me.
And lastly, help support vaccine injury.
Buy your ivermectin M&M's for $5.
So, let me start by saying a couple things.
I'm not going to really tell you my story.
You know, I developed this transverse myelitis.
I still think to this day, I probably had a spinal cord infarct, but regardless, my biggest challenge is on a day-to-day basis is the disautonomia.
But my biggest enemy is myself, you know, if I would learn how to pace myself.
So, I tell you a couple stories.
You know, two weeks I fell.
I got a black eye.
Probably didn't see it yesterday because I wore makeup for an interview.
But, you know, I roll with it.
And I'll also tell you, last weekend, my wife's desire or bucket list thing was to go see U2.
We went to see U2 in Vegas.
You know, as the vaccine injured people know, there's no good deed that goes unpunished.
So, by Wednesday, my right leg, excuse me, was failing and started to get more neuropathic pain.
You'll see that I went to a cane.
And today, I get a wheelchair.
But it is what it is.
And what I would say is, you know, I don't need, you know, anyone's sympathy.
I'm totally happy.
I'm totally blessed.
You know, I'm calling.
I'm following God's calling.
And I live by the motto, really, of, you know, do the right things for the right reasons.
And I want to point out a couple of providers here.
There's a ton of great providers here.
But I want to point out three people that I think epitomize that motto of doing the right things for the right reasons.
And that's Paul Merrick, Suzanne Gosta, and Kat Lindley.
So, if we could give them a round of applause.
And I'll tell you, the people that are injured by the COVID shots, you know, they're not looking for sympathy either.
Really, what they're looking for is three things.
Acknowledgement.
Care.
And compensation.
I want to talk about a little bit about all those three things today.
Oh, I forgot to thank, there's one other person I forgot to thank, well, two people.
One is Breanne Dressen, who's my co-chair, who really runs the organization.
I'm more of her secretary.
And she was instrumental in creating this presentation and the research.
So, thank you, Breanne.
And last but not least, I want to thank the A-holes at Moderna for allowing me to be here today.
In fact, what does REACT stand for?
Research, education, action, COVID-19, and therapeutics.
So, research.
We believe research is instrumental to get us out of this mess, okay?
Right now, a lot of the therapies are empirical based.
That's okay.
That's where we're at.
But I know people like Paul Merrick are updating them as more and more objective science comes out.
That's great.
But we need more research, really, to better define these syndromes.
What are they?
What is the pathophysiology?
And by getting more defined well syndromes, you know, I think it's going to lead to more, you know, better diagnostics and better treatments.
Not just empirical based treatments.
So, that's why we believe research is very important.
Education.
You know, we are firm believers in education of providers, but also of the injured in the community.
Action is really where our strength comes in.
We are not here just to tell you our sad stories.
You know, we are here about affecting change.
We demand change.
You know, we demand change from, you know, DC.
We spend a lot of time in DC because a compensation program, which we're going to talk a lot about, or I'm going to talk at least a little about stinks.
Okay.
We're also going to talk about litigation.
Okay.
We're sick and tired of waiting for people in DC to move on the legislation for compensation for them.
So, we're going to sue them.
I'll talk a little bit about, you know, Brian Dressen's case.
Brian Dressen, who's my co-chair, has never sued a person in her life.
Her first lawsuit in her life was Brian Dressen versus Biden at all.
That's pretty cool.
Okay.
And it's time for us.
I'm not going to sit back and be passive.
We are going to be, we are a very proactive advocacy organization, and we're going to continue to be so.
COVID-19 is obvious, but we are the largest advocacy organization for COVID shot injuries.
I think in the world, certainly United States, Canada doesn't have one, but we do have international partners.
We have 18 international partners and therapeutics.
Obviously, we're trying to get better diagnostics and therapeutics, more specific for our actual patient-to-patient syndrome.
Who we are.
We are 100% volunteer.
I'll be honest with you.
I wish we had more money to hire some people full-time, as the FLCCC has some excellent people that are, you know, full-time.
We don't have that.
We started this organization in 2021 with 10 people that went to a Ron Johnson press conference.
And without trying, excuse me, we represent over 36,000 Americans injured by the shots.
We have researched partnerships with Yale, University of Maryland, University of Marburg in Germany.
We also have legal partnerships.
The three pillows of our organization really have our mission is really to give the injured financial, physical and emotional support.
So I'm going to talk a little bit in a second about our care fund, which is our financial arm.
Physically, we try to help them through research, but also by creating provider networks, which we all invite you to become part of.
Medical provider networks, mental health provider networks, and we added in a spiritual network.
So it's this piece that is called a prayer and spiritual encouragement team.
Emotionally, what we've done is housed well over 36,000 Americans in social media-based support groups, which for them I think is a lifeline.
And then we have an advocacy program. Our advocacy advocacy program is a group of nurses and social workers across the country who can be assigned to the more marginalized injured person that needs really one-on-one hope.
One-on-one help, sorry.
What we've seen is people that are marginalized before their injury.
You mean they have a relationship problems, job problems, financial problems.
Their injury is exponentially more disabling to them.
A little bit about financial support. These weren't vaccines, right? They were countermeasures.
So we can't apply to the vaccine injury compensation program, which has about $4 billion in it and is funded by pharma through an excise tax.
We can't apply to the CICP, a countermeasures injury compensation program. These are new numbers I just updated them.
Over 13,000 people injured by the COVID shots have applied. 11 people have been awarded for a total of $41,175. That's evil.
I was denied. It took me 18 months to get denied. I appealed. It's been 14 months since my appeal and I haven't heard anything.
It's a huge black hole. What have we done?
Well, again, it's a drop in the bucket, but we still have given out through grassroots fundraising by generous people like you with an average donation of $80.
We've raised over $750,000 and given out grants for up to $10,000 for uncovered medical expenses to 107 people.
I wish we could do more. And believe me, if someone's got $100 million in the pocket, believe me, I'll make sure it goes the right place.
It helped, but again, we're up, you know, as everyone knows, trying to fundraise in this environment is extremely difficult.
I thought a lot of, you know, conservative corporate people might be involved, but no responses, but we'll keep welling.
But we really view compensation reform as instrumental to get us out there.
We've been going to D.C. over and over. There's two House bills right now, 5142 and 5143.
You don't have to know that, but what are they about? They're about updating the VICP.
It hasn't been updated for inflation since 1986, but the other part of these bills is it would transfer the CICP claims to the VICP with retroactivity.
It's been slow progress. Everyone we go out there, independent Democrat, Republican, oh, this system sucks.
No shit. All right. Excuse my language. But the truth of the matter is, you know, they all admit there's a problem, but anything in D.C. moves like molasses.
So what are we doing? We're selling them. We're going to, I mean, we filed with React 19.
If you see this lawsuit here, this lawsuit was filed in October in Louisiana and federal court.
This is six individual injured people and React 19 is an organization suing HHS and HRSA because the CICP claim, the CICP program violates our fifth and seventh amendment rights, which are the right to due process and jury trial.
We can't go to court. We submit our application. It doesn't know who reviews it. It doesn't know why they deny it.
It's a black hole as Aaron Siri calls. There's going to be another lawsuit coming soon, but unfortunately it hasn't dropped yet, so I can't tell you, but it's going to be another good one.
But we're going to sue them. And really, do we think we're going to necessarily take down the PREP Act and the PREP Act immunity? No.
But maybe we can stimulate more motivation to work in legislative compensation reform.
I mentioned this a little bit about censorship lawsuits.
There's a Missouri v. Biden, React 19, and Rand Dresden is going to submit an amicus brief. There's also the case of Dresden v. Biden at all, and that's through NCLA.
We're also very involved in other cases with individual members, work comms, social security disability, employer discrimination, mandates, et cetera.
So I'm going to keep moving.
And what else are we going to do? We're going to start having the first-ever lobbyists.
When we go out there and talk to people face-in-face, they see us, and they see people in wheelchairs. I think it's impactful to them.
Now, has it really done much yet? No, but I'm still hopeful.
So Kyle Warner is a, some of you may know, he's a professional mountain bike rider who had got myocarditis.
So he's agreed for four months to live out there in daily lobby for us.
Kyle, it's going to be awesome, and I hope this turns in if we can get the funding.
We have a full-time lobbyist out there. God knows Pharma has a ton of them. Why can't we have one?
The reason that, you know, Kyle is great is he's calm, collected, and credible.
That's what we need. We can't go out there and be, you know, buy a weapon, this and all that.
I mean, these people, we got to try to get our audience as wide as possible.
But he's cool, I say cool, calm, and collected.
So the number one page viewed in our website is actually the 3,600 studies case reports.
So people say, oh, there's nothing on vaccine injury out there. No, there's a ton. There's thousands.
But that was it done in conjunction, and I want to give thanks to Daniel O'Connor
for helping to create that. But that's researchable. You can study it and say,
I want to look at this, this, this, and it's really a cool database.
It's our number one website that's visited. I think a lot of attorneys use it too.
But we're also doing other research ourselves, research partnerships we've had, patient-led research.
Again, I'm going to talk a little bit about our Survey 3.
We've done some work in VAERS information data analyses.
And we're actually now starting a research grant program.
We had some generous donors. We have $100,000 and not a ton.
But we're going to give it out to three research groups to try to stimulate more research.
So Survey Number 1 and Survey Number 2 I showed last year.
Survey Number 1 dealt with persistent symptoms review.
That was actually shown to the NIH, who actually had some questions, which begged Survey Number 2.
Survey Number 2 was the answer to their questions, which is about outcomes and symptom progression.
Since then, they've ghosted us, so that relationship is over.
More about that in a bit.
Now, everything from here on is going to be about Survey 3.
But I'll make some notes when I put in maybe a non-Survey 3 slide.
So gender distribution.
Our last and Survey 1, it was 80% women, 20%.
This new Survey and Survey 3, it's 70% women and about 30% men.
I'm just going to ignore the 0.12%.
Anyway, the age distribution, again, this is people in the prime of their lives.
35 to 55.
I think our last survey was more like 30 to 50.
But again, it's a little older now, but similar to before.
How does our data about the gender differences compare to other databases?
Very similar.
And what about the age distribution?
Very similar.
So this is a little bit about Survey 3, and this is an IRB approved study.
The goal was to get 2,500 participants.
We've already got 3,300 enrolled, but only 840 completed.
Part of it, part of the reason I think only 840 completed, it's a long survey.
It requires detailed information.
It's tough.
I took it myself.
It was a lot of detailed questions, but we need those details.
And just in those 840 people, we have 650,000 data points.
So what I'm showing you today is really just our preliminary data.
We were really hoping to come here with a final data set, but it just didn't happen in time.
A little bit about the goals.
Build an analogy of Survey 1 and 2.
Understand really what diagnostic people are getting and what's helping.
Really start to better define these syndromes.
And then understand which treatments are working, which are not.
I want to give special thanks to Linda Wasella, University of Maryland,
Regresson, and Eduardo Golly.
Dr. Golly has been instrumental to this survey.
Again, limitations.
Again, I want to go over.
It's a long study.
It requires a lot of detailed information.
And I think that's one of the biggest challenges.
But again, we're working through it.
And I apologize.
Today is only preliminary data, but it's the best we got.
So patient-led surveys, I'm sorry, with vaccine dose.
By far the most common are first, second, after the first, second, or third shot.
First or second.
I mean, I review our care applicants.
And I'll tell you how heartbreaking when I read these things.
And people had an adverse event after their first shot.
They went to their doctor.
What did their doctor tell them?
Have the next one.
I shouldn't swear, but I might.
But anyway, next, was it mandated or not?
I'm one of the 64.5%.
I actually took it before the mandate.
I was part of the 1A medical group.
Obviously not too bright, but can't change the past.
But don't you feel bad for the 35% of people that were forced and mandated?
It's horrible.
It's evil.
Genetic relative also injured.
I think this is significant.
23.8% had a genetic relative that was also injured.
What does this do?
I mean, it begs more questions.
Is there a genetic predisposition to these adverse events?
To me, it must be something.
I mean, we know that people with autoimmune conditions and some autoimmune conditions run
in families certainly have a higher risk of having an adverse event.
Now, in our prior studies, the average number of symptoms someone had was 20.
Now it's 43.
What I'm going to tell you is we just asked more questions and gave more options.
But the point in that is these people have a constellation of symptoms.
It's just not one or two things.
It's 20, 30, 40.
And 72% of the participants had their adverse event begin within the first seven days.
The graph on the right, what does it tell you?
Well, a lot of people hear from their providers, oh, if it happened within 30 minutes, that
can't be from the VAX.
Well, yeah, it can.
Obviously, we know anaphylaxis.
But there's a lot of the mastal disorders.
They'll start really early in the first 30 minutes or the first hour.
So some of this stuff makes sense.
Now, this is a busy slide, but I'll just cover the first five things.
Fatigue, brain fog, sleep issues, dizziness, numbness, very common.
Please don't forget about tinnitus.
You know, a lot of people think, oh, I just got ringing in yours.
It's no big deal.
Well, the truth of the matter is for the people that have severe tinnitus, I mean, they're
suicidal.
We've had several people commit suicide because of tinnitus.
So please, I urge you, and I'm sure you all do, I'm talking, speaking to the friendly
crowd, but please take that seriously.
Tinnitus is a big deal.
I never understood what brain fog was.
I never really understood that until I went to a grocery store, and this was, like, within
six months of my shot.
And I said out loud what I needed.
I needed four things, bread, elk, milk, butter.
I said it out loud.
Got the store.
Couldn't remember one thing.
And again, I'm an orthopedist, so I'm not the smartest knife in the block, okay?
And I'm not a peer quarry or a pulmeric, okay?
But I should have been able to remember those four things.
For me, that really solidified my understanding of brain fog.
What has resolved?
Fortunately, a lot have resolved, and those acute flu-like symptoms have, chest tightness,
palpitations, electrical feelings.
And again, I'm going to keep moving pretty quick because we have a fair amount to cover,
and I see this timer ticking down.
This, to me, is sad.
So start on the right side.
So before their shot, 77% said their overall health was very good or excellent.
Mine was.
I watered, skied, did tons of stuff, hiked.
Still, slalom skied, wakeboard.
I mean, I did a lot of stuff.
But look what happened to the shot.
Now, this is over two years out.
It's pretty sad, right?
So now look at how many people, you know, it's over 70% that are fair or poor.
That sucks.
That's my medical terminology.
Function.
You know, this is sad, too.
Look at, at worst is the dark bars.
So at worst, these people, at worst, they were really bad.
Okay, now, two plus years out, they're better.
They're better, but certainly struggling.
I want to talk about this a little bit.
For several things, there's a lot here.
Now, a vaccine advert, these are chart diagnoses.
Okay, this is what, you know, when you go into chart, what is it listed?
Two years ago, what would have been the top thing?
Anyone have a guess?
Anxiety.
Okay, so we're making progress.
Okay, we're making progress.
The top is now a vaccine adverse reaction.
That's progress.
It's not anxiety.
But still, that's not what I want to see.
To me, that's an umbrella diagnosis, and we've got to get better.
We've got to get better to, to more specific pathophysiological
diagnoses.
I know there's a ton of people trying to get, you know, down to
the cellular level and understand things and get better
diagnoses and differentiate all of our syndromes.
Suzanne Gazda is one that I know is working hard from the neuro
component.
The other thing I wanted you to recognize is everyone in the
same media and a lot of people talk about myocarditis.
Okay?
And, and I admit myocarditis is horrible.
And our study is about 4.7% of people.
Add all the stuff up on the left that involves neurology.
70 to 80%.
So 70 to 80% of us have some component of a neurological
adverse event.
But all the talk and some of our frustration is about myocarditis.
And that's, I'm not saying that's wrong, but majority of us have
a neurological component to our adverse event.
Not just 50%, at least 70 to 80%.
We need to recognize that.
And we, you know, Dr. Kohn says here, Suzanne Gazda is here.
I mean, they're two people.
They're great.
We need 1,000 of them to understand and treat these people.
Again, this is in the cancer.
This is just in the survey.
4% had a new cancer since the diagnosis.
You know?
Does that, is that causal relationship?
No, sure.
It's just, it's just correlation.
But, you know, these type of numbers make me want to think,
I want to study this more.
Now, diagnostic testing and our diagnostic guide, we're not
trying to tell you providers what to do.
What we're doing in this slide is reflecting back what injured
people have told us has guided progress in their diagnosis
and treatment.
Skin, you know, skin biopsy.
Autonomic testing.
Tiltable.
Autoantibodies.
Histamine.
Cardiovascular, particularly MRI with contrast.
And markers of inflammation.
I was always taught in medical school, don't order a test.
If it doesn't change your management.
And the truth of the matter is, I continue to ask provider after
provider, when you get these autoantibody tests, what do you
do with them?
The vast majority of them say, nothing.
But remember in this patient population where one of the
goals in this whole talk is acknowledgement, a positive,
pertinent positive test is incredibly helpful for them.
They've gone, saw 8 to 10 providers, told they were nuts
because all the testing is negative.
And getting a positive test that it doesn't even change
management for them can be very beneficial psychologically and
just because it helps them move forward.
And that's why I say the small fiber neuropathy, the neuropathy
skin biopsy test, remember it's a very high false negative rate.
So if it's negative, it doesn't mean they don't have it.
But if it's positive, it can really help them.
And oftentimes just getting one test that they can say, okay,
I'm not crazy.
It's very, very important.
This is the top four pharmacological therapies in survey
three that were reported.
Vitamin D, metakinesis, magnesium, and oral steroids.
I don't want to be, you know, pop Paul's balloon on vitamin D,
but at least in the survey, unfortunately, 66% of people said
no change.
And really the only one that was over 40, over 50% for helpful
steroids.
Non-pharmacological therapies, which were helpful.
Okay.
Physical rehab is really just more aggressive physical therapy,
whether it be inpatient or for hours a day in physical therapy.
But you have to be careful.
If you don't respect the injury, and this is my biggest fault
in my whole thing as I overdo it, because I'm just going to live
my life and screw it, you pay the price.
And that's why when you look at limiting exercise and exertion,
but limiting exercise really could be very helpful.
I mean, for a while I wanted to go back to work, so I'd work out
like really aggressively every other day for a week.
And I'd be in the culture in bed for a week.
So I learned I just have to respect my injury.
I don't really do it.
And I do what I want.
I pay the price, but I'm going to live my life.
And too bad.
These other therapies, obviously you can see hydration, salt intake,
obviously it has to do with some of the dysautonomia and POTS,
the alcohol, caffeine, maybe related to mast cell issues.
But some of these things, again, just like Paul Merrick says,
they're really simple things.
Diet change, often low histamine diet, intermittent fasting,
relaxation, get your sleep.
A lot of these things will all be saying, just as Paul has said,
they're simple things to do.
This is a busy slide, but I want to talk a little bit about just
the left three columns.
First, look at the worst column.
This is stuff about diets, particularly low histamine diet,
intermittent fasting, prolonged fasting, low alcohol, et cetera.
Look at the worst column.
Very low numbers.
What does that mean?
These things are really safe.
They're not bad to try.
That's why, I mean, I agree with Paul Merrick,
is that everybody, we should be talking about these things,
including sleep and relaxation techniques, et cetera.
Now, in the helpful category here, the people that tried these
simple, low-cost, low-risk things got benefit.
So why don't we now, after this survey, go out and try to
convince a lot of these people to get over here?
Logical, right?
So that's when I look at this data, what I kind of start thinking about.
Emotional well-being.
This is actually an old slide, not survey three,
but what I just want to point out are a couple things.
Cognitive therapy, maybe helpful to some degree, about 50%.
Look at all these other things.
Free.
Online support communities reported as the most effective.
Why do you think we really guard and fight for our
social media-based support groups because of this information?
Now, what's next?
First of all, this slide is old.
But what it is, is all the symptoms on the x-axis across
and all the same symptoms on the y-axis.
So, of course, it's looking for correlations.
So when you compare the same symptom to the same symptom,
the correlation is one, and therefore it's a very, very dark
ground.
That's why you see that straight diagonal line.
But what we're trying to do, too, is pick out this data and say,
okay, one type of symptom may be correlated with another type
of symptom.
So this is an old slide, but the idea is to clean up the data,
look at symptom clusters, pairing therapies with the symptom
clusters, getting beyond just a one-size-fits-all treatment
for people.
And eventually, obviously, get the data published.
Now, I want to kind of quickly go over some literature.
And the injured people want to be part of the solution.
They do.
This is a bunch of studies that I'm going to show you quickly
that were actually done by injured people.
Okay?
Here's one.
Here's another one, small-fiber neuropathy.
Again, injured people are involved in all of these studies.
Okay?
Here's one, again, small-fiber neuropathy.
Small-fiber neuropathy.
Small-fiber neuropathy.
Look at this one if you look.
Denise Hertz.
Denise Hertz is on our advisory board.
She's a retired GI doc, but very smart, very helpful,
wants to be involved.
Next, the listen study.
Look at the two people that are highlighted in blue.
Denise Hertz again.
Brian Dressen, my co-chair.
Okay?
This was published, and this is really through David Petrino
out of Mount Sinai, as well as Akiko Iwasaki and Krumholtz
out of Yale.
So they looked at symptom quality of life and treatment.
They found that over 500 different treatment or reports were
reported, and the most effective treatments were reported
are limiting exercise and exertion, quitting alcohol,
hydration, increasing salt, and intermittent fasting.
Kind of all comes back.
You start hearing the same things again that we can all do,
which are very cheap and very low risk.
Next, this is our attempt again.
This is an old slide, but what we're doing here is basically
trying to take our common diagnoses on the left and put them
together, you know, with different symptoms on the right.
And again, this will all be in.
And the one thing I forgot to say is that anytime we referred
to any, or there's any reference, that is live.
Meaning you can click on it and get the actual paper,
the actual reference.
I forgot to say that.
I have to talk about this slide a little bit, or this study.
This was a study done in 2021, and I don't know if,
it never made it to, it never got published,
but it came out in the preprint servers.
This was a study of 23 people with neurological adverse events
early in 2023 that were identified.
They were sent out on planes on the NIH's dime,
flown to the NIH, housed at the NIH under Dr. Arvin Nath.
Treatment protocols were made.
People were sent home.
Dr. Nath and other colleagues communicated with their regular
doctors.
Said don't say anything, but we're going to work on this and
get these protocols down and share this with the rest of the
country.
Guess what happened?
Nothing.
So what did this study say?
At least the preprint said.
Well, it said a couple of things.
Neurological adverse events after the shots are real,
and those 23 people, including Brian Dressen is one of them.
They're real.
Neurological adverse events.
But to this day, the FDA does not admit to the safety signal
of the neurological adverse events, which is crazy,
because that's the majority of them.
It's insane.
The only thing the FDA will admit to safety signals,
and correct me if I'm wrong, Bre, anaphylaxis, myocarditis,
and in J&J, some blood clotting stuff.
It's insane.
And remember, they use those safety signals as a decision
whether to compensate someone.
That's how insane and backwards and effed up this is.
But this study itself is, to me, if the world knew what happened
back in 2021 and the information didn't get out there,
I think the general public would be infuriated.
But what they did say, though, is neurological events,
the neurological adverse events occur.
Time is of the essence.
Early treatment results and better results.
That was 2021.
I think they meant less than three years.
It's bullshit.
But they also said there are treatments.
There are immunomodulatory therapies, particularly prednisone.
And if all else fails, IVIG, that works.
We're out there, we're an advocacy organization,
screaming, talking to doctors, neurologists.
I mean, Bre and I were on a call with a neurologist
in a Berlin hospital, Suzanne Gossel was to,
at three in the morning, trying to convince this neurologist
basically to treat this seven-year-old kid with IVIG.
It's insane.
The world's crazy.
I thought at least in 2021 I was crazy,
but I think the world is crazy or it's evil.
But the other thing that was brought in the study
is about complement and how complement deregulation
may be associated with some of these neurological disorders.
And we only included this because we don't hear a lot about it.
So on these diagrams here on the top is your controls.
And then here's staining for complement.
This is the big-time activation of complement.
And is that complement activation part of then anethylamine
and neural damage?
And is it possible that some of the complement inhibitory drugs
that are used in these other conditions might work?
Again, this is a recent article.
I don't certainly mean to be an expert in this.
I just want to bring up, I mean, there's certainly literature
to think about other things and potentially other drugs,
but I would leave the details of that to people
like Dr. Kohns and Dr. Gosta.
Again, this is a neurology.
This is Arvanath again.
Look at the date, October of 2001.
And I just want you to focus on the high-lit or the bolded area.
I got denied from my CACP claim, which was I expected it.
I'm not upset about it.
I expected it.
But they said transverse myelitis has not been associated
with the COVID shots.
So I sent them this paper.
I said, do you guys talk to your own partner at the NIH,
who is a doctor and an athlete?
They never responded.
So I just said it to be a jerk.
But it said these include strokes, cranial neuropathies,
including Bell's policy, tinnitus, trigeminal neurology,
peripheral neuropathies, dysautonomia,
and disseminated encephalomyelitis, transverse myelitis, and AIDP.
And also, again, back then, in 2021,
immune-mediated and early recognition in treatment
with immunomodulatory therapies might be warranted.
Okay?
Why didn't this get communicated to everyone else?
Why didn't this go to the FDA, the CDC?
Why didn't this go to the major health organizations,
which then could communicate some of this information,
down to the treating providers on the front lines?
On the right side of the slide, women,
they admitted even back then,
women rare clotting events primarily among young women
aged 18 to 49.
And then lastly, they said, all of these issues
illustrate theoretical concerns for both patients
and physicians and must be acknowledged.
What happened?
We're in 2024.
Thank God we have all of you here.
But, you know, that's crazy.
I'm just going to go over a couple of quick slides
because my time is running out.
This is a pot study.
I just want to go over this pot study a little bit.
And again, you can, if you have this presentation,
which I hope you all can get,
you can hit, like, on these analysis
and it'll go to the whole paper in the analysis.
But this study found that five conditions
with the highest post-vaccination odds of new diagnoses
were myocarditis, dysautonomia,
POTS, mass cell activation, and urinary tract infection.
Why is that? I don't know.
Maybe it's related to the autonomic dysfunction.
I don't know.
Women were more likely to be diagnosed with dysautonomia
and POTS than myocarditis.
But in this study, the POTS group was certainly high in men.
POTS therapies, I'm not going to go into detail
just because we're running out of time.
Obviously, we view this a little bit as right on the left
is your first-line treatment for POTS
and dysautonomia, salt intake, food record as own.
But IVIG and SCIG has side effects,
but for some people, can work.
One of the biggest challenges is cost.
Breanne Dresson, I think, pays $10,000 every two weeks
for her maintenance dose.
It's hard to get approved.
Even to get approved and if you get approved,
it costs a lot of money, so that's tough.
There's a new paper out that I was just looking into
about IV fluids and her albumin,
really showed that this could be effective as IVIG
for non-immune, autoimmune patients.
We did some work into VAERS.
And this is just, we asked some patients about VAERS
who logged it in.
Most patients had to do it themselves, so 52.75%.
A lot of people just didn't do it.
But I want to go to this slide.
We did a VAERS audit.
We looked at 126 people that we knew
that tried to submit a VAERS report.
I want you to pay attention to these numbers here.
12% were deleted.
22%, so a third of the people submitted
or tried to submit a report, they either got deleted.
The FDA will tell you they were duplicates.
Bullshit, we checked that.
They either deleted or they never got a permanent ID.
And the FDA will tell you, well, they're in the internal VAERS.
What's that?
Now we found out by talking to Peter Marks
on the phone and taping the conversation
that there's an internal VAERS.
Okay, how do we FOIA that?
But again, this is really, really concerning.
And VAERS stinks, and I could give you
an hour-long talk about VAERS,
but this VAERS audit was extremely concerning
that a third of the people were either deleted
or there was no permanent ID assigned.
Safety signals, some of you may have seen this CDC analysis.
This is the CDC's information, okay?
Remember, the FDA says, you know,
the only safety signals they see is myocarditis, you know,
anaphylaxis, and for J&J clotting.
But, you know, this is the CDC's analysis
saying they found 770 plus safety signals,
500 higher than myocarditis.
Crazy.
We also are partnered with open VAERS.
So what that means is some of the piezoVAERS,
they can also, through our website,
we have a collaboration with open VAERS,
they can actually follow it.
So they'll get notified if their VAERS report was published,
it's pending, or if it was deleted,
and then we'll search it down.
My time is out, and the rest of these slides
are all just reviews.
So, we want to partner with all of you,
all providers and people that are interested.
We need you.
We need you in this fight for a lot of reasons.
First of all, we need manpower to get this,
to keep this going, you know,
we need funding to keep this going.
But remember, what we really need is,
is to go back for these injured people
and continue to press forward with acknowledgement,
care, and compensation.
We won't quit till we win.
Period.
Thank you.
APPLAUSE
Oh, thank you, Joel.
Yeah, thanks.
So, while we're waiting for some questions to come up,
I have one, I didn't, I had to step out,
so if I missed it, I apologize.
But have you looked into, I didn't see lots come up.
Is that part of your survey?
It's not.
Certainly, I'm well aware of how bad is my batch.
You know, I'm the number two worst Moderna batch.
You know, I, we haven't really done that.
You know, I think there's a whole world of information
that's interesting of the batch differences,
the DNA plasmids.
I mean, I didn't even go into that.
So.
But you think it's relevant?
Absolutely, it's relevant.
Yeah.
Well, remember, we're still,
I mean, we still have to stay focused on who we are,
just we are an advocacy organization.
You know, we're not, you know, we're not,
we don't have the capacity to be a full investigative team.
We want to be, you know, we've turned over a lot of stuff
to the investigative teams in the house.
They're certainly very focused on the origins of COVID
versus a lot of the other stuff that's happened.
But we have to remain true to ourselves,
which is our goal is to be advocates
for the Americans injured by the COVID shots.
Yeah, I understood.
And we have a question here that asks,
now that so many people are both vaccinated and COVID,
hard to tell if long COVID versus the vaccine injury,
what's what, how do they fit in with your support research,
et cetera?
So that's a great question.
I mean, early on, it was clear, right?
You know, a lot of people didn't,
not so many people had COVID and the COVID,
the vaccine injury started coming out now.
I mean, everyone's had COVID five times and, you know,
it's confusing.
So we want to support,
and sometimes I think you just can't tell, right?
So we don't care.
I mean, our advocacy organization,
if we can partner with long COVID organizations,
I'm all for it because I don't want to help these people.
I call them patients, but I want to help these people.
And I don't care if it's long COVID or it's vaccine injury
or it's both.
So for me, those barriers as time has passed
are all falling down.
Now, it's interesting that you mentioned an internal VAERS.
That's news to me.
Have you run across the V-safe data yet?
Well, sure, the V-safe data, again,
so you give it to 10 million people, right?
The little app, 780,000 people sought medical care,
and I've seen this misquoted,
but it's within 12 months after the shot.
That's 7.8% of the people had to seek medical care.
But is it related to the shot?
I don't know.
We'll ask the question.
So that's how all of these reporting systems are rigged.
If you don't ask the questions,
it tells me you don't want to know the answer.
Okay?
But that's the V-safe stuff, you know, makes me sick now,
but look at what Aaron Seere just did.
Again, through FOIA request, got the free text,
because they wouldn't release the free text section.
So all of these reporting systems are rigged,
in my opinion, to hide, to deceive.
That's it.
They're just designed poorly,
and even they'll sometimes say,
oh, well, it has the limitations.
Well, you guys made the survey.
If you're admitting its weaknesses, fix it.
But talking to them is like talking to someone
with a hole in the head.
Well, it relates to this question,
is it even worth submitting a VAERS report?
They're a lot of work.
They might be ignored.
They will be ignored.
But my hope, and I tell everybody,
I would recommend that you submit your VAERS,
because I'm an optimist.
I'm hoping someday these barriers to truth
and transparency are taken down.
I think if you don't report it, they'll just say,
well, it's your fault.
You don't report it.
At least you reported it, and hopefully someday
we'll be able to get this crap out of the open.
My goal, personally, is, again,
you guys are all believers here.
I think you know the truth, right?
But remember, there's a ton of people out there
that may be sympathetic or empathetic
to all of our mutual causes.
They just don't know.
So our goal, I think, is not just to speak to each other
and pat each other on the back and say,
you guys are doing great things.
But we've got to get out there and kind of convince
what I call as the moldable middle
that we need to pressure our legislators.
We need to pressure our regulatory agencies.
We want science back.
We want truth and transparency back.
We want trust back.
They're worried about COVID shot injuries.
They should be worried now about general vaccine hesitancy.
They should now be worried about health care hesitancy.
I don't trust anybody anymore.
I'm a physician.
I'm sorry.
I don't like them.
I'll give you guys, you know, the physicians here,
you're believers, but otherwise,
I think they're spineless pieces of poop.
And I really think they're not scientists.
You know, and remember, look at the transition
in health care from when I first started practice,
70% were employed, 30% were...
No, when I first started practice,
70% were independent, 30% were employed.
That number switched.
Physicians of today, and again,
not intending insulting people here
because you guys know what's going on,
but for the majority of physicians now, they're employed.
They do what they're told.
They're not scientists.
They don't look at data.
They want to be told what protocols to follow.
They want to know how much they get paid.
They want to know how little call they take
and how much vacation they get.
Done. Then they go home.
And they want to be home by three o'clock.
That's shitty health care.
But that's what we got.
So since you came down this path,
were you a vaccine advocate before?
And then are you...
Where do you fall in that spectrum, though?
Well, I was really vaccinated different.
I didn't even think about it.
You know, I always say I was in the hamster wheel of life.
I just worked, and I loved it.
Believe me, I love working.
You know, with React, we have to be careful.
So we run a gauntlet, which is, you know,
the left attacks us because we're anti-vaxxers,
which is insulting.
Okay?
For them to say that because we just got the damn shot.
Okay?
Now, on the side, I'll tell you,
wow, I learned a lot.
Recently, I read turtles all the way down,
eye-opening.
So I wouldn't say that publicly.
I'm not ready to,
because I don't want to put React at any compromise
because I don't want doors to be shut
for this advocacy organization.
And then the right people say,
oh, we're stupid, we shouldn't have got the shot.
And then there's one guy that said,
oh, I should have died.
You know, so it's tough.
And, you know, we run a little bit of the gauntlet
of we have to try to be careful with our words
and our narrative more than I think
a lot of other organizations.
You know, I don't use the word turbo cancer.
I don't use the word jab.
I don't use anything that could impede me trying
to get people that are just unaware of what's going on
to our side of believing.
And that's our strategy at React.
We call it cool, common, collected.
You know, we can't be banging drums and scaring people
because they'll just walk away.
And that's what we want to get that group engaged
because they're out there.
And they're starting to wake up, right?
How do you know?
Well, what's the booster uptake now?
People are waking up.
You know, Fauci admits.
Six feet deal.
I just kind of made up.
People are picking it up.
It's happening.
We just got to keep getting all those people.
You know, there's the opposite of us,
which I call the crazy people.
Anything that's black, they say it's white.
Anything that's white, they say black.
Screw them.
I don't talk.
They're not worth my time.
I don't argue with them.
I just ignore them.
But there's a ton of people out there
that could be our partners.
And we need to go out and engage with them
and get them on our side.
Well, you're really getting to the heart of something
that's important that I've learned slowly
because I'm a quick learner eventually.
Took me forever to realize I wasn't having
database conversations that what I was up against
was a system of beliefs, right?
Belief is something somebody in authority told you
that you believed in for a while.
Santa Claus, right?
So to change beliefs, it turns out having that
neutral approach is actually really important
because beliefs are not in the cortex with your data.
Beliefs are in your amygdala, they're emotional.
So you can't have that emotional reaction.
I mean, I think it's a very smart approach you're taking
because if you want to reach those people
who are ready to be reached,
it has to be done cool, calm, and collected.
Yeah, absolutely.
You know, we just don't have that freedom
to make many mistakes in our narrative.
We just have to be very careful because, you know,
we are kind of somewhat of the proof
of the code of vaccines weren't safe, right?
And people want to find anything to say we're nuts.
So if we continue to be cool, calm, and collected,
we start to tear down those barriers
and they start to run out of things to call us crazy about.
Do I know of anything in the works to end that bill from 1986
even called the PREP Act?
Those lawsuits, the one lawsuit,
maybe it'll be another one sometime,
really about taking down a CICP
is really to some degree going after the PREP Act
and saying the PREP Act immunity,
okay, because of the immunity it gives,
prevents us of our constitutional rights
to do process and jury trial.
So that one suit that's out there now
that was filed in October in Louisiana
is actually really underlying going after the PREP Act.
There are some representatives
that are actually directly going after the PREP Act
and trying to dissolve it.
There's Paul Gosar from Arizona who's right here.
Nick Bell, his legislative assistant,
is kind of writing it.
It'll be some port through, I don't know,
and don't quote me on this, but Tom Massey from Kentucky,
I know there's been some discussion about it,
but that's an uphill battle.
In my mind, from a realistic perspective,
we're going to court to try to get discovery for two things.
Show American public that this is all horse manure.
But second of all, to get the American public
to put pressure on the politicians,
not just Breanne and I and 10 other people going out
and saying, hey, you got to do this legislative reform,
but getting millions of people demanding the politicians
get compensation reform yesterday.
And that's really the intention of lawsuits.
Do I think we'll probably win
or win $10 million or $2 now?
Do I think the PREP Act will dissolve? No.
But I do think the lawsuits definitely serve as an impetus
and a reminder for them to kind of get moving.
Well, excellent.
I think our last question is going to be,
what is different about Yale among its counterpart universities
that seems to allow a bit of truth to get through?
It's all about, I think, the individual investigators, okay?
They've had battles with Yale,
so I would focus on the investigators and not the institution
because there was battles to get this one to go through.
And Kramholtz and Iwasaki are the credit goes to them,
not their institution.
Is that okay to say, Bre?
I just want to make sure I'm being politically correct,
but that's the truth.
Well, excellent.
Well, thank you, Dr. Walskog.
Very much appreciated all your work.
React 19, thank you.
Thank you all.
Thank you.
