You all probably know Mary Holland. I'm not sure you know all the details. She's President
of Children's Health Defense, or CHD. She also formally taught law. I mean, she's not
just a lawyer. She's a law professor at good schools, NYU in Columbia, and she's edited
books that you may have heard of one called Turtles All the Way Down. If you haven't,
read it. Oh my goodness, what a good read that is. Anyway, a little bit on to say about
the mission of CHD is to end the epidemic of chronic childhood diseases, to hold responsible
those who are accountable for the whole thing, to create safeguards so that these epidemics
never happen again, and we couldn't be happier at FLCCC than to partner with Children's Health
Defense, and Mary particularly. You know, through its education, advocacy, litigation,
and research, CHD challenges federal and state governments, pharmaceutical companies, corporations,
and corrupt regulatory agencies to end the practices that simply harm our health. Mary's
background as a lawyer and advocate is critical to this fight. She's testified before Congress,
or many state legislators. She is right there, and Mary, just take it away.
Betsy, thank you so much. Thank you so much for that generous introduction. So I want
to focus today on what we're doing at Children's Health Defense, in the legal arena in particular,
to protect doctors like Paul Merrick, and Pierre Corrie, and all the doctors and health
care practitioners who are working at FLCCC. And thank you so much, Betsy, for telling
a little bit about Children's Health Defense. But I want to pick up, I came to the earlier
presentation here by Jeffrey Tucker, another organization that we work with, Brownstone.
And a couple points he made that I just want to touch base to. So one of the things that
I think is unique about Children's Health Defense is that we do want to hold the bad
actors accountable for the epidemics of chronic disease in children and now in adults from
COVID. If we don't do that, like he said, it's going to happen again. It was lucrative.
If there's no accountability, it will happen again. And they're working on it already,
pandemic preparedness. So I'm going to show you what we've been doing. And I can't tell
you we're always successful. We're not. But it's critical that we try to hold bad actors
accountable. He made the point that one of the important dimensions of FLCCC and of Brownstone,
also of Children's Health Defense, is we are completely fact driven. We are not doing
anything where we can't show you the sources. We're all about the citations. We're all about
this has got to be fact based so that we can convince anybody if they're willing to look,
if they're willing to open their eyes. We're not talking about conspiracies, so called.
But as many people have said, conspiracies often turn out to be true. But we won't talk
about them unless we can rigorously prove them. So one of the things that I think important
about both FLCCC and Brownstone and some of the other organizations that are partner groups
here is they came to life during COVID. And thank God for that. I'm so grateful to have
colleagues like FLCCC and Brownstone, highly credentialed, intelligent, thoughtful, dynamic
institutions that are growing in this space of the extraordinary failure of all of our
major institutions, the universities, the think tanks, the hospitals, et cetera, government.
But in a certain way, Children's Health Defense kind of had the jump on that, right? Because
we had been focused on the injuries to children from the compulsory vaccination schedule that's
been going on really in a big way since the 1960s. So Children's Health Defense grew out of
something called the World Mercury Project, which is specifically focused on mercury and
vaccines. There was a preservative called thimerosol that was used quite pervasively, still
is, in most parts of the world. And then we rebranded and it became Children's Health
Defense in 2018. So we were already contemplating lawsuits against the pharmaceutical industry
against the state departments of health for their mandates for children about the repeal
of the religious exemption in New York state as an example for children. We sort of had
a jump. We knew a lot more in a certain way than the newer institutions, that all these
things were combined and that one approach alone wasn't going to be sufficient. And I
think Jeffrey mentioned a book that Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the founder of Children's
Health Defense, published, I think in 2021, was the real Anthony Fauci. And that book
really is a panoramic view of how the system works. It's not just National Institutes of
Health and Tony Fauci. It's not just the hospitals. It's not just pharma. It's not just the universities.
It's a system. And it's a captured system. And it's not about our health. It is about
a sick system. And there's no question that for decades, the health system, such as it
was, was harming people, a lot of people. So I want to focus today on defending the
doctors. But I also want to say we do, as Betsy mentioned, education, advocacy, science
and litigation. We have a free newsletter, the Defender that comes out every day. We
have a streaming platform. We have, like, basically, CHDTV every day. We are on social
media. We're publishing peer-reviewed science. And one of the main areas I'm not really going
to touch on, but we're really at the forefront of litigating against the censorship that's
been endemic. And as we were saying in Jeffrey Tucker's talk, this new program, this sort
of global program, using medicine to control the population, using public health, censorship
is integral to that program. Their program to use public health as a means of social
control cannot work unless they control so-called misinformation. So we're doing a lot in that
space, too. But like I said, I want to focus today on what we're doing to defend healthcare
practitioners because we don't do treatment, right? We don't, we don't give medical advice.
We don't do treatment. And one of the things I've really learned during the last four years
is that courts follow culture. Courts are not separate and apart from the general public
opinion. And as we talked about this morning, you know, both in the main hall in here with
Jeffrey Tucker, there was panic, right? March, you know, if you get within six feet of somebody,
you could die, right? If you don't take this test, if you don't take this, if you don't
wear your mask, you know, you're going to kill somebody, you're going to kill Granny.
Granny needs to be separated in a nursing home because she could infect you, you could
infect her. There was real panic leading to these lockdowns and so on, which was all,
I think, I certainly see this as a scam, but there was real panic. And then, so the courts,
and we were in the courts in 2020 and 2021, they were panic-stricken, right? I had one
federal judge in New York City, we were challenging, there was compulsory, random, PCR, polymerase
chain reaction testing in New York City public schools. Children six and up could be yanked
out of their classroom, have something stuck up their nose by a person they've never seen
before and that was required to go to school. So we challenged that and we had a judge who
spent 20 minutes reading into the record, CNN, right? Oh my God, people are dying. This
is the worst thing that's ever happened in the world. You know, everybody needs to like
lock down and follow the rules. So the courts were very much a part of the social fabric.
The courts were very reticent to get involved. They, in a lot of cases, they would say you
don't have standing and I'll show you that. That means like we don't think that you actually
have a real case or controversy. That's a lot of times what a court will do when they're
like, I don't want to deal with this political red, you know, appetito. But by 2022, people
were starting to get their bearings. By 2023, last year, Catherine Austin Fitz, one of the
people we work with who does a show on CHGTV Financial Rebellion, she's looked at this
and said, you know, this was the year of pushback. People got their bearings and there was pretty
much, you know, across the board social pushback. And I think that that's continuing. We understand
now that this was a scam. We understand they're preparing for the next one, the pandemic preparedness
industry. And I actually do believe there have been victories I'm going to show you. But I think
that now is the time to stay the course. And I think Jeffrey Tucker made the same point this
morning. Now is not the time to sort of say, Oh, thank God, COVID is over. You know, I'm just
going to go back to my life. Now is the time to hold those actors accountable. So it doesn't
happen again. All right. So what happened? I mean, there was a huge push towards coercive
medicine, right? This is the eradication of the Nuremberg Code is the eradication of the
ethics of modern medicine, that there has to be the sanctity of the doctor patient relationship.
And the patient has to be able to make decisions about their own, you know, about their own
health. So that there is clearly an agenda to force people to take treatments and vaccines
and anything else, lockdowns, masks. This is the agenda. And it was on full display during
COVID, as well as censorship and retaliation, retaliation of, you know, if a healthcare worker
wouldn't take the shots, the COVID shots, they lost their jobs, they lost their pension, they
couldn't get unemployment benefits. The level of retaliation, the spitefulness of these
captured institutions was really remarkable. And not only that, we saw profound ignorance
about COVID and what was actually effective, delayed treatments. I mean, basically, they
closed down the hospitals for anything except for COVID, right? And a lot of the hospitals
were empty, we know. So people couldn't continue with their kidney, you know, dialysis, they
couldn't continue with their cancer treatments, lots of deaths and illness from that. Suppression
of ivermectin, as we're hearing about hydroxychord and erosion of public trust, people saw like,
what's going on? This is weird. Why are, why is the FDA saying, you know, don't take horse
paced, right? Like people legitimately had questions. So, you know, a children's health
fence, like I say, we sort of got a jump on this because we were already working in this
space. So we do advocacy litigation. We've been working with dissident doctors, if you
will, for a long time. We've been doing public education. And we, this was from our first
conference last year. And we've got a big team. So one of the cases that we brought in 2021
was actually on behalf of Dr. Paul Merrick, one of the founders of FLCCC, the lead attorney
was an outside counsel, Jed Rubin felt he's on the faculty at Yale School of Law. So Dr.
Merrick was basically fired by his hospital, Sinatra Healthcare. And so we thought that
that was completely unjustifiable. And so we represented him. And again, I'm saying 2021
was still the panic mode. So they fired him because he wasn't following the guidelines
that in his practice, he could see were leading to death. Far more people following his protocol
were surviving. He wanted, of course, the discretion as a physician to treat people to
save their lives. And basically, he wasn't able to do that. So we brought an injunction,
he brought an injunction that the hospital's guidelines were unenforceable. And the trial
court in Virginia dismissed the case. And then the only place to appeal that decision in state
court in Virginia was the Supreme Court of Virginia. They also denied the petition. So this is
2021, 2022. Important to fight back, right on behalf of Dr. Merrick, but we lost. So another case
that we've been involved in for several years now is on behalf of Dr. Merrill Nass, I think Jeffrey
Tucker mentioned her, I'm not sure if Paul Merrick did. But Dr. Nass has been another Dr. Heroin
Hero. She has been outspoken. The narrative doesn't make sense. And ivermectin works, right? So what
she did was in the state of Maine, where she had an integrative medicine solo practice.
She was not, the pharmacies would not fulfill an ivermectin prescription unless you told the
pharmacy that it was for lupus. They would not fill it for COVID. They had received instructions.
The board of pharmacy had received these instructions from on high. So she called the
pharmacy for her patient said, you know, give my patient ivermectin for lupus and then poking the
bear, right? She immediately calls the board of health and she, the board of medicine of Maine
and says, I just gave a prescription based on lupus because I couldn't do it for COVID, but it was
really for COVID. So immediately, immediately they suspended her license. They then tried to have her
get a neuropsychiatric evaluation. And they, you know, sought penalties against her. So she's gone
through for a year and a half this essentially a kangaroo court. And one of the most exciting
things to me was because it was during lockdowns and COVID, it was on zoom. So we put her hearing by
the board of Maine Medical on CHDTV. At one point, we had 180,000 people watching essentially this
kangaroo court. So that was like, I love that. That was great. But again, the retribution has
not stopped, right? So they found against her. They found that she had violated all kinds of
nonsense, frankly. There was not a single complaint by any of the patients, right? She prescribed
ivermectin to three patients. They all got better. They all said it was fantastic care.
I'm not even remembering, but the complaint was kind of a ridiculous complaint.
At any rate, they found that, you know, her license remains suspended. But
she's now, I'm sorry, we have supported her to bring an action against the Maine Medical Board
that they were involved essentially in malicious prosecution, right? This was really to send a
message to other practitioners. They wanted to make an example of outspoken Dr. Nass. And so we've
got a case right now. She has a case right now in federal court in Maine against the members of the
Maine Medical Board in their individual capacity. So, you know, putting a little bit of the fear
of God in them of like, you cannot do these abusive things that are retaliatory. And we'll
see where that goes. There's, we just had a hearing, I think a week or so against a week or so ago,
and it was for their, the, the board's motion to dismiss. Yeah. So Jean Libby is a Maine attorney.
So one of the things we have to deal with is you have to have lawyers who are qualified in the
local jurisdiction. Jean Libby is somebody who, a lawyer on our staff practiced in Maine for 20
years. This is a lawyer that she knew. He's done an excellent job. He had worked for the
Attorney General's office. They're being represented by the Attorney General. So he is not on our staff,
but he's the lead attorney in that case. And he's also the lead attorney. He was the lead
attorney defending her as well. So here's another case. Oh yeah, sure. Yeah.
You know, what I'm really hopeful is that they, yeah, they're not going to go to prison. Do you
want to wait till the end for questions? Yeah. We need to wait for the end. I'm sorry. Okay,
because we don't hear it on the audio. I'm sorry. We'll wait till the end. But I'll just say on that
it's hard to know what the penalties against the board would be. They're not going to be criminal
sanctions. But what would really be important is if we have that win, that would set a precedent.
And maybe there would be something that we could do. The real brains of this state medical board
operation is called the Federation of State Medical Boards. It's a private group. It's based in Texas.
And they are the ones who are putting out these crazy guidelines and basically directing what
doctors can and can't do around the country. So that would be my hope that this might lead to
an action against the Federation of State Medical Boards. So New York state has been like Maine,
like California, like Virginia, one of the states that's been particularly harsh in all respects,
but particularly against healthcare workers. So in New York state, the medical people, all the
people in the medical profession were subjected to COVID vaccine mandates. And they said there
was no religious exemption for medical professionals, leading to 34,000 medical professionals being
put out of their jobs, either resigning or being terminated in New York state, causing a real shortage
of healthcare workers, right? About a 5 to 10 percent deficit. And medical institutions across
the state had to close down certain units. So in fact, Sujata Gibson, again, an outside council
that we work with, she realized that under the New York state law, the Department of Health
that had issued this regulation requiring these COVID shots for all healthcare workers,
they didn't have the authority to do that, that had to go to the New York state legislature.
And so she brought with our support and action against the New York state Department of Health
that they were not entitled to bring this mandate. And furthermore, she made the argument that you
can't mandate a shot that doesn't stop transmission, right? There's no logic in that. It's irrational.
And in fact, that was the winning argument in a case in the Supreme Court of India,
which stopped the compulsory vaccination of potentially up to a billion people in India.
So a very important, you know, there's people around the world who are working on these issues.
So January this last year, right, a judge, New York state court on in Dogga County of state ruled
that the mandate was null void and unenforceable. And also that, in fact, the New York State
Department of Health did not have the competence to issue that mandate. And that it had violated
separation of powers. They'd overstate it. They'd overstep their regulatory authority.
And that, in fact, this mandate was arbitrary. Well, of course, the state was not very happy
about that. The powers that be such as they were obviously were not happy. They appeal this decision.
They go to oral argument before the appellate division. And they say, basically, oh, court,
we're just about to rescind the mandate. The pandemic is over. So you should just nullify that
decision below that said that the mandate, you know, was irrational and null and void.
And so what happened was that New York state, in fact, did repeal the COVID vaccine mandate
for health care workers. Many of those health care workers are now going back to work. We're
looking at whether we can get them back pay and so on. But what was important, and this is very
important, it's still a trial court decision. So this is not a high court precedent, but
the decision from the trial court that set a mandate of a shot that doesn't stop transmission
is irrational and null and void. So this is a small triumph, right? This is a small triumph
for when the next one comes, you know, that's a win. So, you know, this was very exciting.
New York state basically had to back down. It was an important victory. And again,
pushing back in these states like New York and California that have been so virulent in their
sort of ideology about we control your health is important. So I mentioned, you know, censorship
is at the heart of the use of public health for social control, for police control effectively.
And we are doing it in a number of contexts, but one of them is there's real efforts to censor
doctors, right? And so in California, California legislature actually passed a law that said
that doctors can lose their licenses if they go outside of the government narrative. Whatever
the government says is true about COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines, if a doctor in an individual
consultation with a patient says, you know, I don't agree with that, my reading of the science
says something different, that doctor could lose their license. So we filed a lawsuit outside
attorney Rick Jaffe. We filed a lawsuit against the, in this case, Dr. Bonta was the, I think Dr.
Bonta is the head of the Department of Health in California, but we also filed the case against
the osteopathic board and against the medical board. And this case was on behalf of Dr. Huang,
who's pictured on the right, but also on behalf of the Children's Health Defense California chapter,
the Physicians Reform Consent. And we said, you know, this violates Hippocratic Oath. This is
basically turning doctors into government agents. This is completely destroying the doctor-patient
relationship. And this law was passed by the California Legislature, both houses, and it was
going to take effect in January. But we brought the case, and basically we got a really important
victory in that case, that the judge agreed that that law could not go into effect. The judge
granted a preliminary injunction saying, until you change that or amend that law, that doesn't go
into effect. He said, his memorandum said, you know, this is drawing, drawing a line between
what's true and what's settled by scientific consensus is difficult, if not impossible.
So that was a huge victory. But what we could see immediately was the California medical board
and the osteopathic board and the powers that be, they were going to try to get around it.
They were going to try to do the same thing by different means. And the way they were clearly
going to try to do it is saying, well, under the standard of care, you must follow the government
narrative. And if you don't follow the government narrative, we'll still suspend your license.
So that lawsuit's been filed, sort of an amendment, and we call it now the medical misinformation
law. Pierre Corey's joined that, so the case is now called Corey v. Bonta, and the battle continues.
We have got to preserve our right to tell the truth and to get the truth out there to people.
If we succumb to laws that are in place around the world, attempts to control so-called misinformation,
it's going to be devastating as I think it was, I think it was Jeffrey Tucker who said earlier
this morning, I mean, essentially, they've already figured this out in China, right,
with the social credit scores and essentially their central bank digital currency. And in
Europe now, there are real penalties around speech. They've had hate speech in Europe,
very different than First Amendment protections in the United States for decades.
So this is a lot of where it is at for medical professionals and for the society in general,
this issue of misinformation, disinformation, malinformation, and the protection of free speech.
So exactly on free speech, this to me is an incredible case that the Washington
Medical Board, the Washington Medical Commission, it's amazing to me that they even brought this
case. So Washington's another one of, in my mind, just out there states and this stuff,
just really avant-garde trying to do stuff that in my mind is just crazy. So Dr. Eggleston,
a retired ophthalmologist in Washington, publishes a piece in a local newspaper in 2021 questioning
the official COVID narrative. That's all he did as a physician, a retired physician. He says,
I have concerns, like maybe they got it wrong. So the Washington Medical Commission charges
him for unprofessional conduct. And so this is a really important issue. What can a doctor say
that is professional speech or professional conduct? And what's the balance between being
a doctor and being licensed by the state and having rights to free speech as any citizen does?
So they had a hearing in May. He denied any misconduct. He claimed first amendment protections.
He filed an emergency motion to stay. The Washington Court of Appeals in May last year
granted an emergency injunction. So again, victory, we won. And it's a delay in the disciplinary
hearing. I'm not quite sure where that is right at the moment. I think that's continuing. I'm not
quite sure where this is. But you can see how deep this goes. A retired physician in a local
newspaper who questions the narrative, and they're going after him for disciplinary action.
So this is a series. I know you guys know this. This is a really serious fight we're in.
Okay. So another case where we're dealing with the medical arena. So one of our friends,
Gavin DeBekker, his father was being treated in a hospital in Nevada. And he was on Ivermectin,
but he needed to be hospitalized. And the hospital would not continue his Ivermectin.
And that led to, in their view, his deterioration and death. The power of attorney of the son
was that it should be continued. They provided all the science to the hospital. The hospital was
attempting to give him remdesivir. But I think they did actually administer the remdesivir,
which was a covered countermeasure. But that's not the allegation. We say that
what would have covered them, this sort of get out of jail card free, this indemnification law,
the PREP Act doesn't apply. This case lost at the, and so Pierre Corey has been an expert in this
case. And we're saying that they were medically negligent at this hospital. We lost at the trial
court level. But this case is now going up on appeal in Nevada in this month, I think, or March.
So this is an important, you know, this is an important case. One of the big issues around
the PREP Act, which is a 2005 law passed after 9-11, sort of in conjunction with the Patriot Act,
and many very aggressive laws that Congress passed, basically the PREP Act says that there's no
liability for a healthcare worker, for the pharmaceutical industry, for anybody in government,
for prescribing, giving, supporting, facilitating what are called covered countermeasures. And
that included all of the drugs for COVID-19, the patented ones, the Paxilvid, the remdesivir,
and it covers also all the COVID shots. So getting around that is important. And one way,
potentially, to get around it, and there have been a few successful cases, is in the area of
negligence. So that's a case that's ongoing right now. Another case that goes to the heart of the
capture of our medical regulators is a case that we filed in 2021 against the FDA. So the FDA
authorized the COVID-19 shot for children. First of all, children are almost, they don't get COVID,
it's extremely rare for a child to have a very serious case of COVID. And the shots were definitely
not proven to be safe in children. So we wrote a long petition, a citizen's petition to the FDA,
and we got a response that we thought was inadequate. So we filed a lawsuit, we filed it
in Texas on behalf of a group, a small group of Texas parents who were aligned with us.
Of course, we're looking for a jurisdiction we thought might be favorable. We thought this one
might be favorable. We wanted to hold the FDA accountable for its arbitrary and capricious
authorization of a harmful drug that's injuring children. So this is under the Administrative
Procedures Act. And you can basically challenge an agency if their actions are really arbitrary
and capricious. And we argued there really wasn't science to undergird what they were doing.
Sort of an involved argument. So we've been working with outside counsel Robert Barnes.
We argue that FDA was abusing the powers, the emergency powers that it had. And the Western
District of Texas dismissed the case not on the merits. It never got to the merits, but it said
you don't really have standing. This isn't really a case because your kids aren't being compelled
to take the COVID shot. And we said, Oh my God, you know, Big Bird is advertising COVID shots.
The kids are, you know, the teachers are sending home notes to the parents. They're showing videos
in school. And we also found out that in Texas, actually, there's a law that permits people
other than parents to take kids to get vaccinated. So in fact, there is a real threat that some,
you know, local Karen, if you will, takes your kid to go get a COVID shot. We also found out that
kids in foster care, if the foster care agency can't reach the parents within three days,
they can just go take them for vaccines. So for COVID shots, right? Emergency use
authorization products. So we felt like, sorry, there was a real threat to these children. There
what there is. And then the other thing that we found is you couldn't get certain kinds of care
for your kids in a hospital. If your kid needed a transfusion, that kid, they would not, if your
kid needed an organ transplant, your kid was really, really ill. In many of these hospitals,
they would not give the care unless the kid had the COVID shot. So we felt like we do have a basis
to claim standing. The court found that we didn't. We appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Fifth Circuit has just affirmed the decision below that we didn't have standing. And I'm
quoting Robert Barnes here. What I think is the fundamental question here is, if these plaintiffs
don't have standing, who does? Is the FDA essentially free from scrutiny? If citizens impacted by the
FDA and by an emergency use authorization can't sue the FDA? Really, if these families can't
sue the FDA and say you didn't have sufficient scientific basis, then is the FDA above the law?
That's really the question. Is the FDA above the law? We're going to appeal this to Supreme Court.
We'll see. I think we can all agree that lawyers here, like the doctors, are critical. And one of
the things I was on an early meeting with lawyers associated with FLCCC, and they all said, you
know, after the doctors, after they do what they're going to do to the doctors, they're going to go
after the lawyers. So we're all together. Of course, professionals are at the forefront, right?
If professionals stand up for the people, there is a front line of defense. If the professional
lines fall, it's really bad for people. So I do think that we lawyers are foot soldiers of the
Constitution, and it's only with support from great people like you that we're able to do what we do.
So thank you, and I'm happy to answer questions. Yes. Thank you.
Okay. Tanya's coming around. For those of you who raise your hand.
Hi. I'm married. These cases aren't free. No. Yeah. And so my question as you're going along is like,
wow, there's a lot of money being spent here or potentially being spent. So where is the money
coming from? You're sitting next to our Chief Development Officer, Georgios Yola. If you'd like
to give money, Bob, Georgios is the guy to talk to. I mean, you know, of course, it takes a lot of
money. So I'm glad you raised that question, Bob. I do think that one of the things that sets Children's
Health Defense apart is that we're doing a variety of things. And one of our real goals is to hold
people to account. It's not easy. You know, there's a few victories there. So far, we haven't hit the
pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. That's going to happen. I mean, I really believe that's
going to happen because what happened over the last four years was egregious. And there are going to
be people who are going to pay at the end of the day. But it's only going to be because we're building
that platform on which those cases ultimately are going to stand. It doesn't happen overnight. It
doesn't happen in one case. Warner Mendenhall can verify what I'm saying. It's got to be sort of
building up a basis. But we do need donations, right? We survive only on donations. We've been
blessed with many, many generous donors. But we work with outside counsel. We do have to pay them.
Most of them are very gracious and they charge us very discounted rates. But we have to have
competent local counsel wherever we bring a lawsuit. And we have to have lawyers who are
completely aligned with our mission. And so it's, you know, it's one of the challenges that we face.
Yeah.
I lost it. We'll come back to you, Bob. Okay, so the
I'm going to give it a. Okay, we'll come back. I think we've got we're good. Yeah, we've got plenty
of time. Yeah. For proactive reforms, what would you like to see? What do you think are priority
areas, you know, as opposed to more defensive actions? Well, many of these some of these are
defensive. Some of these are proactive, right? So we're defending doctors like Dr. Merrick and Dr.
Eggleston and Dr. Nass. But Dr. Nass's case is now on the offense, right, going against the board
members in their individual capacity. Our case against the FDA is an offensive proactive case.
A lot of the cases that so it's a combination, right? I don't think it's again, I don't think it's
either or the the the load star in my personal opinion, you know, so like I said at the beginning,
sort of I've been at this longer than COVID until we decimate the liability protection that the
industry and the government planners and the the you know, the healthcare providers until we
decimate that sort of liability protection, we're we're going to be at risk, right? So we have got
to undo this prep act. And there's a couple good cases on that right now that are in the works
that are actually been filed. And until we decimate the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine
Injury Act, we will not be free of this because all of the financial incentives for the industry
and for the healthcare practitioner is to give these interventions. There's if there's no liability
if they pay no penalty for dangerous products that harm people or that kill people, you know,
they're going to keep doing it. So to me, that's the ultimate one of the ultimate objectives here.
But we have a whole at the website of Children's Health Events, we have a whole sort of seven step
plan of the things to do. And we've got to step advertising direct to consumers, right, for prescription
drugs. We're one of two countries in the world. And in New Zealand, they have much fewer liability
protections. You know, we have to get rid of these private foundations inside our regulatory
bodies that basically capture them. They completely, you know, from the inside out infiltrated all
of these regulatory bodies. There's a lot of things that we need to do at both the state and at the
federal level. But I do feel like lawsuits are an important component of this. Yeah.
Yeah. Oh, we're right here. Hello. Everybody hear me? Okay.
Mary, I think I talked to you earlier and I thank you for being here. And I appreciate so much what
Children's Health Defense is doing. Everyone in this room for being here. Thank you for being here
because by virtue of you being here, you support me. What I try to do every day with respect to
the cases. And I see that the emphasis has been on administrative remedies, civil remedies. Has there
been any deliberate deliberation or thought or effort or discussion in pursuing criminal charges?
100%. And what I mean by criminal charges, indictments, we have so many states attorneys,
so many county attorneys, and so many dead people. I just like you to talk about that. Yeah.
You know, I dream about that day. You know, really, again, you know, when the liability
protection is gone, we're going to start to see a completely different landscape. When a few high
level individuals actually get sentenced to prison, that's going to send a message that hasn't been
sent. And I'm all in, you know, I'm all in. And I'm hoping that maybe Warner Mendenhall who's here,
who's going to give a talk tomorrow, maybe we'll talk about that. So far, like I said, we have to
remember that courts and law enforcement follow culture. Only now are the courts and law enforcement
getting to a place where they're out of the hysteria, they're out of the panic, and they're
starting to look in a more sober way at what just went down. I mean, they're starting to look at,
you know, the data and the stories and the allegations that people. One of the things
that we're doing right now, which I think is a really important effort that we're engaged in,
is we've got a bus going around the country that's called the Vax on Vax bus. And they're just taking
stories from people of all the vaccine injury from, you know, the DPT shot, the polio shot,
the MMR shot. That's been going on for decades, but it's kind of been kept under the radar.
But they're also getting the stories about the killing protocols in the hospitals and in the
doctor's offices, putting people on medicines that cause their death, putting them on ventilators,
and the financial incentives to do that. I do believe that at the end of the day,
we'll get to criminal sanctions, but we're not there yet. There's grand juries in some places,
which I think are interesting. And I will hope that Warner may address that more deeply tomorrow.
I'd like to add something to that. Do you need to prove fraud in the development of these,
the vaccine, or what do we call them? You know, that's what they call them.
These medicines in order to be able to get the protections withdrawn.
Well, it's interesting. Under the 1986 Act, the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act,
there is a provision that says if the pharmaceutical company perpetrated fraud on the regulator,
on the FDA, there is an out. And you can actually bring a lawsuit, and there's actually potentially
punitive damages. So we're supporting, in my mind, a very important lawsuit right now
against Merck for the Gardasil vaccine, which I believe was based on fraud. There were fraudulent
clinical trials, and there was deprivation of informed consent, and there was lack of warning,
but there was also real fraud. The COVID shots, I think, are slightly different because they were
under this different regime, under the PREP Act, their emergency use authorization, and there's
lots of different legal theories that are being tested out in the courts right now.
Is there any way to get to them? Yeah, there may be. There may be. There may be. But it's not,
they didn't make it easy, Betsy. I promise you. They gave this a lot of thought when they asked
all these laws with enormous walls of liability protection. Along that lines, I know they recently,
Steve Kirsch brought up adulteration, one of his substacks with the plasmids. Do you know where
that stands at deeming that that was, in fact, a violation? Again, I'm going to send you to listen
to Warner and Brook Jackson here tomorrow, because I think they're going to have more to say on that
that I can. We haven't really filed that kind of a lawsuit. And what do you think about what's going
on with the who and their plan to get all of the countries? Yeah, so I'm glad you raised,
so the question's about the World Health Organization and their plan. So this is very
serious. I think in the United States in general, we don't pay a whole lot of attention to what's
going on at the international arena. But there's no question that our government, this administration,
is completely behind this idea of outsourcing to the World Health Organization pandemic preparedness.
And we, the U.S., has been at the forefront of this. And this would literally be to give,
I mean, it's completely against the Constitution. It completely is against what states' rights in
this country, which is to oversee the rights that are retained. There's nothing in the Constitution
about health. It's clearly in the state's purview. And the U.S., if it signed this treaty, which is
going to be on offer in May, there's also been questions about regulations. But that's what seems
to be the prominent piece right now. If we were to sign away pandemic preparedness to the WHO,
I mean, it would literally eviscerate this country. It would really be outsourcing control over
lockdowns, over medications, over the doctor-patient relationship, over everything we care about in
this room. So it's a huge threat. I do, I think it was Jeffrey Tucker again who mentioned Dr.
Merrill Nass, who we work with closely, started a group specifically about everything about the
WHO and the Great Reset, which is a part of, and it's called Door to Freedom. And I do recommend
that you look at that. It's got a lot of, it really goes through the different drafts of the
International Health Regulations of the World Health Organization treaties. What they're talking
about is absolutely a violation of any ethics of any basic fundamental international human
rights norms. I mean, it's a complete dystopian nightmare. And I do believe that it's very
important that we be talking to one another, to our legislators, and sending a signal of like,
this is no go. There's no way that we should be looking at that. I mean, it's just, it's,
it's outrageous in every way. I mean, the idea, and again, Jeffrey Tucker mentioned, you know,
they said, oh, well, there were a few little mistakes during COVID. You know, we need a
better coordination, better communication. Oh, and more centralization. No, centralization was
absolutely the worst thing about COVID. It was already globally centralized, and they want to
have more centralization. And that's just completely antithetical to freedom and democracy.
So one of the things that's bugged me with my patience, you know, I think Kevin Berry pointed
out early on that there's a federal law that says you cannot mandate anything under EUA.
Why do we have laws? Because nobody paid attention to it. How was that not a legal precedent to
stop all the nonsense? Well, we tried, Darren, and we advised people on that, and we had a lot of
people did successfully push back. It's not quite, so what it said is that you had the right to
accept or refuse any emergency use authorization product. And so what the Houston Hospital,
and that was litigated very early on, what the decision was, hey, you know, you can leave.
You don't have a right to your job. So you can refuse, but you will pay a price for that. Now,
we think that was a wrong reading of that statute. The correct reading of that statute was, well,
you may suffer consequences in terms of your health, depending on whether you take or reject
this medication. We thought it was absolutely wrong. And again, these things have not fully
run their course yet, Darren. They just found that that was an illegitimate mandate in New York
State. That's a court in New York State, right? The federal government wouldn't really take it.
The federal courts wouldn't take it, but that's not over yet. A lot of the cases that we and others
have filed over the last few years, they're not over because it now, and unfortunately,
the Supreme Court's just released a decision saying that some of these cases are moot. That's a
big problem. Like, oh, it's over, so we're not going to deal with these issues. But it shouldn't
have happened. Darren, I completely agree with Kevin. I mean, it says you can accept or reject.
It's absolutely. And in fact, in the anthrax vaccine context, it was found that without a
presidential waiver saying, yes, it's absolutely an emergency, the president says you can give these
to the US military. That was found to be unlawful, right? A federal court said, no, you can't mandate
an EUA anthrax vaccine. So I absolutely take the view that it was unlawful. At the end of the day,
laws are as good as we can enforce them. We are the foot soldiers of the Constitution. We have
to enforce these things. And as I said, in 2021, when we were in courts, the judges were branded.
I mean, they were. I just want to be really clear. Panic, fear mongering, 24-7 propaganda,
and censorship of the truth, it works. And it's not just for the public at large. It works in the
courts. So I mean, but I think, you know, forewarned is forearmed. Our job is like, let's take these
lessons we learned, and they're going to come back at us. Disease X, they're well into the planning
of Disease X, whatever that is, and pandemic preparedness. You know, we're going to have to
be a lot more quick to the barricades and to the resistance and to building this army for the next
time this comes around. Hi, Mary. Hi. I just wanted to add to, so I'm Canadian. I'm here from,
yes, I know our mandates and our guy up north is completely
nuts, but we survived. We survived. So what they did in Canada was with the mandates that were
imposed, they turned them into policies. And so the corporations or the companies were actually
given like trust money or grants to impose the vaccine policy. And so it took the legislation
and the trouble off of like, where are these mandates coming from? So what they did was they
implemented new policies. And if you were an employee there, then, and you weren't following
the policy, then you either take the vaccine or lose your job. And so, you know, now people are
going after legally what's happening in Canada's, you know, they're going after now their employees.
And so, or the employers, sorry, right, and the company. So now there's lawsuits coming. Oh,
absolutely. Well, that's really in my inbox. And that's great. And there's a lot of lawsuits
against companies in now in the United States. And some of those are already settled, right? So
there are groups of people who have already won hundreds of thousands of dollars, millions of
dollars. There was a Navy SEALS case. There was a case of healthcare workers in Illinois.
There already have been some successful cases. I think against Nike, there was a Senate case.
I don't know if the Children's Health Defense Canada component is assisting with that. I'm not sure.
Yeah, they haven't been as active in this area. They've been doing a lot of sort of more advocacy
and educational stuff. But yeah, I mean, you know, Canada seems to be a bit further ahead in the
global sort of the spectrum of where they want us to go. Communism, you know, I call it, I call it
sort of communal fascism. It's not just communism. It's really not because corporations, I believe
are at the very pinnacle of this decision making. It's this corporate, Bobby Kennedy calls it,
you know, the fusion of corporate and government power. It's a little bit different than a straight
up communism, in my view. But it's not what we want. And it's definitely not democracy. And
it's definitely not human rights. And it's definitely not freedom. And we definitely have to keep
doing what we're doing. I'll make a little announcement now before the next question.
We're going to take five more minutes, because we have five more minutes. But just so you know
what's happening, back in the canyon ballroom, you can go and join the session on long COVID and
long vac case reviews. That is that started at 4pm. So it's only been what 10 minutes into that.
And that's Dr. Corey Flavio, Cotted Johnny and Liz Mumper are doing that. Or after this, you can
stay right here, because we have Rianne Dressens and we have she's co founder of React 19, joining
for another our third of the day, our last of the day pop up session, negative reactions, positive
action, patient experiences, and what we wish our doctors knew. And they'll be joined by some folks
from a musical group as well. But that will take place here. But let's have five more minutes
of questions for Mary. And what a great, what a great joy it is to have you here. Oh my goodness.
Okay, yes. Hi, I wanted to, I'm Dr. Robert Aptard. And I'm a physician here in Arizona.
I want to thank Mary and Central Children's Health Defense for all they do. So I, I'm a retired
emergency physician since 2021. I've been doing telemedicine consultations for COVID with my
free doctor.com. I've done about 15,000 or more patient consultations for COVID with a very,
very high degree of success. So that brought me into conflict, of course, with the medical boards.
And as a result of the actions of medical boards have been taking against me, I became a plaintiff
along with Paul Merrick and Mary Tally Bowden in the lawsuit against the FDA or suppression of
ivermectin for COVID. And I believe Children's Health Defense did an amicus brief in that.
I think maybe, I don't remember, but we certainly, you know, wrote about it in Defender. And I thought
that was a great case, very well litigated and successful. Yeah, so that's still in the courts.
But I just want to give you an example of what I'm dealing with, with the Washington Medical
Commission. I'm licensed in Arizona and Washington. So I have both those boards coming against me,
haven't reached final decisions. But the Washington Commission has sent me an agreed upon order here.
Sign this and we'll let you still have your license. There's a number of draconian
sanctions and limitations of your practice and includes that I will not prescribe ivermectin
or hydroxychloroquine for COVID or any other non FDA approved indication. That's against the
practice of medicine. Absolutely. And it's also that I would not write any vaccine exemptions for
anybody for any kind of vaccine for any reason or under any circumstances. So this is they're
taking actions that are directly against the practice of medicine. Absolutely. I mean, honestly,
I think if we look at the bigger picture, you know, they are intent on just, I mean, this is my own
personal opinion. I'm not speaking here as like an official of CHD, but they're destroying the
practice of medicine. Let's be clear. This is a real takedown of medicine of the individual
practitioners and of the hospitals. They literally with the ventilator protocols,
non prescription of effective repurposed drugs and remdesivir, they were killing fields and it
was financially incentivized. And in our bus that's going around, we're getting these stories all
over the country. You know, somebody goes in healthy and they're dead 10 days later, healthy
young people. I mean, I don't think you can look at what's happened in the last four years worldwide
and then the prescription fentanyl and midazolam. I don't think you can look at this as anything
other than the very purposeful destruction of medicine as we know it. And it's horrifying. I
mean, that's why to me, even though we focus on children, I mean, if we don't protect the doctors
and the honest healthcare practitioners, we're all going to go down. I mean, I really believe that.
It's crazy. I mean, it's the same thing as Dr. Nass, Dr. Paul Thomas, who I'm sure you know,
also in Washington, they're going after him. And this is a witch hunt. I mean,
this is a witch hunt and it's wrong and we have to stop it and we're up against really big guns.
This is worldwide. You know, I was just in Italy recently and talking to some of the, you know,
Italian doctors in Iceland as well. It's the same thing. This is a global operation and it's not
over. And they have to double down on the censorship and going after the dissident doctors. So,
I mean, I hope we're all realizing that this is getting ready for the next one. I mean, it is.
You need the mic. You need the mic. You need a mic.
Oh, we have. Okay. Question here. And then we have to wrap. Yeah.
Thanks for being here. So my question is addressing
the particular risks to individual providers who are just doing their best to treat
patients in uncertain circumstances. Are you seeing anything on your end that is,
you know, indicating that a person who is acting, you know, doing the best that they can do,
but the person maybe had a stroke or maybe had a reaction to a supplement or a medication
and that an individual provider was targeted for something like that?
I mean, I would say that all of these doctors that we looked at, right, that we've been working
for, you know, they knowingly took on these risks. My sense of it is if a doctor wants to sort of
stay under the radar, not speak out, sort of have a, you know, an underground railroad of
patients coming to them, my best guess is that person could stay and practice a long time.
But if like Dr. Nass, you know, she intentionally poked the bear, right? She called the medical
board. I just prescribed ivermectin, you know, by saying I was a lupus. She wanted them to come
because she was fearless, right? As she said, she wasn't born with the fear gene, you know.
She wanted to take them on and I'm glad that she did. You know, Dr. Eggleston published Paul
Thomas as somebody who, you know, published papers about Vax-on-Vax comparison. So I don't,
I think those people all, you know, they knowingly took on those risks. I think it's still possible
to be on the down low, but I'm grateful for those like Dr. Aptur and Dr. Mary Bowden and,
you know, others, Dr. Merrick, who have put their heads over the parapet, right? And they've been
shot down. And, you know, one of the things I think we know is, you know, if it's a handful of
people, they will be shot down successfully. Look at Dr. Wakefield in autism. You know, he was
effectively decimated. But if it's hundreds, if it's thousands, if it's tens of thousands,
they won't succeed. And that's sort of what happened like in the trials on, whatever they were
called, the trials on, the trials that they did on hydroxychloroquine were so bogus, right?
And... Surgisphere, thank you. They were so bogus and hundreds of physicians all around the world
were like, you know, I know that hospital. That's ridiculous. This person was a porn star, you
know, and it fell apart, right? And so, anyway, that's my hope is that what we're all doing collectively
is to reinforce our troops so that, you know, you can't pick off the single people.
Just a quick question for you, Mary. I think that one of the more significant stories to come out
in the last two weeks was on the epic times about the FDA intentionally hiding the adverse events
of myocarditis. Yeah. Is there any action that can be taken on that? Yeah, I certainly think we're
looking at that. We actually published that one of the early papers that the signal was very clear
in VAERS and they did nothing about it. And they, well, they hid it. In fact, FDA hid it. Yeah. I
mean, I think it's conceivable. It's conceivable, you know, there's work to be done. This is not
ending, is it? I can see. We're going to get to the last word. No, no, no. This is a commercial
break. Katherine Heug, would you please stand up? I just want everybody to identify her.
She's a co-founder of Freedom Council and we are doing kind of, you know, we're trying to do.
I'm grateful. We're working with everybody we can and we're organizing attorneys to be both to deal
with the consequences of what's happened to us, but more importantly, strategize how we're ready
for the next time. And the work that every, all these attorneys are doing is laying a groundwork.
Even these cases that they've said are moot, my God, the legal work and effort that went into that,
we have the benefit of all of those attorneys. So, and we're going to, I've got some other
things I want to talk to you about, but I mean, we, you know, one of the things that Katherine and
I are talking about, and I'll throw this out to this is, I'll give you a advanced warning on this.
We would like to have a kind of a regular meeting so that when, that we're simply available to
doctors, they're having issues. And not that we could be your counsel necessarily in a given case,
but we might be. We have attorneys right now all over the United States and every state, Canada,
Germany, England, so all over the place. And we, you know, we're going to try to set up a monthly
meeting where we're just there. You want to show up, you don't have to schedule anything to,
so that we know what's going on in the world, within your world, because that's how we get ready.
And you've got somebody you can at least reach out to and, and throw an idea out there, tell us
what's going on with your board. And, and I mean, I, you know, I don't, I'd like to talk to you about
that too, in Washington, because there, we have some attorneys that have some real experience out
there and have done very well for their doctors. So, you know, that's, so that's what we're doing.
So freedom counsel, you want to know about freedom counsel, you talk to the lady in red today.
And you'll be back here tomorrow. You'll be back here. Oh yeah, I meant to, this was an advertisement.
You get to hear him again. My pop-up, my pop-up session is tomorrow. I wasn't, I'm going to add
criminal undo it, I guess. Go ahead, please. Yeah, you got to do that. Anyway, thank you all so much.
Thanks, Warner. Yeah, I know the freedom counsel is, is really an important development. I'm delighted
that Warner's picked that up and Catherine and run with it, because it is basically, it's very
important to realize that the university, the law schools have been useless on this and big law firms
have been useless on this because they represent the bad guys in this. It's only solo practitioners
and small law firms coming together that can really put the fight in, in courts to the powers that be.
So this is super important. And I'm very grateful that you all have picked up that torch. Really great.
Mary, thank you. Thank you. Thank you all. Thank you so much. Very kind of you. Thank you.
