▶ 0:20:54>> good afternoon. This hearing is called to order. Just brief explanation of how the hearing came about. I met Dr. sabine in 2021 during the height of covid, really related to all the work I was doing related to treatment, covert injection injury, that type of thing. I'm not quite sure how you got on my radar screen but we struck up a good texting relationship.
▶ 0:21:30Immediately, Dr. hazan made me aware of how her research was conducted with, supported by, guided by, overseen by the fda, was being sabotaged. With all the hearings and events I had done, I was trying to figure out some way of how can we hold a hearing on this? It was really bad for science to have research sabotaged. End of last year, Dr.
▶ 0:21:58Hazan introduced me to Dr. el-deiry, the poster child for being tormented, I will call them trolls, into science. We put together this hearing, kinda predicated on Dr. el-deiry's work that prompted all the attacks. That is why we are holding this hearing.
▶ 0:22:28Let me get into my opening statement. I want to thank all the witnesses, I know this is a real imposition, takes a lot of time and effort. Today's hearing is titled "plausible mechanisms of covid-19 injections causing cancer and attacks on scientific publications and research." although these may seem two unrelated topics, discussing them together would help explain why such a large percentage of the public remains unaware of the serious adverse events caused by the covid mrna
▶ 0:23:00Injections. In april, the subcommittee held a hearing and released a report exposing how top fda officials decided to use the safety surveillance algorithm that they knew would, and in fact, did, heidi safety signals on extremely serious adverse events including sudden death.
▶ 0:23:23This was a bombshell revelation that unfortunately was dismissed by this subcommittee's ranking member and completely ignored by the legacy media. Since 1997 when the clinton administration made america only the second nation on earth to allow mass media advertising of pharmaceutical products, big pharma has spent billions on tv ads to capture the media and as a result of narrative.
▶ 0:23:50Prior to 1997, there was serious journalism covering suspected vaccine injuries. 1997, mike reported on 60 minutes about swine flu vaccine injuries. By the way, they pulled the swine flu vaccination after about 25 or 30 deaths and 400 cases of guillain-barré disease. They pulled it. 25 to 30 deaths.
▶ 0:24:18We have over 39,000 deaths right now associated with the covid injection worldwide from the various vaccines. I will move on. Leah thompson reported on the findings of their more than year-long investigation into the safety and effectiveness of the pertussis component of the dpt vaccine. 1985, phil. If you discuss the swine flu and dpt vaccines and related injuries during his hour-long show.
▶ 0:24:47Since 1997, there have been a few reports on hepatitis b, hpv vaccine safety, but the "safe and effective" mantra combined with the idea that adverse effects are rare and generally mild, has overwhelmed any coverage of the harms. Legacy media is not the only american institution that has been captured and controlled.
▶ 0:25:13Big pharma also hires and financially awards federal health agency officials and spends lavishly on lobbying and political donations to lawmakers of both parties. It generously funds other members of the covid cartel, social media, medical associations like the medical association, national health organization, medical colleges, and medical journals.
▶ 0:25:41The testament of today's hearing raises the question of whether big pharma might also be funding individuals who trolls scientific research that runs counter to its goals and narratives. It should come as no surprise therefore that during the pandemic, treatment alternatives using cheap and generic drugs were not only suppressed but actively sabotaged in favor of reliability-free and highly profitable experimental gene therapy, and that is what it is.
▶ 0:26:11The fact that all the institution benefit from big pharma's largesse pushed the experimental gene therapy is also the reason they are working so hard to suppress the reality of covid mrna injection injuries. Testimony given in april's hearing details the safety studies that were not done on the covid injections prior to the emergency use authorization and eventual approval. This list of omitted studies should shock everyone. These are just in testimony.
▶ 0:26:42Drug-drug interactions, cardiovascular toxicity, central nervous toxicity, other organ toxicity, blood toxicity, gene toxicity, carcinogenic toxicity. Those studies were not conducted. I'm not sure they've been conducted today because it is proved, now we just don't want to know.
▶ 0:27:06Legacy media, federal health officials and medical establishment continued to ignore and hide the lies told and the harm done by governments in response to the coronavirus, alternate media has been spreading the truth to a growing percentage of the global public. As a result, trust in these institutions is eroding. The only way to rebuild that lost trust is for the truth to be acknowledged in a process of public reckoning.
▶ 0:27:36The hearings I've been holding are intended to contribute to that reckoning. Today, we will hear from a highly credentialed and experienced doctors and medical researchers who will discuss the possible mechanisms of covid 19 mrna injection harms. They will also discuss the attacks they are experiencing on their research and reputation because they have the courage to expose the truth. I want to sincerely thank the witnesses for the time and effort they put in their testimony, advocacy. Let me just and on this note.
▶ 0:28:07In a couple of my public hearings, I conclude with the statement that I am truly amazed at the knowledge that mankind has accumulated over the millennia. It is amazing what we know and how rapidly we are getting that knowledge. In spite of that, I would argue that what we don't know vastly, and I mean vastly exceeds what we do.
▶ 0:28:36Any discussion like this, any scientific research, I think people involved need to approach these problems with that level of modesty and that kind of humility. I will turn it over to ranking member blumenthal.
▶ 0:28:55Sen. Blumenthal: Thank, chairman johnson. I like it began my remarks by reminding everyone watching today that the national cancer institute has concluded "there is no evidence that covid-19 vaccines cause cancer, lead to
▶ 0:29:25Sen. Blumenthal: Recurrence or lead to disease progression." that is the national cancer institute. " there is no evidence the covid-19 vaccine causes cancer, leads to recurrence, or lead to disease progression." I could conclude there, but I think this hearing really merits
▶ 0:29:58Sen. Blumenthal: A fuller explanation of what is at stake here. Because we need more research into finding cancer cures, and more research into preventing cancer in the first place. Cancer causes fear for everyone, and almost everyone, in fact, everyone, has been touched by cancer in some way.
▶ 0:30:28Sen. Blumenthal: That fear is pervasive. We cannot let that fear because unfounded attacks on the covid vaccines or any other vaccine. These vaccines have saved millions of lives and we should all be rooting for similar feats of science to help people that are stricken with cancer or help to prevent it.
▶ 0:30:48Sen. Blumenthal: Cancer data is very closely tracked in the united states, and the idea that a rollout of covid-19 vaccines has precipitated a surgeon cancer -- surge in cancer is to be not supported, nor do the vaccines make cancer grow faster, according to the american cancer society.
▶ 0:31:19Sen. Blumenthal: Unfortunately, messages about the safety and effectiveness of vaccination are increasingly de luged by misinformation. Immunization rates are declining across the country. Diseases like measles are surging. Tragically, vaccines have also been proven to prevent certain types of cancer.
▶ 0:31:49Sen. Blumenthal: Those vaccines are facing groundless attacks from top public health officials, maybe not surprisingly. Hhs secretary robert ted kennedy initially declined to surrender his financial stake in litigation against the maker of hpv vaccines. Only under pressure from congress, turned his interest over to his son.
▶ 0:32:15Sen. Blumenthal: There is ample evidence in fact that hpv vaccines help prevent cervical cancer, a disease that is projected to kill 4200 americans this year. I'm grateful that we have tamika felder, a cervical cancer survivor here with us today. I thank her for being here. You are doing us a great service. It is stories like yours, Ms.
▶ 0:32:44Sen. Blumenthal: Felder, that remind us of the human impact of science's great successes. I'm also grateful to have Dr. julie gralow, chief medical officer of the american society of clinical oncology who is here to remind us about the absence of credible scientific evidence linking covid-19 vaccines to cancer, and the safety of these vaccines for people undergoing cancer treatment. Very important.
▶ 0:33:15Sen. Blumenthal: Thank you, Dr. gralow. Just one example of the overwhelming evidence of the safety of these vaccines I would like to submit for the record, a study from the journal of the american medical association involving nearly 30 million people, finding that for years after vaccination, people who received an mrna covid-19 vaccine were less likely to die from cancer than those who were not vaccinated. I ask that it be entered into the record.
▶ 0:33:44Chair Johnson: No objection. As good as the commonwealth study that you entered into the record a few heroes ago. No objection.
▶ 0:33:53Sen. Blumenthal: Thank you. It's unfortunate that we need Dr. gralow to appear in a hearing like this when there are much more pressing threats to cancer patients and cancer research coming from trump administration policies. And that is the big issue here and the reason that I am expanding on what I said earlier.
▶ 0:34:20Sen. Blumenthal: The administration has put up needless roadblocks that have slowed the flow of grants to cancer researchers, halts to funding impose last year caused the american association of cancer institutes to warn that the trump administration policies were "slowing progress against cancer." anna trump administration's obvious animus toward mrna technology that was used for covid-19 vaccines threatens some
▶ 0:34:51Sen. Blumenthal: Of the most promising research for targeted cancer treatments. The studies canceled. The patients excluded from trials, treatments abandoned. Decisions made today about cancer research will impact us and our children for decades to come. Just days ago, scientists announced amazing results from a new drug for prostate cancer, one of the hardest cancers to treat.
▶ 0:35:21Sen. Blumenthal: These results were possible in part because of work done many years ago at the national cancer institute. One scientist to help with the research said "this kind of basic research is being greatly threatened by current government policy." basic research is essential.
▶ 0:35:43Sen. Blumenthal: It is not just covid vaccines, not just cancer vaccines, it is all kinds of medical treatment that you will find in hospitals today saving lives beginning with basic research that is being throttled by this administration.
▶ 0:36:06Sen. Blumenthal: And so I hope we can all agree that advancing cures for cancer and stopping the forces that undermined it out to be a top priority for all of us in congress. It ought to be a bipartisan cause. I hope my colleagues will take up the mantle with me. Thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 0:36:25Chair Johnson: It is the tradition of the subcommittee square in the witnesses. If you would rise and raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you are about to get before the subcommittee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you god? You may be seated. Our first witness is Dr. angus dalgleish.
▶ 0:36:55Chair Johnson: Dr. dalgleish is professor emeritus of oncology at city st. George's university of london. He has pioneered the immunotherapy of cancer, known for his work on hiv and cancer and received the leader burke prize in 2011 for his work on developing cancer treatments. He's been the principal of the institute of cancer vaccines and immunotherapies since 2000 and a consultant and general medicine immunology virology, oncology since 1986. These are very abbreviated biology's.
▶ 0:37:26Chair Johnson: Each of these individuals on both sides here, much larger biographies that you should take a look at. I forced them to abbreviate it. Dr. dalgleish.
▶ 0:37:36Dr. Dalgleish: Thank you very much for asking me to give evidence on this. I just like to point out that I have done -- as he said, I've been in cancer immunotherapy for over three decades. I have made big advances in the treatment of cancer immunotherapy. So this sets the scene.
▶ 0:38:01Dr. Dalgleish: I then became aware in early 2020 two of my patients who had been stable for years through mainly villanova patients, they had several different types of immunotherapy. In six weeks, I saw six patients relapse with melanoma. They had been stable for three to 18 years. They felt well apart from the relapse and been investigating. I asked, what was the thing that was in common?
▶ 0:38:32Dr. Dalgleish: I think that was in common was they all received a booster vaccine from their general practitioners. Now, I know that these cancers are totally controlled by the t cell response, so I immediately respect -- suspected the t cell response with being per debated by the cancer. Initial investigation showed this was likely to be true.
▶ 0:38:57Dr. Dalgleish: However, there was then a paper published by some doctors in madrid which I quote the paper called "the evidence of exhausted lymphocytes after the third covid to vaccine dose in cancer patients." this was absolutely staggering that they showed across hundreds of patients that you get this t cell suppression.
▶ 0:39:22Dr. Dalgleish: On the heels of this was then a new report that the following booster vaccine, we were getting igg switching, so you converted the immune system from being aggressive fighting invaders to one of toleraztion. The immune system was tolerating the cancer and this was the reason we were starting to see it.
▶ 0:39:48Dr. Dalgleish: However, it's important at this stage to say we were getting reports after I first reported this of other cancers my initial observation that it was all due to t cell suppression started to fade into the perspective that other actors were at work with the vaccines.
▶ 0:40:09Dr. Dalgleish: Colorectal cancer was being reported by my patients, by my fellow surgeons, as presenting a late, stage four, not stage one or two, and early in patients in their 20's and 30's and 40's home in a way that we had not seen before. Then in my own practice as I was looking for patients who had other cancers, I noticed that they, too, had booster vaccines.
▶ 0:40:40Dr. Dalgleish: I list them. They go from everything from a common cancers to breast to prostate, etc., all the way through to some really unexpected ones including glioma, and more recently hematological malignancies.
▶ 0:40:56Dr. Dalgleish: Looking at the literature as to why this could be involved in, two big publications, but accepted prior to changes, and this shows there are at least a dozen mechanisms where messenger rna can insert into the dna and activate genes.
▶ 0:41:21Dr. Dalgleish: Especially the long term, they can suppress the suppressor networks, which means if you're cancer is starting to evolve, it would normally be maintained, controlled. This mechanism is being prevented. The number of people who have shown this is quite an enormous.
▶ 0:41:39Dr. Dalgleish: As an oncologist, starting to see that it is not only my patients now, it is people I know really well who are going down with cancer, and they are going to more aggressively, and the treatment is not working nearly as well. I'm used to people saying there is no evidence of cancers increasing. That was anything to do with the vaccine. I can assure you from the patients I have seen, many have seen a dozen doctors before.
▶ 0:42:09Dr. Dalgleish: Not one of them has asked vaccine history. Of course, they see no evidence. My full, detailed research into the messenger rna vaccines, and I was on the scientific board of a company that claimed to be the messenger rna vaccine company for five years, left eight years ago, so I know a lot more than the average commissioner.
▶ 0:42:32Dr. Dalgleish: Myself and others feel like there is no way you can control this technology and its use for future vaccines should be banned, and the covid ones chair
▶ 0:42:45Johnson: Thank you, Dr. dalgleish. That witness is wafik el-deiry. Dr. el-deiry is a practicing physician scientist, american society cancer professor, founding director of the cancer center at brown university, chair of the worldwide innovative network consortium. He discovered a tumor suppressing gene he named waf1 and the first of its kind drug approved by the fda last year for the treatment of an aggressive brain cancer. Dr. el-deiry.
▶ 0:43:13Dr. El-Deiry: Thank you, senator johnson, senator blumenthal, distinct committee members -- distinguished committee members. Thank you, senator johnson, senator blumenthal, distinguished committee members for the opportunity to speak at this important hearing.
▶ 0:43:39Dr. El-Deiry: I am a physician scientist, cancer researcher with more than 30 years of experience studying how our body normally fights cancer through a major tumor suppressor called p53, and finding new ways of treating it. I've also advocated on capitol hill since 2005 for support of research funding which is really vital.
▶ 0:44:07Dr. El-Deiry: My work has focused on how cancers develop within when these normal tumor suppressor mechanisms fail including discoveries involving how tumor suppressor's work, and this has become foundational in cancer biology and oncology research. I've also studied how viruses and other biological processes can disrupt our defenses against cancer.
▶ 0:44:35Dr. El-Deiry: So when the covid pandemic began, I wanted to help by applying our expertise in cancer biology, immunology, approved treatments to better understand and treat covid. It's been long understood that certain viruses contribute to cancer development by disrupting tumor suppressor pathways, including p53, one of the body's most important cancer protection mechanisms.
▶ 0:45:04Dr. El-Deiry: Early in the pandemic, I became concerned that the covid virus might similarly interference -- interfere with these defense mechanisms, making it an important area for scientific investigation. Early in the pandemic, I also expressed uncertainty on social media about the natural origin of the covid virus, and this is when I first started to experience repercussions of speaking out against the mainstream narrative. What I didn't expect were the attacks on science itself.
▶ 0:45:36Dr. El-Deiry: By july 2020, my laboratory published findings showing that a class of cancer drugs known as mech inhibitors suppressed the cell surface receptor, the covid virus uses to attack human cells. By april, we reported findings reported that the spike protein associated with covid infection or vaccination could reduce the ability of p53 to activate genes involved in suppressing cancer.
▶ 0:46:06Dr. El-Deiry: Based on these findings, we emphasized that effective vaccines against viruses such as covid should strengthen immunity against infection without interfering with the body's natural defenses against cancer. These concerns were raised through normal scientific channels, yet the response was not open scientific engagement, but escalating attacks. Instead of contributing to scientific dialogue, the findings triggered attacks on both the research and the researchers involved.
▶ 0:46:39Dr. El-Deiry: Much of this occurred through an online platform known as pepeer, created a decade ago to identify fraud and scientific misconduct. Unfortunately, the platform increase we became weaponized against the researchers whose findings challenged prevailing narratives. The platform permits anonymous accusations without meaningful accountability.
▶ 0:47:05Dr. El-Deiry: There is no disclosure of conflicts of interest, no statute of limitations or citizenship requirements. He's attacks are public, amplified through social media, and can continue indefinitely regardless of where the wrongdoing is ever established. This is precisely what happened to us although we corrected minor errors where appropriate and continued to do so from none alter the underlying results or conclusions of our work.
▶ 0:47:32Dr. El-Deiry: Nevertheless, our publications became subject of sustained public attacks and damaged reputation and undermined scientific credibility. Despite these ongoing attacks, last summer, I agreed to serve on an hhs committee on immunization practices working group on covid immunizations as an expert.
▶ 0:48:01Dr. El-Deiry: I, therefore, looked into everything we know about cancer and covid infection and covid vaccination, and by the fall, found nearly 70 papers ascribing more than 300 important cancer cases from 27 countries following one or more covid mrna vaccine injections.
▶ 0:48:24Dr. El-Deiry: The reported cancers occurred near injection sites like sarcomas or lymphomas right at the injection site, within the head and neck region, elsewhere including, as Dr. dalgleish mentioned, brain tumors, other tumors, and some reported cases, spike protein was reported inside tumor tissue. Our findings were reported in january of this year.
▶ 0:48:53Dr. El-Deiry: Shortly afterward, I was contacted directly by former japanese minister haraguchi who reported developing a b-cell lymphoma that later metastasized to his tonsil, biopsy, they found spike protein. There should be no spikes in tumors. These observations warrant serious scientific investigation.
▶ 0:49:18Dr. El-Deiry: As such, a number of unexpected observations have been made with the covid mrna vaccines that suggest potentially plausible mechanisms and connections to cancer. The attacks on my publications intensified and continued to the present day despite no findings of fraud, misconduct, or wrongdoing after years of investigation. I am for vaccines that are safe and effective.
▶ 0:49:48Dr. El-Deiry: Both our paper in the journal itself became targets of attacks through peer and related online mds. I remain in effect guilty until proven innocent. Patients deserve informed consent, scientists deserve the freedom to investigate legitimate scientific concerns. There are many open questions including who is at greatest risk from these vaccines?
▶ 0:50:13Dr. El-Deiry: There shouldn't be fear of reputational destruction, institutional retaliation, or professional ruin. They need to be held accountable for making false accusations against physicians and scientists that destroy reputations and careers. Thank you.
▶ 0:50:30Chair Johnson: Our next witness is Dr. saskia mostert. Dr. mostert studied medicine at vu amsterdam in the netherlands, conduct phd programs in compliance and childhood leukemia treatments in indonesia. She then worked as a research coordinator of global health and pediatric oncology research programs in amsterdam university medical center.
▶ 0:50:55Chair Johnson: Her fields of expertise include treatment compliance, hospital retention practices. Dr. mostert.
▶ 0:51:08Dr. Mostert: Members of the american senate, in 2024, our team published a study examining all mortality deaths across resident countries between 2020 and 2022. These were government reported mortality reports routinely used throughout mainstream public health. The peer review process had taken more than nine months.
▶ 0:51:35Dr. Mostert: Our studies showed that excess mortality remained elevated across 47 western countries totaling more than three million excess deaths. Excess mortality persisted across the overwhelming majority of countries studied after the acute phase of the pandemic. We did not claim certainty regarding the excess mortality.
▶ 0:51:55Dr. Mostert: Rather, we asked attention for three major events that were nonexistent before the pandemic, the covid infection, containment measures, and the covid vaccines. We acknowledged other overlooked factors. We urged governments and public health leaders to investigate the underlying forces and evaluate their policies. During the pandemic, extraordinary measures were justified in the name of protecting human life.
▶ 0:52:24Dr. Mostert: Public officials and media emphasized that every covid death mattered, and every life deserves protection. I believed the discovery of more than 3 million excess deaths would prompt the same urgency in investigating their causes. Instead, what followed often resembled what I could only describe as blind fury. What could explain this massive outrage? During the pandemic, health policies were combined with psychological tactics to influence public behavior.
▶ 0:52:56Dr. Mostert: Governments in media implemented psychological manipulation and fear propaganda without our awareness or consent that it increases conformity and reduces tolerance for reason and dissenting voices such as tunnel vision emotional messaging, polarization, and important to distinguish, worthy versus unworthy victims. Distinguishing between important victims who deserve extensive attention or support and other victims who can be ignored.
▶ 0:53:28Dr. Mostert: Censorship and suppression tactics have been used against doctors and scientists questioning the official covid narrative. I will mention a few. The devaluation tactic. Discrediting critics using labeling such as Ms. information.
▶ 0:53:43Dr. Mostert: Cover up tactics, hiding censorship using proxies, fact checkers, shanna banning, deplatforming, reinterpretation tactics, favorably framing censorship as protection of the public or follow the science, official channel tactics which gives he censorship the appearance of legitimacy of justice and high political or economic conflict of interest, and last but not least, the intimidation tactics, using fear, threats, coercion to some critics and others.
▶ 0:54:17Dr. Mostert: After our publication, can this be explained by tunneled vision disruption? Not only were the victims to covid victims but also the unworthy victims. The lockdown victims and a vaccine injured were described. Polarization in society between those who followed the official covid narrative and those who questioned it became visible. Despite a support of statement from reuters, media outlets use in their devaluation tactics and label the publication as anti-that scum a conspiracy theory, and misinformation.
▶ 0:54:51Dr. Mostert: One affiliated hospital publicly distance itself from the study and announced scientific integrity investigation. Institutional responses are increasingly used as official channel tactics to discredit, intimidate, isolate, and the silence of those raising unwelcome scientific questions. I resigned.
▶ 0:55:12Dr. Mostert: Scientific integrity investigation can be evaluated according to confidentiality, transparency, presumption of innocence and fairness principles. In my opinion, all of these principles have been trampled on. The institution of confidential report about my cohort was linked to a national newspaper and resulted in a hit piece. These examples speak volumes.
▶ 0:55:35Dr. Mostert: To be clear, I lost my position after publishing official government mortality data and calling for further scientific investigation into persistent excess deaths. Science cannot function when the legitimate questions become professionally dangerous to ask. When scientists fear professional destruction, the public loses access to honest scientific inquiry. The institute concluded that scientific integrity was not violated in our study.
▶ 0:56:05Dr. Mostert: No plagiarism, falsification took place, nevertheless, the institute process on retraction of the paper for containing this information about possible causes of excess mortality. Ironically, the text on containment measures and vaccines was much shorter in the original version of the paper. The reviewers selected by the journal had asked us to either delete text or provide more evidence as there is evidence available, we included it.
▶ 0:56:34Dr. Mostert: All added references confirmed publications from well-known institutes indexed. My proposed publication revision that included a section on vaccine effectiveness in reducing mortality was ignored by the journal. Right from the start, it was an unequal battle. Our call for investigation of underlying causes have to be censored and erased one way or another. The tunnel vision leaves no room for unworthy victims.
▶ 0:57:06Dr. Mostert: Yet, the persistent excess mortality remains unexplained. Our case is not isolated. Books have documented the suppression of more than 80 dutch doctors and scientists as well as the removal of 60 professors across germany, austria, and switzerland. In recent years, the number of removals were ideological insubordination has increased significantly. Similar patterns emerge across institutions. After a media scandal, university distances itself and starts disciplinary proceedings.
▶ 0:57:37Dr. Mostert: The reason given for this scientific integrity violation where as the real reason appears to be dissent. Recently, we established a task force on academic freedom in the netherlands to investigate censorship, suppression, and systematic attacks on doctors and scientists, questioning aspects of the official covid narrative. Censorship undermines academic freedom by discouraging legitimate scientific inquiry.
▶ 0:58:05Dr. Mostert: It narrows the range of perspectives permitted within public debate and stimulates self-censorship among academics. Subsequent scientific consensus can lead to policies. If we want to install public trust, we once must again protect academic freedom and the rights of scientist to question prevailing assumptions without fear of professional destruction. It is time to return to commitment to academic freedom.
▶ 0:58:36Dr. Mostert: I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
▶ 0:58:41Chair Johnson: Thank you, Dr. mostert. Next we have Dr. sabine hazan. Dr. hazan received her residency at the university of miami. She is the first woman gastroenterology fellow at the university of florida, became an expert in the micro volume. She is currently the ceo of a private clinic and a clinical trial development company as well as progenabiome, a genetic research lab that studies patients in the micro volume. Dr. hazan.
▶ 0:59:17Dr. Hazan: [no audio]
▶ 0:59:22Dr. Hazan: I'm a research as tricked into colleges. For more than three decades, I've done hundreds of clinical trial for leading pharmaceutical companies. My work has contributed to bringing biologics, antibiotics, and vaccines to market. While these advances have helped patients, they have also revealed critical gaps in our understanding of human health, particularly the got micro volume.
▶ 0:59:52Dr. Hazan: The micro volume, your bacteria in your gut is your immunity. In 2019, I found it progenabiome, a research laboratory. I say research because the micro biome research is at its infancy and is not going to be in my lifetime. My goal was simple, to vigorously study the micro biome in real-world clinical settings.
▶ 1:00:12Dr. Hazan: My team and I lost 61 clinical to actively understand the got connection in beers diseases, alzheimer's, autism, parkinson's, cancer. This is precision medicine taking care to each patient's unique microbiome signature. Because yes come in the microbiome space, we are all different. If we are all different, there is no normal in the microbiome space. In 2020, I found myself in a very interesting position.
▶ 1:00:44Dr. Hazan: I was taken care of high-profile individuals in malibu. I had a portal with the fda that could write protocols and submit protocols to the fda. I had a research lab that could look at the microbiome. So this unique position, I felt I was the best person to be looking at the microbiome, looking at covid.
▶ 1:01:09Dr. Hazan: While exchanging information with scientists at nist, national institute of standards, who were looking at covid in septic tanks. For those of you that don't know national is it to standards, they overlook darpa, fda, cdc. With discussions, progenabiome became the first lab worldwide to documentwhole genome sequencing of covid virus in clinical patient feces.
▶ 1:01:35Dr. Hazan: Our paper was published in gut pathogens in 2021 after a six-month peer review only to be retracted in may 2025 without any valid, scientific justification or even notifying the peer reviewers that approve the paper to begin with.
▶ 1:01:56Dr. Hazan: I have to point out again that this was a landmark paper that showed covid in the stools of clinical patients, not septic tanks, but clinical patients. While we were looking at stools, we discovered hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin reduced viral presence of covid in other words. Covid disappeared on these. However, those drugs also killed the microbiome.
▶ 1:02:25Dr. Hazan: That was the important finding during the pandemic, that everybody is different, everybody needs a different treatment. It is also important to note, during the pandemic, I treated under fda oversight, actually wrote three protocols on hydroxychloroquine versus placebo, ivermectin doxycycline versus placebo, and during my whole time that the fda was watching, we lost no one. No one died on my shift.
▶ 1:02:55Dr. Hazan: By the way, I have treated thousands of patients. Doesn't the public want to know how did I treat, what criteria did I use to divide the treatment inpatients? We conducted a review of these patients treated and noticed actually that ivermectin-based multidrug therapy helped severely hypoxic patients.
▶ 1:03:18Dr. Hazan: The data was published in 2022 after eight months of peer review scrutiny, and then retracted in march 2025. We also publish cardiac safety data from our phase two trial using hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin. You'll remember during the pandemic, there was a concern about cardiac problem from hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin.
▶ 1:03:42Dr. Hazan: My team risked their lives putting holter monitors on people's hearts to monitor and capture. There were no qt prolongation. We publish the data in december 2024. The paper was retracted in 2025 february. These retractions consistently challenge the feasibility of early treatment remember, if there was a treatment, vaccines would not have passed. Are both significant discovery was on bifida bacteria.
▶ 1:04:13Dr. Hazan: What is bifida bacteria? A bacteria in your probiotics. When you turn a bottle of probiotics, that is the bacteria. Bifida bacteria is an important microbe that helps you break down your food so that the sugar comes out and goes into the cell , into your mitochondria. Without the bifida bacteria, the sugar is not going into your cell. How will you metabolize? How will you have immunity if you don't have your cells working?
▶ 1:04:45Dr. Hazan: Bifida bacteria was an important finding because we found severe covid patients lack bifida bacteria while the patients who were high risk, exposed had a lot of bifida bacteria. We also discovered that people with autism, alzheimer's, crohn's disease, lyme disease, irritable bowel syndrome, mental health, invasive cancer lack bifida bacteria.
▶ 1:05:11Dr. Hazan: Bifida bacteria appears in the young at a high level and disappears as we get older. We found that vitamin c, bovine immunoglobulin, ivermectin, could help increase bifida bacteria and restore. Is that why we seeing possibly hypoxic patient improving? I wrote a hypothesis. Perhaps ivermectin was improving the bifida bacteria.
▶ 1:05:40Dr. Hazan: That hypothesis was published and retracted in 2023. What a hypothesis is retracted, we have lost science and medicine. We then presented data on the vaccines and discover the vaccines killed the microbiome specifically the bifida bacteria . That abstract won the best research award at the american college of gastro and reached 18,000 g.I. Doctors, yet was never published. If you follow the disappearance of bifida bacteria in the gut, you start to understand disease.
▶ 1:06:10Dr. Hazan: You start to see why the newborns, one in 12 kids in california has autism. If you look at the data that just came out that showed newborns, only 25% of newborns are born with adequate levels of bifida bacteria.
▶ 1:06:30Dr. Hazan: So if you restore the bifida bacteria like we did in our lab in kids with autism, you will actually resume speech, which is what we showed in two twins where we restored the bifida bacteria. That abstract won a research award at the american college of gastro. Progenabiome has won four consecutive awards at the american college of gastro, affirming peer recognition of our work.
▶ 1:06:57Dr. Hazan: Yet promising observations face problems and persistent barriers when attempting to publish any papers. Passed a rigorous, review are retracted over minor easily correctable issues. The main nonmedical signs that criticize my papers has tapped into the microbiome. Can you say conflict of interest?
▶ 1:07:20Dr. Hazan: I asked congress today, should nonphysicians without relevant clinical expertise review and overwrite medical data from practicing physicians? True expertise must be challenged by a qualified peers, not outsiders. Members of congress, imagine the possibilities if scientists could publish without fear of politically motivated retractions. If we could focus on advancing knowledge instead of defending it.
▶ 1:07:49Dr. Hazan: The american people deserve transparent, rigorous science, protecting scientific integrity is not just about my work, it is about securing the future of medicine for all. Because ultimately we are all going to be patients.
▶ 1:08:02Chair Johnson: Thank you. I was hoping to get through all the opening statements. I have to go vote. We will put the hearing into recess. As soon as I come back, we will open back up.
▶ 1:22:37Chair Johnson: No further disruptions. Our next witness is Dr. aseem malhotra. He served in an advisory role for cross governments including as ambassador to the academy and bank of world colleges, a health policy think tank.
▶ 1:23:04Chair Johnson: He was rid of the number one doctor in the world and named one of the uk's most influential scientists. Dr. malhotra. >> thank you senator johnson. Conductor knit with the unlikelihood of major harm, I took two doses of the pfizer mrna vaccine, unaware at the time that it was in fact a prophylactic gene therapy product unlike any traditional vaccine.
▶ 1:23:32Chair Johnson: Although I was at low risk of covid-19 due to my age and health, I was not in ocular to protect my patients. As one of the uk's most trusted doctors, I was requested to appear on good morning britain to help tackle vaccine hesitancy amongst high risk ethnic minority groups. Five months later, a personal tragedy triggered a complete u-turn in my perception of the vaccine. We were dealing with a medical product that was actually unsafe and defective.
▶ 1:24:04Chair Johnson: My fit and healthy 73-year-old father, honorary vice president of the medical association who also happened to be my best friend and last surviving member of my family, died after unexpected cardiac arrest. Postmortem findings revealed severe artery disease and evidence suggested two doses of the covid vaccine likely caused a massive acceleration in atherosclerosis, leading to his sudden death.
▶ 1:24:33Chair Johnson: In 2022i published a two-part peer-reviewed paper calling for a moratorium on these unsafe and defective products. The most damming evidence was a reanalysis of the original trials that determined a frequency of serious harm from the product that was two to four times more likely than being hospitalized with severe covid. If the system had been more transparent, the prophylactic gene therapy would likely have not been injected into a single human being in the first place.
▶ 1:25:05Chair Johnson: Although there is now a multitude of high-quality research supporting those analyses, there has been little to any mainstream media coverage, a symptom of the downstream effects of how big corporations exert their power by controlling the dominant narrative. I have personal experience with these downstream effects. Towards the end of last year, at a reform party political conference, I quoted britain's most prominent oncologist.
▶ 1:25:33Chair Johnson: He believes the covid vaccine likely played a significant role in cancers of members of the royal family. Predictably I was smeared and misrepresented in the media. Even the british prime misled parliament suggesting I claimed that all vaccines cause cancer. In quote, these dangerous conspiracies cost lives, he said. I experienced public smears from influential sections of the medical profession.
▶ 1:26:04Chair Johnson: I am a grieving vaccine injured a doctor, I've been diagnosed with a autoimmune condition related to loss of bifida bacteria and I am at slightly increased risk of cancer in the short term. Looking at the totality of evidence and what we've heard from eminent witnesses today, in my view, millions of americans and millions more across the world may be in clear and present danger of suffering premature cardiovascular disease and cancer.
▶ 1:26:34Chair Johnson: Without allowing all scientists to debate this openly without fear of censure, we will not be able to identify who is most at risk and how these risks can be mitigated. When it comes to making money, multinational corporations have been diagnosed by preeminent forensic psychologists and law professors as legal entities that fulfill the criteria for psychopathy.
▶ 1:27:01Chair Johnson: Characteristics include callous unconcern for the safety of others, and capacity to experience guilt, repeated lying and conning others for profit. The evidence presented today exposes corporate tyranny underlying public health practice. This profit ability over people rooted in the neoliberal economic model has led to trust being at an all-time low in the medical profession.
▶ 1:27:27Chair Johnson: A full public apology to the vaccine injured and bereaved is an essential first step in restoring that trust. Tierney emerges when people are afraid to say what they think. When you have something to say, silence is a lie. When everyone lies all the time, tyranny is complete.
▶ 1:27:47Chair Johnson: To save the health of the american people and to save democracy, it is our responsibility to expose, resist and dismantle the era of corporate tyranny we currently find ourselves in, thank you.
▶ 1:28:00Chair Johnson: Our next witness is Dr. julie gralow. She was the chief medical officer -- he is professor emeritus of medical oncology and global health at the university of washington school of medicine and the cofounder of two nonprofits that support female cancer survivors through cancer advocacy and education in developing countries. Dr. gralow.
▶ 1:28:25Chair Johnson: >> thank you chairman johnson, ranking member blumenthal and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to share my clinical perspective on this topic. I am the chief medical officer and executive vice president for the association for clinical oncology, a 501(c) six organization established by the american society of clinical oncology in 2019 that represents more than 50,000 oncology professionals who care for people living with cancer.
▶ 1:28:57Chair Johnson: We work to ensure that all individuals with cancer have access to high-quality care and we are committed to the principle that knowledge conquers cancer. Through research and education, we work to concert cancer -- conquer cancer and deliver a world where cancer is prevented and cure and -- prevented or cured and every survivor is healthy. -- the unwavering commitment to patient safety that guides its development.
▶ 1:29:28Chair Johnson: For nearly three decades, prior to the covid-19 pandemic, the primary driving force behind mrna research was cancer immunotherapy. When exploring emerging therapies like mrna vaccines, oncology professionals rely on well-designed clinical trials to establish clinical efficacy, evaluate unintended consequences and ensure the benefits outweigh the potential risks.
▶ 1:29:55Chair Johnson: Currently there is no clinical evidence proving that mrna covid-19 vaccines cause cancer or accelerate cancer growth. Cancers caused by a series of gene mutations and does not develop suddenly. Tumor evolution is a multistep process that generally takes years or even decades to manifest clinically.
▶ 1:30:18Chair Johnson: The appearance of late stage aggressive tumors within weeks or months of injection is biologically incompatible with what we have learned from decades of research on the causes of cancer. Rna breaks down quickly in the body and does not enter a person's dna. Mrna vaccines do not cause gene mutations. The benefits of covid vaccination in patients with cancer are supported by a large and growing body of evidence.
▶ 1:30:45Chair Johnson: Mrna covid-19 vaccines protect patients with cancer, who often have compromised immune systems, increasing the risk of negative outcomes if they contract covid-19. Before vaccines were available, researchers at the university of wisconsin madison found that covid-19 patients with the current cancer diagnosis for 24 percent more likely to require intensive care and 58% more likely to die in the hospital,
▶ 1:31:15Chair Johnson: Compared to after the vaccines became available. In contrast, a 2020 five study led by investigators at vanderbilt university found that cancer patients who received covid-19 vaccinations had a 50% reduction in the risk of hospitalization. This data is reinforced by a study demonstrating a clinically significant relationship between vaccination and survival in cancer patients, diagnosed with covid-19.
▶ 1:31:42Chair Johnson: Mrna technology also represents a really exciting and significant clinical advancement for therapeutic cancer vaccines aimed at treating existing tumors. Unlike traditional treatments such as chemotherapy, which broadly destroys both cancers -- cancerous and healthy dividing cells, mrna technology is designed to teach an individual's body to recognize tumor markets that are -- tumor markers that are unique to that person's cancer, to use their
▶ 1:32:15Chair Johnson: Immune system to destroy just cancer cells. While the fda has not yet granted approval for mrna cancer vaccine therapies, clinical trials are actively testing mrna cancer vaccines and have reported good tolerability and promising clinical activity.
▶ 1:32:32Chair Johnson: For example just this past week, at our annual meeting, researchers shared the results of a trial that showed melanoma patients who received a cancer fighting mrna vaccine in addition to immunotherapy had better outcomes than patients who received the immunotherapy alone. Additional research led by investigators at md anderson found that patients who received the covid vaccine along with immunotherapy to treat non-small cell lung cancer had better outcomes than those who are not vaccinated.
▶ 1:33:04Chair Johnson: Strong indications that mrna vaccines will likely join approved immunotherapies as a new option for patients with cancer, facing difficult diagnoses. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on these important issues. We remain deeply committed to advancing safe evidence-based care for all patients and I welcome your questions.
▶ 1:33:26Chair Johnson: Thank you Dr. gralow. Our last witness is Ms. tamika felder. Ms. felder is a cancer survivor, award-winning author and founder of survivor. You spell it differently, I get it though. A nonprofit that specializes in cancer advocacy and support.
▶ 1:33:56Chair Johnson: She currently serves as the cochair on the national hpv vaccination roundtable and was appointed by president biden to be a member of the national cancer advisory board.
▶ 1:34:04Ms. Felder: Thank you so much to you, the ranking member and all of you for having me and for including the patient's voice. I am a 20 five year cervical cancer survivor stop today I speak to the safety and importance of vaccines for all people and to advocate for the open and accurate sharing of scientific information so that families and communities can protect themselves in future generations.
▶ 1:34:31Ms. Felder: I would set -- I was diagnosed in 2001 at the age of 20 five while working in washington, D.C. as a broadcast journalist. The disease forced me to confront the fragility of health and I endured a hysterectomy, chemotherapy and radiation which ultimately led to the loss of my fertility.
▶ 1:34:51Ms. Felder: Today as a survivor and patient advocate, I have dedicated my work to education, empowerment, ensuring that every person has accurate access to health, medical information, trust in health care and lifesaving prevention tools. I also firmly believe that the hpv vaccine which would have offered protection against the hpv types most common -- commonly associated with cervical cancer could have changed the trajectory of my life.
▶ 1:35:18Ms. Felder: The human cost of cervical cancer remains a preventable disease for most people when prevention and screening are accessible and utilized. Too many lives are cut short by this disease. June is national cancer survivorship month and I am one of 18.6 million cancer survivors in the U.S.
▶ 1:35:36Ms. Felder: I also want to recognize honoring the individuals whose lives were lost to cervical cancer, including jennifer myers of pennsylvania, erica frazier of indiana, becky wallace of california. These are just a few in the united states, of an estimated over 600,000 people projected to die from cancer.
▶ 1:36:04Ms. Felder: This translates to 1700 deaths per day, making cancer the second leading cause of death in this country. Each of these women were more than a diagnosis. They were mothers, friends, contributors to their communities. Their stories remind us why prevention, vaccination where appropriate and continued research are important to save others from needless suffering and loss. While other countries are nearing cervical cancer elimination, the united states is still high despite having the tools needed.
▶ 1:36:33Ms. Felder: Vaccines approved for use in the united states undergo rigorous multiphase testing for safety and efficacy before they are licensed. The overwhelming majority of vaccines have favorable safety profiles and benefits, reducing the reduction of infectious disease, prevention of severe illness and death and protection of vulnerable populations greatly outweigh the risks of rare adverse events.
▶ 1:37:01Ms. Felder: Vaccines are not just about one disease, they are about a standard approach to preventing contagious and deadly illnesses. The safety frameworks applied to vaccines across the board, routine immunizations for children, adults and special populations. Cancer prevention vaccines like the hpv vaccines, influenza and other preventable diseases. Science provides the best available evidence in the safety and effectiveness of vaccines.
▶ 1:37:28Ms. Felder: We rely on rigorous research, transparent reporting and peer-reviewed findings that are essential to protect public health. In an era of rapid information exchange, we must commit to sharing factual science-based information. Misinformation and fear mongering about vaccines undermines trust, delays or prevents vaccination and leaves people vulnerable to preventable diseases. Public health communication should be clear, compassionate and inclusive.
▶ 1:37:59Ms. Felder: It should acknowledge concerns, provide transparent explanations of benefits and risk and connect people with trusted health care providers who can answer questions and offer guidance. Survivors and patients must be at the center of conversations around vaccines and cancer prevention. We bring lived experiences with disease, treatment and survivorship, perspective that matters when designing education, outreach and clinical guidance.
▶ 1:38:23Ms. Felder: As a cancer survivor and advocate, I see the devastating toll of cancer and the profound promise of prevention. Vaccines are powerful tools when used alongside screening and treatment. We can reduce the burden.
▶ 1:38:40Ms. Felder: I want to thank you all for the opportunity to testify, I am grateful for your consideration on policies that protect communities today and for generations to come, and a three year cervical cancer survivor from north carolina reminded me, may our stories pave the way so others don't have the same stories. As much as our stories matter, so do the science. Respectfully, I am a 25 year cervical cancer survivor.
▶ 1:39:10Chair Johnson: Thank you Ms. felder. It is probably safe to say come up people on this panel, we don't dispute the fact that vaccines can be helpful and save lives. I think you can dispute some of the claims, but I've never been an anti-backxer -- anti-vaxxer. I think what we are seeing is a denial of vaccine injuries.
▶ 1:39:46Chair Johnson: We had a mother, emily, whose daughter died 18 days after she received her third short of the hpv vaccine. After eight years of litigation, quote, hhs conceded that her daughter died from hpv vaccination and they had no alternative acclamation. I am not a vaccine denier.
▶ 1:40:15Chair Johnson: We are battling vaccine injury deniers. Dr. gralow, you mentioned mrna degrades rapidly in the body. Is it your understanding or belief that the mrna in the covid injections is that type?
▶ 1:40:32Dr. Gralow: That is my understanding.
▶ 1:40:37Chair Johnson: So you realize that is not true mrna, it is modified. It doesn't group -- it does not degrade. The spike in the mrna circulates in the body for up to two years. Attaching to cells.
▶ 1:41:04Chair Johnson: Was it your belief that the injection would stay in the arm? We were told that in the beginning. Shot and the arm, it would stay there, create antibodies and degrade quickly. That is why it was so safe. Was it your belief that the injection stays in the arm?
▶ 1:41:24Dr. Gralow: The effects of the injection our total body. The immune response and the reaction.
▶ 1:41:33Chair Johnson: The modified mrna was encapsulated in a local nanoparticles. Do you believe that package stayed in the arm as we were told as it was going to do?
▶ 1:41:46Dr. Gralow: I can't reliably comment on that.
▶ 1:41:51Chair Johnson: You are saying how safe and effective it is but you don't know how it works.
▶ 1:41:55Dr. Gralow: I do know how it works. It incites a immune reaction as vaccines do.
▶ 1:42:02Chair Johnson: How does it incite that reaction? What does it do?
▶ 1:42:08Dr. Gralow: It brings the immune cells to recognize the covid --
▶ 1:42:15Chair Johnson: How does it help them do that? Are you aware that the nanoparticles delivers the modified mrna to a cell, that modified mrna is injected into the cell and then it turns the cell into a factory that produces a protein spike that is toxic to the body.
▶ 1:42:40Dr. Gralow: The mrna vaccine does get into cells and it codes for a protein once it is inside the cell.
▶ 1:42:49Chair Johnson: Are you aware of the dna contamination in these files -- if the mrna is being injected into the cell, maybe some of this dna which is way beyond the levels could also be injected. Are you aware of that?
▶ 1:43:04Dr. Gralow: I am aware that the mrna is injected does not get into our dna and I am not aware of reliable data saying that within the vaccine itself, that the dna levels are --
▶ 1:43:18Chair Johnson: You said there is no clinical evidence proving these injections caused cancer. What would you require for proof? How would you prove that?
▶ 1:43:33Dr. Gralow: I believe that we can put some boundaries around how much of an effect could be happening with respect to causing or accelerating cancer, because we have not seen an overall increase in cancer rates in the vaccinated U.S. population.
▶ 1:43:54Dr. Gralow: In order to prove it, we would need a randomized clinical trial, where patients with equal and both arms, one would have a placebo or no vaccine and the other would get the vaccine, and we would need to follow long-term.
▶ 1:44:09Chair Johnson: Observational studies, clinical observation has no evidence or carries no weight?
▶ 1:44:15Dr. Gralow: It is hypothesis generating. There are major differences between people who choose to have vaccines are more health engaged and those who choose not to.
▶ 1:44:25Chair Johnson: I was sent a study that is going to be discussed in the june eighth and ninth president's cancer panel. An apparently -- the U.S. seer.
▶ 1:44:43Dr. Gralow: Surveillance and epidemiologic evidence registry.
▶ 1:44:49Chair Johnson: That is not easy to say. This is what Dr. rich wanted me to talk about. Leukemias are generally the shortest latency cancers. Cancer instance data for 2023 was recently released. It is clear that for 2023 there are substantial incidents of increases above the tread line for all, both sexes, for every cohort.
▶ 1:45:21Chair Johnson: An instant increase above the trend line. This appears to be the first U.S. data showing increasing in leukemia could be possible. I think that is a pretty balanced statement. We have Dr. el-deiry who just laid out possible mechanisms. Dr. dalgleish who saw in his clinics and was concerned.
▶ 1:45:48Chair Johnson: I hear from a lot of doctors, also clinically, observationally . Dr. el-deiry talked about cancers in the arm or the neck. Isn't that causation? Shouldn't we research that?
▶ 1:46:05Dr. Gralow: I do believe we should research this. Just because there may be some biologic possibility because we have seen single cases where cancer is diagnosed immediately after a vaccine or in the region, that does not mean it began developing at that point in time. Let's distinguish when it developed and when it was diagnosed.
▶ 1:46:28Chair Johnson: Let me address the other belief or you thought it stayed in the arm. -- wood bio distributed all over to the body, accumulate in ovaries and adrenal glands.
▶ 1:46:44Chair Johnson: So we do know now that they lied to us saying it was -- and in doing so, this little package with modified mrna that was not going to degrade, enter cells all over the body, in the heart, turning those heart cells into manufacturers of a toxic spike protein. What does the body do when there is a toxic spike protein on the cell?
▶ 1:47:12Dr. Gralow: I would first argue that what happens in mice is not necessarily what happens --
▶ 1:47:17Chair Johnson: This happened in humans. They knew it when they lied to us, they knew it was going to bio distribute. Now we know it because -- one final question, does it concern you as it concerns other doctors that spike proteins are being found in tumors?
▶ 1:47:39Dr. Gralow: I think we need to further investigate this, explore it, look at how common this is. I am a scientist, I believe that we should research, do the research and have definitive proof. Not a single cases or populations where --
▶ 1:48:00Chair Johnson: There is no such thing as a definitive proof. We will get to that later.
▶ 1:48:05Ranking Member Blumenthal: Thank you Mr. chairman. Dr. gralow, you are the chief medical officer and executive vice president at the association for clinical oncology, and you are a professor and a clinician. And your organization represents more than 50,000 oncology professionals who care for people with cancer.
▶ 1:48:32Ranking Member Blumenthal: Your testimony -- I'm sorry I was not here personally but I have read your testimony a couple of times -- is that there is quote, no clinical evidence proving that mrna covid-19 vaccines cause cancer. That is the predominant view of the 50,000 medical professionals part of your association?
▶ 1:48:59Dr. Gralow: Correct. It is also a statement on our own U.S. national cancer institute website, a direct quote from the website.
▶ 1:49:10Ranking Member Blumenthal: Your testimony, based on scientific evidence now is that rna quote, breaks down quickly in the body and does not enter a person's dna. In other words, mrna cannot cause gene mutations. Correct? So whatever the need for more research, that is the science that exists right now.
▶ 1:49:40Dr. Gralow: That is the science.
▶ 1:49:43Ranking Member Blumenthal: That is the science that ought to guide clinicians, and does in fact guide them in prescribing vaccines for people who suffer from cancer, tragically. Because covid-19 doesn't help them if they suffer from both cancer and covid-19. Covid-19 just weakens them.
▶ 1:50:04Dr. Gralow: We have good data that cancer patients were generally more vulnerable. Weakened immune systems. Those who got vaccinated in a couple of different registries did better, had better survival than those who did not.
▶ 1:50:22Ranking Member Blumenthal: The tremendous advances you described in your testimony -- and you just came back from a major conference, so you are as up-to-date as possible -- developing individual personalized immunotherapy. Based on mrna as a platform. That is the result of scientific research that goes back years correct, maybe decades?
▶ 1:50:52Dr. Gralow: That is what led to the development of the covid vaccines because we were already researching mrna vaccines to treat cancer.
▶ 1:51:01Ranking Member Blumenthal: The developers of the covid-19 vaccine were standing on the shoulders of that research.
▶ 1:51:06Dr. Gralow: Correct.
▶ 1:51:08Ranking Member Blumenthal: In your opinion, -- I want to ask this as objectively as possible -- how impactful is the administration decision ending research grants for nih or other government agencies on basic science to the health of this nation?
▶ 1:51:28Dr. Gralow: I think decreasing research funding is a threat that will slow down progress, it will slow down the united states' preeminence as the hub for cancer research. Ideas -- it was on the front page of the papers, this new inhibitor that is a major breakthrough for pancreatic cancer.
▶ 1:51:58Dr. Gralow: That started with basic research funded by the national cancer institute and taken into industry, a grand slam I called it, for pancreatic cancer that is applicable to lung cancer, c olon cancer. -- you could have said let's stop, it is not druggable, but basic funding from the government is what found a way.
▶ 1:52:30Ranking Member Blumenthal: And stopping it will cost lives correct? Stopping this research will cost lives?
▶ 1:52:39Dr. Gralow: Absolutely.
▶ 1:52:42Ranking Member Blumenthal: Ms. felder, I want to thank you and Dr. gralow for being here today, but particularly yourself in sharing your personal story. You've had the opportunity to watch some of the administration's shifts in the cdc main vaccine advisory panel. When it comes to the hpv vaccine.
▶ 1:53:13Ranking Member Blumenthal: What do you think is likely to happen to cervical cancer rates in this country, if these baseless attacks on hpv vaccines continue?
▶ 1:53:25Ms. Felder: Sadly, more people will die. When we look at this two decades from now, it'll be horrendous. We also know that hpv vaccine protects from more than just cervical cancer.
▶ 1:53:37Ranking Member Blumenthal: And you have been through that moment, when a doctor says to you, and I can't claim to quote, but your doctor in effect, I have some news I need to tell you and we think you will be ok, but this is serious and here is the diagnosis.
▶ 1:54:07Ranking Member Blumenthal: How does it make you feel or how would it make you feel, if you knew that these vaccines that could have saved a lot of lives, including maybe yours, are being attacked?
▶ 1:54:21Ms. Felder: Honestly it is infuriating because no one in the united states of america should die of cervical cancer. But yet as I read just a few names, people are dying from it.
▶ 1:54:36Ms. Felder: While we have other countries, rwanda, scotland, australia, working towards cervical cancer elimination, denmark, there is no reason that the united states of america should be lagging so far behind.
▶ 1:54:54Ranking Member Blumenthal: And there's no reason we should be in a lagging competition with other countries, but more importantly, that we should forgo any kind of treatment or discourage people with myth and misinformation, from seeking treatment that may save their life.
▶ 1:55:16Ms. Felder: We have to get a handle on the misinformation, because misinformation causes more deaths. We have to stop it. Thank. I apologize to the pennell and Mr. chairman. I have a hearing of the veteran affairs committee, I am the ranking member there, and I apologize but I want to thank you for being here today.
▶ 1:55:41Chair Johnson: Thank you ranking member blumenthal. Misinformation, let's talk about one of the great lies told during covid it's been repeated. This is not, normal mrna. This is modified. Of my five witnesses, who is best qualified to describe exactly what the mrna was in these injections? Dr. el-deiry.
▶ 1:56:11Dr. El-Deiry: The mrna is modified. This won the nobel prize a couple years ago. It was a way to make mrna stable.
▶ 1:56:30Chair Johnson: So this does not degrade in days. We will enter the study in the record, 700 days will stop it was studied and found still circulating in the body. Devon hundred days, that's close to two years and they have not extended the study beyond that. Go ahead.
▶ 1:56:48Dr. El-Deiry: I think more research needs to be done about the mechanisms of persistence, but it was unexpected. Along with a number of other things that were observed after the vaccines were rolled out.
▶ 1:57:17Dr. El-Deiry: You mentioned biodistribution, the contaminants you mentioned, plasmids.
▶ 1:57:26Chair Johnson: Including sv40.
▶ 1:57:31Dr. El-Deiry: Not the full sv40 sequence, but when the sv40 enhanced or promoter sequences, if they find their way into the human genome, they can drive oncogenes.
▶ 1:57:47Chair Johnson: If they are contained in that lipid nanoparticles, and the lipid nanoparticles allows the transfection of the mrna into the cell, this dna contaminant can enter the cell as well correct? It is a possibility, there is no clinical proof. Talk to me about that.
▶ 1:58:14Chair Johnson: Is there literally ever definitive -- this is driving me nuts as we talk to people at the fda, nih, the cdc, that turn a blind eye to the people screaming at them and they always go back to what we didn't have definitive proof.
▶ 1:58:34Dr. El-Deiry: I will say that a number of different laboratories and scientists, including one at the fda published a report and finding the dna was not very hard. A bunch of high school students did it over the summer.
▶ 1:58:53Chair Johnson: It literally was high school students.
▶ 1:58:59Dr. El-Deiry: But the other scientists who found this and reproduced it in different labs with different vials published papers. Dr. david speicher, Dr. jess rose, published a paper that looked at many vaccine vials over a number of years and documented levels and they compared moderna and pfizer lots
▶ 1:59:29Dr. El-Deiry: And found that much higher levels than the fda threshold, which was put into effect decades ago for naked dna, not dna wrapped in lipid nanoparticles that will take the dna into the human cells.
▶ 1:59:53Chair Johnson: Dr. dalgleish, you look like you want to add something. Try and address the definitive proof because if that is what is required, we will never warn the public about possible dangers. I always thought, personally that the fda's role was to search for safety signals. Using these incredibly sophisticated aurora -- algorithms to look for the small safety signals so that they can understand that and warn the public and warned medical doctors.
▶ 2:00:25Chair Johnson: They denied the safety signals and there wasn't definitive proof so we couldn't go to the american public. Talk to me about that.
▶ 2:00:31Chair Johnson: Thank you very much. The problem is that people falsely understood rna cycle vaccines. Rna is a natural messenger in the body and it lasts about 20 seconds before it is gobbled up. So it would never be there long enough to induce an immune response. So what they had to do was put a structure in it so that it would last a bit longer.
▶ 2:01:02Chair Johnson: They told us it would go into the arm and it would be gone in 48 hours. Just to sum up what we are hearing is this is anything but the truth. Because the important part here is the lnp. That takes it into the center of the nucleus, whereby it can get inserted and the thing about rna, it's like herding cats.
▶ 2:01:31Chair Johnson: You cannot tell it where to go or where to insert. I sat on the board of a company developing these things for cancer, and essentially we realized that all of the evidence says you will never be able to harness these things.
▶ 2:01:43Chair Johnson: Because you could not control where it went.
▶ 2:01:46Dr. Dalgelish: You cannot control the production. Just to point out how dangerous this is, this spike protein, which every single manufacturer of vaccines chose as their antigen, and I was the first to point out it was highly dangerous because it is 80% homologous -- the autoimmune responses would be awful. 100 31 have been reported to the fda.
▶ 2:02:16Dr. Dalgelish: We have to ask -- we have to accept this is an extremely dangerous thing to have pouring out of your body continually year after year, and you bring forward the chances of every disease you've got which is why those of us who look at the data years and years of developing and making vaccines safe have said no, it cannot be done. I rest my case on.
▶ 2:02:41Chair Johnson: This is the second medical professional Dr. witness that the democrats have brought in here that did not understand that this was not true mrna. I find that shocking. I knew this from the beginning. I'm not a doctor. I was schooled in what this mechanism was. I didn't need definitive proof that it could cause harm, I said this is dangerous.
▶ 2:03:11Chair Johnson: I don't want to deal with it. And now we just have these medical professionals that are relying on studies -- I want to get to this because the big part of this hearing is how corrupt science has become. Does it surprise any of you who have been attacked because you conducted research or study that is outside the narrative or disproves that the mrna is not true mrna?
▶ 2:03:40Chair Johnson: The studies that show it has no problems? Those things get funded. Do you think anyone attacks those? Talk about the study that tanked hydroxychloroquine in the midst of the pandemic when we should have been doing everything we could to treat the disease. Dr.
▶ 2:04:02Chair Johnson: Hazan, I think you are familiar with the study that had totally bogus data but we didn't hear much of a cry at the press.
▶ 2:04:14Dr. Hazan: It was a fraudulent study written by a nonmedical and the media went crazy to destroy hydroxychloroquine and created the narrative that hydroxychloroquine was dangerous when hydroxychloroquine was given to millions of people with arthritis before and we never had any problems and all of a sudden, the study comes out of nowhere and starts quoting patients that had covid in australia. Australia didn't even have covid at the time that the paper was published.
▶ 2:04:46Dr. Hazan: This is the problem, you have these papers coming out, they get into these fancy journals, it was an embarrassment for them frankly because it started waking up physicians that we cannot trust the medical literature. I come from the world of clinical trials. As a clinical trial doctor, my number one thing is yes we look at is the drug better than placebo.
▶ 2:05:15Dr. Hazan: But we also look at serious adverse events and we look at signals that tell us this is wrong. There were so many things that happened during the pandemic, it changed me as a physician doing clinical trials because all of a sudden I'm listening to the vaccine staying in the deltoid? Nothing stays in the deltoid. Especially in the microbiome space, you see anything you put on your skin, a topical product or -- it has the potential of killing your microbiome.
▶ 2:05:47Dr. Hazan: The skin has blood vessels and nerves and muscles underneath. Nothing that you inject or put topical just stays in that area.
▶ 2:05:55Chair Johnson: Isn't it true the lipid nanoparticles was literally designed to permeate? So they knew that, and they lied to us. That's why we don't have trust. We don't have trust in science because of who funds it. Dr. gralow who funds your organization? Who was the major funder of your society?
▶ 2:06:21Dr. Gralow: Our society is funded by membership, registrations to our meetings, industry sponsorship of our meetings, by our journal subscriptions, nonprofits and individuals.
▶ 2:06:35Chair Johnson: And big pharma. Millions and millions of dollars from big pharma.
▶ 2:06:41Dr. Gralow: It goes to support our meetings and journals.
▶ 2:06:46Chair Johnson: Just like the media gets billions of dollars from big pharma so they don't do investigative journalism on these cancer injuries. Ms. felder, as a survivor of cancer, wouldn't you like to know if there is a chemical or something in the environment, or a drug or vaccine that would increase your chance of getting cancer?
▶ 2:07:13Ms. Felder: Absolutely.
▶ 2:07:15Chair Johnson: Dr. gralow, again, do you agree that the fda and the cdc, their job after giving emergency use authorization for something and approving something and doing safety surveillance, isn't it their job to look at all the data and try and determine where others -- where are those safety signals we might miss?
▶ 2:07:43Chair Johnson: We have to find those safety signals so we can put warnings on the network, to warn clinicians, be on the lookout for this. We are seeing more of this adverse reaction to vioxx or -- shouldn't it be that way? Isn't that what the fda ought to do?
▶ 2:08:02Dr. Gralow: Postapproval surveillance is part of the fda's job.
▶ 2:08:06Chair Johnson: Have you read the report from four weeks ago?
▶ 2:08:09Dr. Gralow: I have not.
▶ 2:08:11Chair Johnson: Let me summarize. On march 1, 2021, peter marks had a group that approves vaccines and does safety surveillance. He was given a briefing by one of their data mining experts who was working with the inventor of the algorithm at oracle.
▶ 2:08:33Chair Johnson: They were given a multipage briefing that there algorithm that they were using to analyze was going to hide and mask safety signals. It was easy to see why because prior to the covid injections we had an average of about 280 deaths per year associated with a vaccine. 2021 there was 21,000.
▶ 2:09:00Chair Johnson: Let's say there are 10,000 deaths associated with the pfizer vaccine, 10,000 associated with modernity a and then 280 with all other vaccines. If you look at pfizer and compare to moderna. 10,000, 10,280. They are equally dangerous but equally safe. Turn around and look at moderna at 10000 and compare that to pfizer at 10,280.
▶ 2:09:32Chair Johnson: Equally dangerous and equally safe. It is obvious to me how that algorithm when you have such an unusual situation, two distinct injections but compared against each other, like comparing arsenic to hemlock, you hide the safety signals. He was warned it was going to hide them. 26 days later, they did a data run on a new algorithm, up-to-date that did not hide it, did not mask.
▶ 2:10:04Chair Johnson: It showed the system they were using had 49 cases of severe masking. They show them 25 safety signals. Put up the chart here. This is the first list. You've got sudden cardiac death, bell's palsy, pulmonary infarction, stroke, basal guard will stroke. This is serious stuff.
▶ 2:10:36Chair Johnson: Senior officials at the fda were shown this, for three consecutive months. Kept doing data runs of showing more cases of different sudden deaths. I would think the fda officials would say thank you, for alerting us to this thing so we can alert the doctors and the medical establishment. Do you think that is what they did? No.
▶ 2:11:04Chair Johnson: They told her to buzz off and cease and desist, go away, you are a pest. They continued to use the algorithm that they knew were hiding safety signals, so they could go to the american public to this day and light of them and say we were not seeking safety signals. They saw them, they just closed their eyes. Now when we talk to them, I'm asking you because you said there is no proof. We talk to the people involved in this, that is their excuse.
▶ 2:11:36Chair Johnson: This was not definitive proof. Dr. malhotra, is there ever definitive proof? I mean definitive. I suppose if you shoot something into the brain, there is definitive proof that person died. But medically, when you die, you have all kinds of -- what you actually died from, it's kind of hard isn't it?
▶ 2:12:00Dr. Malhotra: When you make a diagnosis in medicine, you go on the strength of the evidence. It is difficult to get complete and total proof. Look at big tobacco, smoking and lung cancer. The first evidence that emerged that linked smoking and lung cancer until there was regulation curving tobacco took 50 years because the tobacco industry launched a campaign to deny that smoking caused lung cancer.
▶ 2:12:25Chair Johnson: They bought a lot of ads on tv?
▶ 2:12:29Dr. Malhotra: Maybe they did.
▶ 2:12:31Chair Johnson: Did they possibly fund medical associations? History maybe doesn't repeat itself, but it sure rhymes.
▶ 2:12:39Dr. Malhotra: On that topic as well, there are a few real truths that people need to understand. First of all, medicine is not an exact science. We keep hearing trust the science. That's the most unscientific statement I've ever heard in my life because medicine is an applied science, and social science, it is constantly evolving.
▶ 2:13:05Dr. Malhotra: The father of the evidence based medicine movements at 50% of what you learned in medical school will turn out to be outdated or dead wrong within five years of your graduation. The problem is no one can tell you which half. What that means is it is open to manipulation.
▶ 2:13:21Dr. Malhotra: If you look at the current status of the medical industrial complex, we have this misinformation master quote, professor at stanford, 2017 he wrote a paper about how to survive the medical misinformation mess and he points out that 20% to 50% of all health care activity in the united states brings no benefit to the patient, is wasteful or harmful what is the root cause of that problem?
▶ 2:13:46Dr. Malhotra: Because most doctors are unaware of the poor quality research that drives their clinical decision-making. The pharmaceutical companies direct the agenda. They analyze their own research, they give summary results of their research to the regulators such as the fda.
▶ 2:14:08Dr. Malhotra: The problem we've got now is that there is no open transparency or independence because 60% of the funding of the fda comes from big pharma. In the u.k., 86% of the funding comes from big pharma.
▶ 2:14:25Dr. Malhotra: You've created a misinformation mess with biases all the way through to the consultation room and what happens is you have an exaggerated safety and benefit invariably almost before every single drug that has come on the market and that is a real problem at the root cause of this issue.
▶ 2:14:43Chair Johnson: Dr. el-deiry, I'm going to put up a chart you presented to us. You've been around for quite a few years. Dr. gralow, are you familiar with Dr. el-deiry in the cancer field?
▶ 2:15:01Dr. Gralow: Absolutely and I serve on the scientific advisory group for his consortium for precision oncology.
▶ 2:15:09Chair Johnson: Would you consider him a highly respected oncologist and cancer researcher?
▶ 2:15:16Dr. Gralow: I have always respected Dr. el-deiry.
▶ 2:15:19Chair Johnson: Well someone up here doesn't. Dr. el-deiry, explain what this chart shows, the relationship to when you started publishing things like maybe the origin of the coronavirus is not holding true. Maybe it was man-made. And all of a sudden you start getting all of these requests for information on your past studies.
▶ 2:15:49Chair Johnson: Describe the torment you have gone through.
▶ 2:15:52Dr. El-Deiry: Back in 2020, a paper was published in nature medicine around april. It has become controversial in terms of pointing to the origins. That is when attacks started on social media. But we did some covid research.
▶ 2:16:20Dr. El-Deiry: Right from the beginning as I said earlier, we know viruses cause cancer, the covid virus needs to be studied for the links to cancer. The covid virus vaccine makes the spike protein. There is a difference between covid and hpv.
▶ 2:16:45Chair Johnson: Covid is literally gene therapy.
▶ 2:16:52Dr. El-Deiry: But you are not using --
▶ 2:16:56Chair Johnson: Address the ramp-up of attacks on you. Give me a timeline where you publish something and then these attacks begin?
▶ 2:17:03Dr. El-Deiry: 2024 we published preliminary data if you overexpressed the spike protein in human cells, you attenuate or block the tumor suppressor. This is the most common suppressor.
▶ 2:17:21Chair Johnson: And big pharma wouldn't like that.
▶ 2:17:26Dr. El-Deiry: We said maybe if you want to develop a good vaccine, boost the immune system against the virus but limit collateral damage to the host defenses. That should not be controversial. Attacks started and continued and by the middle of 2025, I was invited to serve on an hhs committee.
▶ 2:17:55Dr. El-Deiry: I was doing government service to look into possible links and found a bunch of things that were worth studying more, and the attacks took off. We published that work by january. The journal where the article was published came under a cyber attack. No one in the world could access this paper for at least a week.
▶ 2:18:19Chair Johnson: This is when I was connected with you and started hearing -- I would call it torment. You have been tormented. They are trying to destroy your career.
▶ 2:18:30Dr. El-Deiry: I will say a couple of things. All of these mounting concerns look concerning, they are piling up. Most of them are trivial in my view.
▶ 2:18:50Dr. El-Deiry: One case was a type of graphical error in a supplementary table, where we were looking at what does the body produce when people have severe covid, and we spelled the word intubation as incubation. That's a concern.
▶ 2:19:07Chair Johnson: I'm going to enter into the record a blog post that kind of describes this is simply, the torment you've been going through. I also want to make sure I enter into the record that -- one thing I would recommend is there was a substack piece written by a midwestern doctor today.
▶ 2:19:42Chair Johnson: Put up that one. This -- he is doing it for this hearing, the rate clinical trials or how they rake clinical trials and the price we all pay for it. I guess that is the point. I feel sorry for you doctors paying a very high price for being attacked because you're trying to get the truth, you're trying to do real science which is skeptical, you are trying to poke holes.
▶ 2:20:11Chair Johnson: But the people who really pay is the patients. We don't have a clue. The lies told to the public, that is why a growing percentage of americans don't trust doctors or avoid hospitals like the plague. This caught my eye in this piece right here. What kind of chart is this called?
▶ 2:20:38Dr. Gralow: A forest plot.
▶ 2:20:40Chair Johnson: This shows all the different types of drugs people studied to treat covid. What is noteworthy about this, if you look at everything that has a red circle around it, or a red dot. They were either in the guidelines or they weren't. What is notable about it is, I will just go down the list. I can't pronounce them. $2100. $1200.
▶ 2:21:12Chair Johnson: $855. $1200. $529. $2100. Remdesivir, that's what nurses call ron, death is near. $3100.
▶ 2:21:36Chair Johnson: C1 with the forest plot, actually diet, 50% efficacy. Everything else is below 50% efficacy. 99 different studies paired 137,000 patients. Again, this shows the corruption within our medical system. Random controlled trials.
▶ 2:22:07Chair Johnson: Who can afford to run those? You spent a lot on trials. You do a lot of -- I consider more observational trials. >> right now, because I have switched my ways into looking more at the micro biome, but there was a time I was doing clinical trials for pharmaceutical companies, and pharmaceutical companies pay a lot of money to do clinical trials.
▶ 2:22:37Chair Johnson: What most people don't know and what the public does not know is that you don't know what's in paxlovid. For all you know, it is a couple drugs that are off label on the market. But it is a trade secret. The problem with that is now they can bring that trade secret into the public at a high price. Who controls that price? If you look at the stock market, you want who is investing in these pharmaceutical companies.
▶ 2:23:07Chair Johnson: These stocks, it is all about the price of the stock. >> let's get back to your -- you had what I consider important papers. You keep me up-to-date in terms of what you are doing. You literally have nonverbal autistic children that are talking. I've seen the videos. You have a bunch of patients you have treated with a different normality's, als, keeping als patients alive. >> yes, 4.5 years.
▶ 2:23:36Chair Johnson: Yes -- again, these are basically fda approved or monitored trials and you write the pay -- the papers on. Why do you assume they were retracted? Again, there is probably no definitive proof. But what is your conjecture? >> you can't make a business out of something that is published to the public and pharmaceutical companies do spend a lot of money on clinical trials.
▶ 2:24:07Chair Johnson: They expect to make their money back on capital expenditures.
▶ 2:24:11Chair Johnson: Which to plug the midwestern Dr., read this article because it shows you how they doctor. This is a very interesting read. If you're watching the hearing, read this one. >> I have been in the clinical trial business for three decades. I know all the tricks.
▶ 2:24:33Chair Johnson: That's why I'm asking you to convey a couple. >> unfortunately, I have always stood by one thing. Good drugs come out and bad drugs stay out. When a research -- when research is done poorly, it is time to get the drug out of the market. I think we can all agree, as we still have covid amongst us, covid has not disappeared. That these vaccines have not done what they were supposed to do. They have not eradicated the virus.
▶ 2:25:04Chair Johnson: We still have covid amongst us. Therefore, we have to look at, how do we get better? How do we get better as society? How do we stop killing the micro biome and how do we improve the micro bio? Science is only as good as science is today until the new technology comes along.
▶ 2:25:24Chair Johnson: When you destroy the new technology, that is trying to come out and say hey, look at me, I'm the micro biome, and you are suffocating that in censoring that coming you are not allowing it to progress. And you stop science. You alluded to my two twins that resumed speech after nine months of manipulating the microbiota to improve their micro biome to get rid of the bad microbes. Do you know how many parents are asking me, can you publish that? I can't publish.
▶ 2:25:55Chair Johnson: You want to know why I can't publish? I have to publish because if I want to convince my peers to do what I'm doing so they can reproduce the data, I have to publish. I can't just be on social media and say, hey, look at what I need to do.
▶ 2:26:10Chair Johnson: Why don't you publish it? >> I can't publish. I have had --
▶ 2:26:15Chair Johnson: Because they were attract them. >> it's a story. Science is a story untold. Imagine you are reading a book and you want to know the end of the story about somebody removed chapter four and eight from your story. It's no longer a story. You have lost the characters. The micro biome is a story. K story of discovery, of discovering loss of -- of bacteria.
▶ 2:26:44Chair Johnson: It is a story of noticing that loss of bacteria happened to be an invasive cancers. It is a story of the messenger rna killing the bifida back -- bifida bacteria. You have to ask questions. Is the vaccine killing the bifida bacteria? Are these people low in bifida bacteria and possibly getting --
▶ 2:27:04Chair Johnson: My question is why do you think your studies were retracted? What powerful interests were you threatening? Who didn't want your studies out there? >> people that are benefiting from the price of the stock. From the pharmaceutical products developed.
▶ 2:27:26Chair Johnson: From treatments not curing the diseases. >> yes.
▶ 2:27:29Chair Johnson: This is one of the better charts. This is from back in 2021. The blue lines, looks like one great big blue blob, those are daily new cases. You will notice they peaked about january 2021, as we started the uptake of the covid injection. The pandemic was definitely petering out.
▶ 2:27:57Chair Johnson: You would think if the injection was that effective, that would continue to have the pandemic be over that didn't happen. I remember contacting all these doctors, there were vac's and allergists and immunologists thing the work -- the worst thing you can do is do mass vaccination. It was going to drive variants. We had delta, then omicron. Is that what happened? I know people who were publishing those studies or papers were probably attacked. They were dismissed.
▶ 2:28:30Chair Johnson: Kooks. Does that chart look like success of the injection? What do you think of what happened in terms of the different variants? >> I think that chart says it all.
▶ 2:28:48Chair Johnson: I would like to point out that we suffer from people running this pandemic response to it who did not understand basic respiratory diseases. They always go in cycles. Then they are out.
▶ 2:29:07Chair Johnson: Each following wave of infection against less dangerous and sometimes more infectious like omicron but less of a problem here one of the big mistakes made in handling this pandemic is that, I speak from the english data which I know well. I suspect there are parallels. We introduce lockdown just as the first wave was disappearing. They gave credit to the lockdown. They introduced the vaccine. The second wave is happening.
▶ 2:29:41Chair Johnson: Hence the claim that they save millions of lives which is completely utter nonsense. It is only, had that wave continued to go on, showing to be the leashes.
▶ 2:29:53Chair Johnson: Let me show you a study that has not been attacked or rebutted other than from me. You talk about saving millions of lives. Are ranking member couple hearings ago, this is the study from the commonwealth fund. Claiming that in 2021, 2022, we .2 million lives were saved. I have a chart or the first chart shows actual deficit through 2019.
▶ 2:30:24Chair Johnson: This is in the U.S. under 1%. Population is growing. Number of deaths per year. Up to about 2.85 in 2019. Let's show what happened. Actual deaths through 2024. Obviously, 20/20 went from 2.9 over to 3.4.
▶ 2:30:51Chair Johnson: Again, I would say the vaccine was effective when new cases had plummeted by january of 2021. You saw deaths go down in 2021. We end up with 3.5 million deaths. Came down a little more in 2022. Where's the 3.2 million lives saved? Next chart.
▶ 2:31:16Chair Johnson: In order to make this claim in this completely bs paper, I'm not a medical researcher. I am just a lowly accountant who can do simple math and produce charts. You would have to assume we have gone from 2.8 5 million deaths in 2019 and expected 5 million deaths in 2021 and 2022 with a vaccine available. This paper still stands.
▶ 2:31:46Chair Johnson: The united states senator used this as proof. No offense, but he brings in doctors who believe mrna was actual mrna, and that modified not to be degrading the body. Don't have a clue about that, doesn't understand the mechanism that could cause cancer. They just make this, 3.2 million lives. Obviously, you knuckleheads talking about that, you don't understand the benefit.
▶ 2:32:16Chair Johnson: How can you spread this at disinformation? I'm sorry, the disinformation is from the other side. I don't deny that vaccines can save lives. I will deny that they saved 3.2 million. There's no way. Again, the point being, this study conforms to the narrative. I'm sure pfizer and moderna love this study.
▶ 2:32:42Chair Johnson: Because they just got approved for another booster without any review of the vaccine of the injection injuries. Even though they were begged to pair look at it. Put up the various chart, 21 million deaths. Yeah, that one.
▶ 2:33:12Chair Johnson: This shows the number of deaths reported associated with the vaccine going back to 1990. You can see through 2019, 280 deaths on average. 2021, 21,000 deaths worldwide. Currently, the number is 39,000.
▶ 2:33:38Chair Johnson: 24% of those deaths occur on either the day of vaccination or one or two days. Is that definitive proof? Did some of those people die from something other than the injection? Probably, maybe. At that would concern me. -- but that would be something that would concern me. As a regulator, who has a duty to surveilled safety and warn the american public that may be the american public should have been warned.
▶ 2:34:11Chair Johnson: The american public wasn't. Again, they publish these studies, it is actually remarkable that it was pulled down. The data was completely fraudulent. Listen, I have so many questions that I prepared for you guys. . I don't know where to begin.
▶ 2:34:43Chair Johnson: Our side -- I get accused -- by the way, there has not been one thing I have said during covid that has been proven wrong. I will challenge anything I have said since I have been vilified or ridiculed. Their bait -- there may be a couple minor mistakes, but all the conspiracy theories I have been accused of, they are all true. Yet we get accused of misinformation.
▶ 2:35:17Dr. Dalgleish: I just want to add in a couple comments relative to what you were alluding to. The ops -- the obfuscation of the real data was a disgrace throughout. The fact that it got approved on being effective or relatively risk of 95%, was ignored. As a clinician, I want to know how many people do I have to vaccinate to have benefited? It was nearly one in 118. It's just not worth it.
▶ 2:35:48Dr. Dalgleish: This second thing, when it comes to side effects, they basically said, we don't have side effects for the vaccine, until at least 14 days. That is how long it takes an antibody to come. All of the people who drop down dead after one or two days went down the list, because they were only included. I mention this because --
▶ 2:36:09Chair Johnson: It is how they rig clinical trials.
▶ 2:36:14Dr. Dalgleish: Yes. With regards to the claims that there is no link between the vaccines and cancer which we hear repeatedly, like vaccines that save millions of lives, there are a couple of things. I don't know any other cancer doctor except for a couple colleagues who actually ask for the link. We were told in medical school you have to ask for the drugs and vaccines if you deal with the disease.
▶ 2:36:39Dr. Dalgleish: One of the things which has been pointed out to me that we know about these things, the cvc in 24 actually published that there was 18 million people severely disabled by the vaccine in america. I was amazed to see it has been updated this year to over 30 million. It is continuing to rise. This is a result of the vaccine.
▶ 2:37:03Dr. Dalgleish: If you really want to know about the cancer and the vaccines, the cdc, I believe, I'm informed by people who know about these things, they have separate registries. Shortly they -- surely they should be merged.
▶ 2:37:18Chair Johnson: You were never going to find proof when you don't look for proof.
▶ 2:37:22Dr. Dalgleish: Absolutely.
▶ 2:37:22Chair Johnson: That's the problem here they will not fund the studies. It was shown them and they still denied it. Talk about that. I don't think we got an answer on this. Why is this significant that people with biopsies are seeing the spike protein? Why should they be there? It's not obvious to me. Unmasking a legitimate question here. Why is that concerning? Why do you find that odd that there is spike protein?
▶ 2:37:53Chair Johnson: >> it is completely unexpected. It should not be there. Either from covid infection or vaccine. How does it get there? It is a foreign protein. How does it end up in a tumor that is an expanding mouse where the cells have this spike protein. How does it get there? What is he doing there?
▶ 2:38:16Chair Johnson: Why is it that it is six years later and there is very little forensic evidence, people aren't looking in the deceased to see what is happening.
▶ 2:38:26Chair Johnson: Could part of the answer be because the modified rna is still circulating the body six years later? And when a tumor starts, it still attach themselves to cells. That might be one possible explanation.
▶ 2:38:41Dr. El-Deiry: You know what boggles the mind? You talk about hepatitis. We have tests, the antibodies, and six years later, there is no test for spike protein, for example.
▶ 2:38:55Chair Johnson: This is true, it was very rare to have autopsies during covid. I know people who had loved ones die and they could not get an autopsy. Who can speak to that? And what we are seeing in terms of the long white clots, the micro clotting.
▶ 2:39:16Dr. Dalgleish: I can speak to that because I saw some horrendous hyper progression of disease. It is a term that has been applied to people with certain checkpoint inhibitors. There is always a few of them. We see this hyper progression dramatically in patients who have had the boosters. I have seen it in friends of mine and it is really disturbing.
▶ 2:39:42Dr. Dalgleish: I tried very hard to get the tissue checked for spike protein. No coroner would do it. We went everywhere. No coroner would do it. They were told from the top down. While we are talking about a test. It is very easy to measure spike protein in the blood.
▶ 2:40:02Dr. Dalgleish: I have been campaigning that the damage this continuous spike production does is so dangerous, it is going to keep going on, in the cancer is going to keep getting worse. We need to be able to measure the spike protein, which they deny and say it is not needed, then you can try simple things which we know help dissolve the spike protein in the body, which natural processes don't do.
▶ 2:40:33Dr. Dalgleish: Several of these are available and are quite treat -- quite cheap. Why aren't these studies being done? They are so simple to do. They could save a lot of morbidity and certainly in individual anecdotal cases, this works. It will bring down the spike protein toxicity. I think it should be a national program.
▶ 2:40:58Chair Johnson: Not to pick on you, but why don't we conduct these studies? >> I will tell you, I had the opportunity to talk to our director this past week knowing that I would be coming to this hearing. We both support continued surveillance.
▶ 2:41:18Chair Johnson: We both have continued research in this he suggested the nci has an ongoing trial with 200,000 americans who have not had cancer when they enter, and it is looking like causes of cancer and cancer prevention. There are lots of different cohorts with proposed different potential causes of cancer. This could be one, they are collecting blood, tumor.
▶ 2:41:46Chair Johnson: He is very supportive of studying this in an ongoing cohort where they know everything about the patient's history, they are collecting blood. I don't know, probably collecting other things. There is a mechanism where we talked about of how we could further study this.
▶ 2:42:05Chair Johnson: You did your study, claimed 3 million excess deaths. How did you come up with your numbers? Try and keep it pretty high level so we can understand it and pretty brief. And as loud as possible. I really can barely hear you.
▶ 2:42:25Chair Johnson: >> in our study, we processed excess mortality during a certain week or month. In 2020, until -- the expected number of deaths in the country for that time in the normal circumstances.
▶ 2:42:49Chair Johnson: For the baseline of expected deaths, historical death data was from 2015 through 2019. All mortality reports were obstructed for countries for the database, their reported number of deaths.
▶ 2:43:09Chair Johnson: All you did is publish your results. We are not saying anything, this is something that ought to be looked into. Rather than looking into it, they attacked you and you had to resign. You looked like you wanted to say something?
▶ 2:43:31Dr. El-Deiry: I want to make a couple of points. And maybe discuss this with Dr. gralow about a population signal versus risk of developing cancer, other diseases. We know in madison that everybody has different risks.
▶ 2:43:56Dr. El-Deiry: One of the questions that I think is important to answer is what is the specific patient's risk of side effects from the covid vaccine? And what is the risk of cancer? However infinitesimal it would be. The numbers really matter. Many decades ago, my daughter was born and she had a brain injury during her birth.
▶ 2:44:28Dr. El-Deiry: Nobody ever told me about what those risks were. Is it one in 100, 1 in 1000, 10,000. I didn't know, and I'm a doctor. And I have to live with those consequences for the rest of my life. If I knew there was a chance of this that could have been prevented by a c-section, I would have had that done and my daughter could be a beautiful person functional in society.
▶ 2:45:01Dr. El-Deiry: These things are really important for the people who are harmed. What are there risks? We know people have very different risks of developing cancer. It is six years later. Things need to be nuanced. What is the relationship with a number of shots as far as the effects of the vaccine?
▶ 2:45:20Chair Johnson: Again, we are not getting those studies because the people who -- plausible mechanisms of how the spike protein can cause cancer, they are destroying your career. It does not take a dictator -- does not take very many people in the city square before people stop behaving. The same thing with the doctors that have been attacked, licenses threatened, fired, sued.
▶ 2:45:50Chair Johnson: That's why you didn't have many people treating with that, did you? How many doctors do you know whose careers were destroyed because they had the courage to try to treat patients -- we showed it. It is up there in terms of effectiveness. It's hard to blame them, isn't it? >> very few doctors during the pandemic of the courage to treat them.
▶ 2:46:21Chair Johnson: Partly because yes, doctors are afraid of losing their licenses.
▶ 2:46:25Chair Johnson: They often have $200,000 worth of debt. Have a family to take care of. Went through all of this, want to continue to practice medicine because they want to save people's lives. I understand it. It just shows you how effective the attacks are. It doesn't take -- they don't have to make an example of too many people.
▶ 2:46:56Chair Johnson: And doesn't take many. >> here is the problem. In order to reach a cure, we need to have bravery and courage to practice medicine. If we don't have courage, we can't treat. I stood on the front line of covid, at the beginning, I was scared of the virus. And I treated my first patient, my second patient, third patient, patient number 1000, 2000. And I'm still standing. And I learned something.
▶ 2:47:28Chair Johnson: I learned the micro biome. I realize I was trained to be in this position. I was trained as a physician to cross those roadblocks, to have courage. Because I work with the fda. I have worked with the fda on multiple protocols for pharmaceutical companies. I have developed that courage to say no, this is a serious adverse event, needs to be reported to the fda and that drug needs to be shut down. Not everybody or every doctor has that training.
▶ 2:47:58Chair Johnson: By the way, for me to do those protocols of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin him because -- cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Which we paid. I asked myself, you know that study of the vaccine pre-and post that showed messenger rna killed the micro biome? That was two lamborghini, or whatever. The fact is I spent it.
▶ 2:48:29Chair Johnson: Today, I asked myself, what if I didn't spend it? Were we supposed to get a vaccine every three months the lot -- the rest of our lives? Are we a bunch of sheep going down the road, listening to pharma and nobody is questioning the data? Nobody is questioning what we are supposed to do? I discovered the micro biome during the pandemic. It was the light at the end of the tunnel. It was hope. With that -- without hope in medicine, we have no hope in medicine.
▶ 2:48:56Chair Johnson: The problem I've seen in america over the last few decades, we used to have independent doctors. The doctor has the primary responsibility of the patient and the used to sit at the top of the treatment pyramid. I really did learned the meaning of the word practice medicine with my daughter. She had a switch.
▶ 2:49:28Chair Johnson: Doctors need to practice medicine, but right now, they are being crushed because they are all hired hands. The hospitals can fire them. . They can soothe them. They practice protocols. Not -- by people like anthony fauci. Who out of the blue said no, remdesivir will be the standard of care. The nurses sure didn't want to use it.
▶ 2:49:57Chair Johnson: Man, was it profitable for the drug companies and hospitals. That is what the american public has to understand, the corruption of medicine, medical education, science. It has been corrupted. It's awful. It has to be fixed. The only way we fix it is if we own up to it and we admit it. That is what this hearing is about.
▶ 2:50:24Chair Johnson: Let's come to terms with how broken the system is, and how you are only going to get the studies big pharma that has driven up the cost of health care, at a very high profit level. I come from a private sector. When I first ran in 2010, I would depth -- I would defend big pharma and big oil.
▶ 2:50:55Chair Johnson: Man, we need first and foremost, integrity restored to science because it doesn't exist. I don't think it exists anymore. >> by the way, that's the future the future is actually robots replacing the doctors. So we have lost humanity. We have lost the ability to hold the hand of a patient. We were putting gloves on people's hands because we were afraid, doctors and nurses were afraid of touching these patients because we instilled fear.
▶ 2:51:25Chair Johnson: Because fear sells products.
▶ 2:51:26Chair Johnson: I talked to a senior surgeon, an order got -- older guy like this, would be scared to death going into surgery. They have not got the depth of the skill and feeling. It's scary stuff. Here is what is also scary. Being a cancer patient, you understand this.
▶ 2:51:56Chair Johnson: Having lost confidence, knowing how they sabotage early treatment with cheap generic drugs, there is an observational study, actually Dr. harvey is one of the people. It is apparently 200 cancer patients treated with ivermectin . I have some oncologists here. Is that something you are willing to take a look at? I know people have cancer.
▶ 2:52:24Chair Johnson: And they are looking for anything other than the poison that chemotherapy is. It might extend your life a little bit. I know we are making progress but that is a nasty cure. People are begging -- true science, take a look. Are some of these things effective? This looks pretty effective. I will go to the oncologist here. If that something you think has problems? Are there other -- I have heard all kinds of things.
▶ 2:52:59Chair Johnson: There is a doctor still practicing down in texas. Just talk about alternate treatments of cancer.
▶ 2:53:05Dr. Dalgleish: One thing about cancer is what you can use is very limited to what big pharma is going to choose to do. We know it is not done for the benefit of the patients. It is done for the benefit of the markets. I have heard three people from big pharma all tell me that they are not interested in cures, they are interested in the markets. That brings attention to what the patients want. The patients want cheap, non-toxic drugs that might work.
▶ 2:53:37Dr. Dalgleish: The most amazing thing is if you look and scratch the surface, we have an enormous number of them are quite effective. I make no bones about how I'm interested in low-dose which seems to enhance people with other chemotherapy and immunotherapy. There are many others out there that have been shown to have interesting cancer activity. They have been repurposed.
▶ 2:54:07Dr. Dalgleish: The people forget this. We were told we were not to use ivermectin. Certainly during the pandemic. Now we know why. It was the most effective drug, but it was so good. In two extreme cases, I authorized it to be used. People do not want to go into hospital, because they were convinced they were going to die. I think they were probably right.
▶ 2:54:41Dr. Dalgleish: There is a beautiful book about the war on ivermectin. It looks like some of these people had cancer and there is a real role for looking at these anti-parasite things.
▶ 2:54:51Chair Johnson: Do these therapies have a chance? With a big pharma demanding random control trials, only expensive drugs.
▶ 2:55:04Dr. El-Deiry: I stay open-minded. Just up the road from here, johns hopkins, one of my colleagues has been looking at another medication for brain cancer. These agents do affect the immune system, and we need to learn about them and study them.
▶ 2:55:22Chair Johnson: How are we going to do this? Are we learn to make this available to the people who just want to try something different? People are having -- they can't get these kind of treatments. They have to go to a few doctors who will do it. Cancer centers won't do it. Is that largely true? What can we do? Is this something your society is looking at?
▶ 2:55:47Chair Johnson: Will they look at cheap generic drugs that don't have the type of toxicity these other theme of care. -- chemotherapies have?
▶ 2:55:53Dr. Gralow: I think this speaks to the role of the need to sustain federal funding. I agree, industry is not going to do those trials. They don't have a vested interest in. These are cheap drugs. These are the kind of trials our government should fund.
▶ 2:56:11Chair Johnson: I completely agree as long as that funding is not corrupted.
▶ 2:56:13Dr. Gralow: I will tell you that at last year's big annual meeting, we had preliminary data in a subset of breast cancer looking at an immune checkpoint inhibitor with ivermectin added. It showed there was some responses. It did not approve the responses were any higher than if it was immunotherapy alone. They proved a safe dose and combination.
▶ 2:56:39Dr. Gralow: That trial, federally funded, will continue to try to see if it was more than the immunotherapy.
▶ 2:56:45Chair Johnson: Patients are begging for it. They really are. A lot of people say, I won't be treated at all.
▶ 2:56:59Dr. Gralow: You started the right to try act and that is why the right to try act was designed for. The right to try act is very difficult to allow terminal patients to have access to anything. A person dying should have access to anything they want.
▶ 2:57:19Chair Johnson: The reason it is not affected is because we had a walk -- had it watered down so big pharma would not take it. We had to back it way down. >> their paperwork to get that right to trial approved for a patient is very difficult for a practice -- a practitioner to do.
▶ 2:57:40Chair Johnson: The other thing I wanted to say with these patients is they have the right, but my concern with hearing about ivermectin on social media and not having the right research backing it up, is that early cancer tend to want to go with ivermectin and could have had a surgery to get the stage I cancer. Now, they have delayed for cancer and it is stage four.
▶ 2:58:09Chair Johnson: I think this is why we need to do good research and why we cannot stop the publications of research. I want to encourage all these physicians out there using ivermectin to publish your data so that we, the physicians doing clinical trials can criticize it. It does not have to be retracted. It can stay there. So someone else can come in and say, I proved that person wrong and it didn't work.
▶ 2:58:37Chair Johnson: Don't you think doctors themselves -- you don't want snake oil salesman out there. You don't want corrupted science. But you don't want this happening either. But something took it over.
▶ 2:59:05Chair Johnson: And now it is going through a public smear. We are trying to highlight that to maybe stop that abuse. There has got to be -- from my standpoint, it's like, publish the papers. Have your own reputation be the thing that really guides you in terms of not publishing junk. And if you publish junk, like real junk, not being tormented with a bunch of spelling mistakes and stuff.
▶ 2:59:36Chair Johnson: >> the medical community is very critical of papers to begin with. If a paper passes peer-reviewed, it needs to stay.
▶ 2:59:44Chair Johnson: That is not exactly pure either, is it. You don't have any control of who those peers are. You sometimes get peers who have a different drug and they want to destroy your research. >> there is a problem in that area as well. For the majority of peer-reviewed, I will give you an example.
▶ 3:00:07Chair Johnson: A paper that was retracted, the landmark paper finding covid in the stools, the general is asking me or asking me to peer-reviewed another paper because I'm considered the expert in the micro biome space. I find it funny they retracted a landmark paper on covid and now are asking me to peer-reviewed a paper on long covid.
▶ 3:00:31Dr. Malhotra: One really important point here is when it comes to randomized controlled trials, when doctors are making decisions on nontransparent data, that peer-reviewed of those trials don't have access to their own data. They are making decisions on data that is an transparent. We have to go further upstream. In my view, with everything that has happened over the last few decades, we have seen the excessive use of medications.
▶ 3:00:56Dr. Malhotra: Estimates of the third most common bit of death, according to one senior reviewer, is prescribed medications. That is extraordinary. That can be corrected if in the future we say, enough is enough, drug companies can develop drugs but they can no longer test their own products and we rely on their results. That has to change. Until that changes, medical knowledge will still be under commercial control.
▶ 3:01:26Chair Johnson: I'm running out of questions and we have covered a lot of ground. I guess what I will do is give everyone a chance. If there is something you want to get off of your chest, something we have not discussed, let's do it. Keep it reasonably short.
▶ 3:01:40Dr. Dalgleish: I think we need to just reiterate the censorship we have experienced. Right at the beginning, my colleagues and I noted that the secrets of the virus clearly had a positive inserts into it. This meant it came from a laboratory. There could be no other explanation. We submitted it to the journals and they all rejected it with exactly the same thing.
▶ 3:02:11Dr. Dalgleish: We have no problem with the science that is not in the public interest. How come the nature of science itself all use the same words? It's like they were expecting it. My university told me we were not allowed to research. This is a suppression of something that I thought was probably going into communism or something.
▶ 3:02:38Dr. Dalgleish: We were no longer allowed to discuss the truth, to discuss science even if it was flawed. It was completely not. I never thought I would come to see that. It has not stopped. It still continues. We can't get papers published or things they do not want they come back and with a peer review, they nitpick to the point where what is the point, they clearly don't want good data.
▶ 3:03:06Dr. Dalgleish: We must not forget that here, we have had people who have lost their jobs being totally targeted. The big thing is why? I must say when you get into a dystopia like this, you have to say, who is benefiting?
▶ 3:03:22Chair Johnson: The inside I can give you from our investigations is a very major goal causing this is you cannot create a vaccine hesitancy. Any truth, any injection injury that might alarm the public that could cause vaccine hesitancy, they will rely on that. Maybe we should warn the public. Ok.
▶ 3:03:52Chair Johnson: But, can we warn the public, that would create vaccine hesitancy. We saved 3.2 million lives, we certainly can't deny people that injection. I think that is driving a lot of this. Why do you not want to create vaccine hesitancy? Because big pharma pockets have no viability for these vaccines. It's a big moneymaking center.
▶ 3:04:23Chair Johnson: They have the money, they buy the ads, they invest in medical journals, medical associations, medical colleges. That is the grip going on here.
▶ 3:04:37Dr. Dalgleish: My one sentence answer to that is it is time to withdraw the 1986 vaccine identity act.
▶ 3:04:43Chair Johnson: I agree. I agree.
▶ 3:04:48Dr. El-Deiry: I've got a few things I want to get off my chest.
▶ 3:04:54Chair Johnson: Keep it short.
▶ 3:04:56Dr. El-Deiry: Yes. In science, we need to be able to think creatively and talk with each other and discuss things in a civilized manner. With mutual respect and not being dismissed as irrelevant or whatever.
▶ 3:05:22Dr. El-Deiry: That is a big problem these days . I think some of the issues we are talking about have to do with informed consent. I don't believe we have informed consent, for covid, mrna vaccines. I do want to clarify the comment was made that we have been doing mrna research for decades.
▶ 3:05:47Dr. El-Deiry: It should be clear to everyone the sooner -- the modified mrnas were used for the first time in the population, and the covid pandemic. Never before. First time ever. So, there needs to be more oversight of these things and more modern regulations of what's allowable.
▶ 3:06:12Dr. El-Deiry: Less contaminants with nanoparticles, the comment was made about how fast these tumors grow after the covid vaccines. And I will say that we have known for a number of years, one of my colleagues, one of the premier clinical trial lists in the world noticed that people who get cancer immunotherapy, a
▶ 3:06:42Dr. El-Deiry: Small percentage of them, their tumors grow. It's called hyper progression. I don't use the term turbo cancer but hyper progression is understood. And there is also suitable progression. That happens when people get cancer immunotherapy. You have to tell the difference between those two. It is a mess that looks like it is getting bigger because the immune system is fighting it.
▶ 3:07:13Dr. El-Deiry: Some of the things that have been reported of these tumors that seem to be popping up and growing quickly, that may not all be tumor cells that are dividing. It's the immune cells going in there. You get these swellings. In the end, most of us probably carry cancer cells in our body that are being eliminated by our immune system. So, we just need to understand more.
▶ 3:07:43Dr. El-Deiry: We need to do science and let scientists do science, ask questions. We need to support it. I'm all for supporting of biomedical research. If we want to be america first, we need to do that. But the environment is pretty toxic as far as how people are disparaged. You just can't ask the questions.
▶ 3:08:06Chair Johnson: Glad you brought up informed consent. At one of our events, we had a doctor, who had this great big piece of paper. That is not informed consent. You talked about boosting immune system, I think that is that technique. These are theories.
▶ 3:08:35Chair Johnson: He has approval for certain cancers. He has I don't know how many people at the waiting list.
▶ 3:08:49Dr. El-Deiry: I, like many of my colleagues, believe our immune system is our last hope of we are going to cure cancer. By the way, we discovered a drug,. We did basic science and it was funded. Almost 20 years ago the drug was approved for treating brain cancer. It boosted our immune system. The same type of natural killer cells that is trying to be used to help patients.
▶ 3:09:13Chair Johnson: Most chemotherapy knocks out t cells. Really harms your immune system.
▶ 3:09:19Dr. El-Deiry: They do. There is also data when people have combined chemo with immunotherapy. I have asked this question 10 years ago. It doesn't make sense. The answer comes back, but the data shows it works better. We have to be open minded about what is observed. And the data speaks for itself. The immune system is so important. It is known that people are immuno suppressed are at risk for cancer.
▶ 3:09:54Dr. El-Deiry: You take away their immunosuppressive agents, and their immune system comes back and I can eliminate the cancer.
▶ 3:10:02Chair Johnson: Ok.
▶ 3:10:08Dr. Mostert: I would like to add from early 2020, I think there was a major shift in public health policies. In the past, we had a system where the public health was based on cost and benefits including short and long-term harms, and disease burden was assessed on estimates of five years lost or impaired.
▶ 3:10:30Dr. Mostert: What also was taken into account was that low socioeconomic status was linked to lower life expectancy, especially in low and middle income countries, but also in high income countries. At that point, it was clear that it should not implement a border closures, lockdowns and then something changed.
▶ 3:10:56Dr. Mostert: I think that has to do with the rapid growth of certain industries that are brought unprecedented wealth to a few individuals who have greater assets than some medium-sized companies. The direction of part of this wealth to health through philanthropic, particular public-private partnerships, I think that is what changed the public health policies that we are facing now.
▶ 3:11:23Dr. Mostert: You have to realize there are significant conflict of interest stemming from massive crossover between private wealth investments, philanthropic initiatives and global health policy directives. If you want to change for the future, it is important to address this influence of public-private partnerships on international organizations, but also very important, on the media, who sponsored grants to
▶ 3:11:57Dr. Mostert: Journalism and media outlets, and on science with regard to their funding. That is a major point. Another major point referring to my testimony, what also needs to be learned from the covid pandemic is that we are in need of legislative and regulatory frameworks to address the psychological which has been implemented to protect the public in the future.
▶ 3:12:29Dr. Mostert: And also to assure that science is not adjusted to political ideologies or corporate interests.
▶ 3:12:35Chair Johnson: Thank you.
▶ 3:12:38Dr. Hazan: I think the first thing for me is to stop these retractions because they stopped the science. I think we need to encourage scientists to ask questions, and we need to debate the narrative. A good scientist debates the narrative. A good scientist this humble to know that they may be wrong and that was an error in the pandemic. In my right, wrong? I don't know.
▶ 3:13:06Dr. Hazan: I'm willing to think -- speak about what I saw for others to prove me wrong. What we need to realize is chronic disease is increasing, cancer is increasing, neurological diseases are increasing, als is increasing. One boy out of 12 in california has autism. What physically to be in 100 years from now? One in one kid born is going to be autistic? This is why I am here and have done my research.
▶ 3:13:35Dr. Hazan: I think we need to stop the destruction of microbes. Our lab has discovered less than 5% have good bacteria that helps absorb sugar. One out of 4000 samples we have analyzed have a bacteria that is able to break down calcium to get into the cells. What happens when those microbes disappear? What are we doing? We are creating an increase in disease and we are not stopping to see what we are doing to damage the disease.
▶ 3:14:05Dr. Hazan: When somebody comes out and says look, we are doing this and it is countering a narrative, when we should be encouraging the research and the science to see if that person is right, and analyzing in-depth, what are we doing? I think more humility in science, more freedom of speech to the scientists, more protection to the scientists, and stopping the retractions.
▶ 3:14:28Chair Johnson: Could not agree more.
▶ 3:14:31Dr. Malhotra: I just want to reiterate what was said around the issue of informed consent. I will give you one example. A lot of people may resonate with it. This is my area of expertise where I have done research specifically. Between 200 million and one billion people globally are prescribed a drug, a cholesterol-lowering drug.
▶ 3:14:56Dr. Malhotra: If you are at low risk of heart disease, most of these people prescribe, the benefit over the five years is 1%. There is a one in 100 chance if you take that drug religiously, it will prevent you from having a heart attack or stroke. If you are older than 75, I use the example, and if you allow me to do so, on publicly available data, we know president trump is in excellent health.
▶ 3:15:24Dr. Malhotra: What I find confusing is the fact that we look at people, somebody like president trump, over 75, without evidence of significant vascular disease, the benefit for someone like president trump taking that is one in 446. We have to treat 446 people over 75. He is also taking aspirin. I was looking at this released data on president trump, what he is taking.
▶ 3:15:53Dr. Malhotra: Again, if you don't have significant vascular disease, your risk of a fatal bleed is significantly higher than preventing a heart attack. I'm hoping president trump is aware of this, but I suspect he isn't, the point I'm making is no one is immune to medical misinformation. Not even the president. The system is more powerful than any individual. That's what we're dealing with. We have to sort this out together.
▶ 3:16:21Dr. Gralow: I think every single one of us on this panel wants what is best for our patients. I think our 50,000 members of our professional society of physicians who our professional society want what is best for our patients.
▶ 3:16:41Dr. Gralow: We agreed that we need to understand the risks and benefits of any drug, any treatment, and the risks and benefits can be different depending on the person as well. They could be individualized. I believe in shared decision-making which means a discussion between the patient and clinician. Understanding the patient's goals and wishes and desires.
▶ 3:17:09Dr. Gralow: True informed consent is difficult when you don't have the numbers. You cannot use hypothetical or kind of unproven without numbers kind of information of the benefits are the risks. Wearing my cancer hat I would have to say the evidence at this point in time shows overall, covid vaccines have more benefits and they outweigh the risks in our cancer population.
▶ 3:17:38Dr. Gralow: I never got to speak on this piece of the hearing, but I fully believe that we should have respectful and open scientific discussion, we should be able to disagree but back up and do the research and the studies to prove it. It should not be done on social media and it should not be done in an anonymized way, as has been done. Thank you.
▶ 3:18:07Dr. Gralow: >> you are in the anchor position there. >> thank you. I want to say the patient voice is very important and I'm happy to be here to represent cancer patients. June 14 is the 25th anniversary of my surgery that I had just up the road at johns hopkins. I'm thankful to the medical team there, to my oncologists and even though treatment is tough, it is hard on the body.
▶ 3:18:38Dr. Gralow: It does damage cells. I'm thankful for the advancement because I wouldn't be here without that treatment. I want science to continue to advance so we have more options for patients and I would like for the federal government to help those scientists and back that science and also the research. Thank you. >> I appreciate that. It is about the patients in the end.
▶ 3:19:07Dr. Gralow: As a potential one myself, I don't know what to believe. That is part of the problem. Who do you turn to? So as I have said repeatedly, the number one job of rfk jr. Is to restore integrity to science and that is the main purpose of the hearing. There has been corruption. It is not good and I agree with you completely, I was hoping this could be as collaborative between experts as possible.
▶ 3:19:38Dr. Gralow: I find more areas of agreement than disagreement and that is encouraging. But don't try to destroy people's lives when they disagree. If there is a one-word definition of science I think it is skepticism. It is what has driven science throughout history. You need skeptics, somebody looking like I know you are certain about that but it is not looking good to me. I'm seeing something else.
▶ 3:20:07Dr. Gralow: Give that person a shot without destroying them. We have seen too many people destroyed during covid. I appreciate this. I know it is not easy or cheap to come here. It is a lot of work to prepare these testimonies. I truly appreciated. It has been an excellent hearing. The record for the hearing will remain open for 15 days until thursday, june 18th, 2026 at 5:00 p.m.
▶ 3:20:37Dr. Gralow: For the submission of statements and questions for the record. The hearing is adjourned.