Hearings to examine COVID-19 injections and attacks on scientific publications.

Good afternoon. This hearing is called to order. Um, just brief explanation of uh how this hearing came about. I I met uh Doctor Sabine Hazen in October of two thousand twenty one, uh during the, really the the height of a covid. And uh re- really related to all the work I was doing in terms of early treatment and then Uh the the COVID injection injured, that type of thing and and I'm not quite sure how you got it on my radar screen, but uh we struck up a a good texting relation texting relationship. And uh Immediately I wa- I was Dr. Hayes made me aware of of how her research, which was conducted with, uh supported by, uh guided by, overseen by the FDA, was being sabotaged. And, with all the hearings and and uh, events I had done, I I was trying to figure out some way of how can we, how can we hold a hearing on this? Cuz this is, this is really bad for science, to to have research sabotaged. Um, end of last year, Doctor Hazen introduced me to Doctor El-Diri, who, probably a poster child, for being tormented by, I'll call them trolls, uh, i- into science. And so, we put together this hearing, um, it's kind of predicated on Doctor El-Diri's work, that I think prompted all the attacks. Um, that that's why that's why I'm holding this hearing. So, let me get into my opening statement. Uh, I wanna thank all the witnesses, I know this is a a real imposition, take a lot of time and effort and and uh, expense to get here. But today's hearing is titled, Plausible Mechanisms of COVID-19 Injections Causing Cancer. and attacks on scientific publications and research. Although it may seem these are two unrelated topics, discussing them together will help explain why such a large percentage of the public remains unaware of the serious adverse events caused by the COVID MRNA injections. In April, the subcommittee held a hearing and released a report exposing how how top FDA officials decided to use a safety surveillance algorithm that they knew would, and in fact did, hide safety signals on extremely serious adverse events, including sudden death. This was a bombshell revelation that unfortunately was dismissed by this subcommittee's ranking member and completely ignored by the legacy media. So it's nineteen ninety seven when the Clinton administration made America only the second nation on earth to allow mass media advertising on pharmaceutical products, Big Pharma has spent billions on TV ads to capture the media and as a result, the narrative. Prior to nineteen ninety seven, there was serious journalism covering suspected vaccine injuries. In nineteen ninety seven, Mike Wallace reported on CBS's sixty minutes about swine flu vaccine injuries. By the way, they pulled the swine flu vaccine after about twenty five to thirty deaths. And four to five hundred cases of Guillaume Barré disease. They pulled it. Twenty to thirty, twenty five to thirty deaths. We have over thirty nine thousand deaths right now associated with the COVID injection worldwide from the VAERS vaccine, but I'll move on. In nineteen eighty two, WRC TV's 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. In nineteen eighty five, Phil Donahue discussed both the swine flu and DPT vaccines, and related injuries during his hour-long show. Since nineteen ninety seven, there have been a few reports on hepatitis B, MMR, HPV vaccine safety, but the quote safe and effective unquote mantra, combined with the narrative that adverse effects are quote rare and generally mild unquote has overwhelmed any coverage of the harms. Legacy Media is not the only American institution that has been captured and controlled. Big Pharma also hires and financially awards former federal health agency officials and spends lavishly on lobbying and political d- donations of to lawmakers of both parties. It generously funds other members of the COVID cartel, social media, medical associations like the American Medical Association, and the American Association of Pediatricians. international health organizations, medical colleges, and medical journals. The testimony of today's hearing raises the question of whether big pharma might also be funding individuals who troll 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 safe generic drugs were not only suppressed but acti actively sabotaged in favor of a liability-free, and highly profitable experimental gene therapy, and that's what it is. The fact that all the institutions that benefit from big pharmas largesse actively push the experimental gene therapy is also the reason they are now working so hard to suppress the reality of COVID MRNA injection injuries. Testimony given in April's hearing detailed the safety studies that were not done on the COVID injections prior to their emergency use authorization. and eventual full approval. This list of omitted studies should shock everyone. Again, these were just in testimony. Drug-drug interactions, cardiovascular toxicity, central nervous system toxicity, other organ toxicity, blood toxicity, gene toxicity, and carcinogenicity. Um Those studies weren't conducted. I'm not sure they've been conducted even today, because it's proved Now we just don't wanna know. Although leg legacy media, federal health officials and the medical establishment continue to ignore and hide the lies told and the harms done by governments in response to the coronavirus, alternate media has been spreading spreading the truth to a growing percentage of the global public. As a result, trust in these institutions is eroding. The only way, the only way to rebuild that lost trust is for the truth to be acknowledged in a process of public reckoning. The hearings I've been holding are intended to contribute to that reckoning. They will hear from highly credentialed and experienced doctors and medical researchers who will disc- discuss the plausible mechanisms of COVID MRNA injection harms. They will also describe the attacks they are experiencing on their research and reputations because they have the courage to expose the truth. I wanna sincerely thank the witnesses for their courage and the time and effort they put in their testimony and uh advocacy. Let let me just add on this note. In in a couple of my public hearings, I I conclude with the statement that that I am truly amazed at the knowledge that mankind has accumulated over the millennia. I mean, it is amazing what we know and how rapidly we're gaining that knowledge. But in spite of that, I would argue that what we don't know vastly, and I mean vastly exceeds what we do. And so in any kind of discussion like this, in any kind of scientific research, I think people involved need to approach these problems with that level of modity, modesty and that kind of humility. So if that, I'll turn it over to our ranking member, Blumenthal.

thank you chairman johnson like to begin my remarks by reminding everybody watching today that the national cancer institute has concluded quote there is no evidence that covid-nineteen vaccines cause cancer lead to recurrence or lead to disease progression. That is the National Cancer Institute. Quote, "there is no evidence that COVID-19 vaccines cause cancer, lead to recurrence, or lead to disease progression." End quote. I could conclude there. But I think that this hearing really merits 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, I venture to say, in fact, everyone has been touched by cancer in some way, and so that fear is pervasive. We can't allow that fear to cause 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 who are stricken with cancer or help to prevent it. Cancer data is very closely tracked in the united states and the idea that a rollout of covid-nineteen vaccines has precipitated a surge in cancer is simply not supported nor do the vaccines make cancer grow faster according to the american cancer society most cancer doctors recommended vaccination against covid-nineteen for the cancer patients they are treating Unfortunately, messages about the safety and effectiveness of vaccination are increasingly deluged by myths and misinformation, immunization rates are declining across the country, diseases like measles are surging. And tragically also, vaccines have been proven to prevent certain types of cancer, those vaccines are facing groundless attacks from top public health officials, maybe not surprisingly because hhs secretary robert f. kennedy initially declined to surrender his financial stake in litigation against the maker of hp v vaccines and then only under pressure from congress turned his interest over to his son there is ample evidence in fact that hpv vaccines help prevent cervical cancer a disease that is projected to kill forty two hundred americans this year and i'm grateful that we have tamika felder a cervical cancer survivor here with us today i really thank her for being here you're doing us a great service it's stories like yours miss felder that remind us of the human impact of science's great successes. And I'm also grateful to have Doctor Julie Grelow, the Chief Medical Officer of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, who's here to remind us about the absence of credible scientific evidence linking COVID-19 vaccines to cancer and the safety of the vaccines for people undergoing cancer treatment. very important and thank you doctor graylow uh 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 thirty million people and finding that four years after vaccination people who received an mrna covid-nineteen vaccine were less likely to die from cancer than those who were not vaccinated i ask that it be under the record if there's no objection mr. chairman

uh no objection i mean that's as good as the commonwealth fund study entered in previous hearing but go no no objection

thank you it's unfortunate that we need doctor graylow to appear before a hearing like this one when there are much more pressing threats to cancer patients and cancer research coming from trump administration policies. And that's the big issue here. And the reason that I am expanding on what I said earlier, because the administration has put up needless roadblocks that have slowed the flow of grants to cancer researchers. Halts to funding imposed early last year caused the American Association of Cancer Institutes to warn that the Trump administration policies were, quote, "slowing progress against cancer and the trump administration's obvious animus toward mrna technology that was used for covid-nineteen vaccines threatens some of the most promising research for targeted cancer treatments the studies canceled the patients excluded from trials the 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 the study of a new drug for prostate cancer, one of the hardest cancers to treat. These results were possible in part because of work done many years ago at the National Cancer Institute. One scientist who helped with that research said, quote, " "this kind of basic research is being greatly threatened by current government policies. Basic research is essential. It's not just COVID vaccines. It's not just cancer vaccines. It's 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. And so, I hope we can all agree that advancing cures for cancer and stopping the forces that undermine them ought 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.

Thanks, Senator Blumenthal. Uh, it is the tradition of this, uh, subcommittee to swear in witnesses. So if you all rise and raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you will give before the subcommittee will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God. You're seated. Our first witness is Doctor Angus Dalglish. Uh Doctor Dalglish is Professor Emeritus of Oncology at City St. George's University of London. where he has pioneered the immunotherapy of cancer. He is known for his work on HIV and cancer, and received the Joshua Liederberg Prize in two thousand eleven for his work developing cancer treatments. He's been the principal of the Institute of Cancer Vaccines and Immunotherapy since two thousand, and a consultant in general medicine, immunology, virology, and oncology since nineteen eighty six. And by the way, these are very abbreviated biologies, or biographies. I mean, each one of these individuals on both sides have much larger biographies that uh you should take a look at but uh i i i i forced them to abbreviate it uh doctor.

thank you very much for asking me to uh give evidence on this i just like to point out that i have done as you say i have been in cancer immunotherapy i have been in cancer immunotherapy for over three decades and uh i have made uh big advantage advances in the treatment of cancer with the immunotherapy So this sets the scene that I then I became aware in uh early twenty uh two of my patients who'd been uh uh stable for years uh do mainly melanoma patients. They'd had several different types of immunotherapy. And in six weeks I saw six patients relapse with melanoma. They had uh they'd been stable for three to eighteen years. They felt well apart from the relapse and being investigative, I asked, you know, what was the thing that was common. And the thing that was common is they'd all received a booster vaccine from their general practitioners. Now, I know that these cancers are c- totally controlled by the T cell response, so I immediately suspected the T cell response was being perturbated by the cancer. And initial, uh, investigations show that this was likely to be true. However, there was then a paper published by some uh doctors in Madrid, which, and I quote, their paper is called " The Evidence of Exhausted Lymphocytes After the Third Anti-Sars COVID-2 Vaccine, Dosing Cancer Patients". I mean, this was absolutely staggering, that they showed across hundreds of patients that you get this T cell suppression. Hard on the heels of this, were then a numerous reports that the uh following the booster vaccine, we were getting IgG immunoglobulin switching, so you converted the immune system from being aggressive fighting invaders to one of tolerization. So therefore, the immune system was tolerating the cancer and this was the reason that we were starting to see it. However, it is important at this stage to say that we were getting reports after I first of other cancers. And my initial observation that this was all due to T cell suppression started to, um, fade in into the, uh, perspective that other a- actors were at work with the vaccine, as it were. Colorectal cancer was being reported by my patients, by my, uh, fellow surgeons as reporting, uh, as, uh, presenting late stage four, not stage one or two, and early in in patients in their twenties and thirties and forties in a way that we have not seen before. And then in my own practice, as I was looking for patients, uh, who had um who'd had other cancers, I noticed that they too had had booster vaccines and I list them in my report. They go from everything from the common cancers, from breast, prostate, et cetera, and all the way through to some really unexpected ones, including glioma, and more recently hematological malignancies. Now, looking at the uh literature as to why this uh could be, and I'm involved in uh two big publications, one's been accepted prior to uh um uh prior to um changes. And this shows that there are remarkable, at least a dozen mechanisms where messenger RNA can insert into the DNA and activate oncogenes and And more importantly, and especially the long term, they can suppress uh the suppressor networks, which means if cancer is starting to evolve, it would normally be maintained, uh controlled, and this mechanism is being prevented. And the number of people who've shown this is quite enormous. So as an oncologist, who I starting to see that it's not only my patients now, it's people I know really well. who are going down with cancer and they're going down more aggressively and the treatment is not working nearly as well. And I'm used to people saying, oh, there's no evidence of the cancer's increasing and that there's anything to do with the vaccine. But I can assure you from the patients that I have seen, that many have seen, uh, a dozen doctors before. Not one of them has ever asked the vaccine history. So of course they see no evidence. And my full detailed research into the messenger RNA vaccines and I was on the scientific board of a company claimed to be the messenger RNA vaccine, uh, company for five years and left eight years ago. So I know a lot more than the average clinician and make myself and others feel that there is no way you can control this technology and its use for future vaccines should be banned and the COVID one stopped now.

Thank you, Dr. Dalish. Dalish, you need to stay right on time. Appreciate that. Uh, next witness is Dr. Wafeek El-Diri. Uh, Dr. El-Diri is a practicing physician scientist, American Cancer Society professor, founding director of the Cancer Center at Brown University, and chair of the worldwide innovative network consortium in precision oncology. He discovered a tumor suppressant gene he named WAF WAF-one and a first of its kind drug approved by FDA last year for the treatment of an aggressive brain cancer. Dr. El-Diri.

Um, thank you, Senator Johnson and Senator Blumenthal and distinguished committee members for the. You're so sure. Um. Thank you, Senator Johnson, Senator Blumenthal and distinguished committee members for the opportunity to speak at this important hearing. Um. I am a physician scientist and cancer researcher with more than thirty years of experience studying um how our body normally fights cancer through a major tumor suppressor called p fifty three uh and finding new ways of treating it i have also advocated on capitol hill since two thousand five for support of research funding which is really vital uh my work has has focused on how cancers develop within when these uh normal tumor suppressor mechanisms fail uh including discoveries and involving uh how tumor suppressors uh 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 so when the covid pandemic uh began i wanted to help by applying our expertise in cancer biology, immunology and approved treatments to better understand and treat covid. uh it's been long understood that certain viruses contribute to cancer development by disrupting tumor suppressor pathways, including p fifty-three, one of the body's most important cancer protective mechanisms. Early in the pandemic, i became concerned that the covid virus might similarly interfere with these defense mechanisms, making this 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. By July, twenty twenty, my laboratory published findings showing that class of cancer drugs known as mech inhibitors suppressed ace to the cell surface receptor the covet virus uses to infect human cells. By April of twenty four, we reported findings suggesting that the spiked protein associated with uh covet infection or covet vaccination could reduce the ability of p fifty-three to activate genes involved in suppressing cancer. Based on these findings, we emphasize 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. Much of this occurred through an on-line platform known as Papir, originally created about a decade ago to identify fraud and scientific misconduct. Unfortunately, the platform increasingly became weaponized against researchers whose findings challenged prevailing narratives. The platform permits anonymous accusations without meaningful accountability. There's no disclosure of conflicts of interest, no statute of limitations, or citizenship requirements. These attacks are public, amplified through social media, and can continue indefinitely regardless of whether wrongdoing is ever established. This is precisely what happened to us. Although we corrected minor errors where appropriate and continued to do so, none altered the underlying results or conclusions of our work. Nevertheless, uh, our publications became subject of sustained public attacks that damaged reputation and undermined scientific uh uh credibility. Um, despite these ongoing attacks, last summer I agreed to serve on an HHS committee, uh, on immunization practices, working group on COVID immunizations, and as an expert, uh, uh, uh, uh, I, I therefore, uh looked into uh everything we know about cancer and covid infection and covid vaccination and by the fall found uh nearly seventy papers describing more than three hundred reported cancer cases from twenty seven countries following one or more covid m r n a vaccine injections um the reported in uh uh cancers occurred near injection sites like sarcomas or lymphomas right at the injection site, uh within the head and neck region, within and elsewhere, including as Doctor Deglich mentioned, uh brain tumors and and other tumors. Um in some reported cases, spike protein was identified within tumor tissue. Our findings were published in January of this year, and shortly afterwards I was contacted directly by former Japanese Minister, Kazuhiro Haraguchi, who reported developing a diffuse large B cell lymphoma, that later metastasized to a tonsil, and biopsy, then they found spike protein, there should be no spike in tumors. Uh, these observations warrant serious scientific investigation, um, and as such, a number of unexpected uh, observations has been have been made with the COVID-MRNA vaccines that uh suggest potentially plausible mechanisms and connections to cancer. The attacks on my publications intensified and continue 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. Both our paper and the journal itself became targets of attacks through pub peer and related on-line campaigns. 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? And there shouldn't be fear of reputational destruction, institutional retaliation, or professional ruin. Papier needs to be held accountable for making false accusations against positions and scientists that destroy reputations and careers. Thank you.

Thank you, Doctor El-Diri, our next uh witness is Doctor Saskia Mostert. Uh, Doctor Mostert studied medicine at VU Amsterdam in the Netherlands, and conducted a PHD program in compliance in childhood leukemia treatment in Indonesia. She then worked as a research coordinator of global health and pediatric oncology research programs at Amsterdam University Medical Center, and Princess Maxima Center. Her fields of expertise include treatment compliance, the problem of corruption in medicine, and hospital detention practices. Doctor Mostert.

Dear members of the um American Senate, in two thousand twenty four our team published a study in BMJ Public Health examining all cause mortality data across Western countries, between two thousand twenty and twenty-two. These were government reported mortality records routinely used throughout mainstream public health. The peer review process had taken more than nine months. Our study showed that excess mortality remained elevated across forty-seven 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 causes of excess mortality. Rather, we asked attention for three major events that were non-existent before the pandemic, the COVID infection, the containment measures and the COVID vaccines. In addition, we acknowledged other overlooked factors. We urged governments and public health leaders to investigate the underlying causes and evaluate their policies. During the pandemic, extraordinary measures were justified in the name of protecting human life. Public officials and media emphasized that every COVID death mattered and every life deserved protection. I believe the discovery of more than three 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 behaviour governments and media implemented psychological manipulation and fear propaganda without our awareness or consent, that increases conformity and reduces tolerance for reason and dissenting voices, such as tunnel vision, emotional messaging, polarization, and important, the distinguish the distinction between worthy versus unworthy victims, so distinguishing between important victims who deserve extensive attention or support and other victims who can be ignored. Censorship and suppression tactics have been used against doctors and scientists questioning the official COVID narrative. I will mention a few. The devaluation tactics, discrediting critics and criticism using labelling such as misinformation. Cover-up tactics, hiding censorship using proxies, fact-checkers, shadow-banning and de-platforming. Re-interpretation tactics, favourably framing censorship as protection of the public or follow the science. Official channel tactics, which gives the censorship the appearance of legitimacy of justice and hides political or economic conflicts of interest. And last but not least, the intimidation tactics, using fear, threats coercion to silence critics and others. Encountered blind in irrational fury after our publication can thus be explained by tunnel vision disruption. Not only the worthy victims, the COVID patients, but also the unworthy victims, the lockdown victims and the vaccine injured were described. Polarization in society between those who followed the official COVID narrative and those who questioned it became visible. Despite a supportive statement from Reuters, media outlets used their devaluation tactics and labelled the publication as anti-facts, conspiracy theory and misinformation. One affiliated hospital publicly distanced itself from the study and announced a scientific integrity investigation. Institutional responses are increasingly used as official channel tactics, to discredit, intimidate, isolate and silence those raising unwelcome scientific questions. I resigned. Scientific integrity investigations can be evaluated according to confidentiality transparency presumption of innocence and fairness principles. To my opinion, all these principles have been trampled on the institutional confidential report about my co-authors was leaked to a national newspaper, and resulted in a hit piece. This example speaks volumes. 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 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. No plagiarism, fabrication or falsification took place. Nevertheless, the institute persists on retraction of the paper for containing misinformation 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 the text or provide more evidence. As there is evidence available, we included it. All added references concern peer reviewed publications from well-known institutes, indexed on PubMed. My proposed post-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 had to be censored and erased, one way or another. The tunnel vision leaves no room for unworthy victims. Yet, the persistent excess mortality remains unexplained. Our case is not isolated. Books have documented the suppression of more than eighty Dutch doctors and scientists, as well as the removal of sixty professors across Germany, Austria and Switzerland. In recent years, the number of removals for ideological insubordination has increased significantly. Similar patterns emerge across institutions. After a media scandal, the university distances itself and starts disciplinary proceedings. The reason given for dismissal is scientific integrity violation, whereas the real reason appears to be dissent. Recently, we established a task force on academic freedom in the Netherlands to investigate censorship suppression and sup- systematic attacks on doctors and scientists questioning aspects of the official COVID narrative. Censorship undermines academic freedom by discouraging legitimate scientific inquiry. It narrows the range of perspectives permitted within public debate, and stimulates self-censorship among academics. Subsequent false scientific consensus can lead to dysfunctional policies. If we want to restore public trust, we must once again protect academic freedom and the right of scientists and doctors to question prevailing assumptions without fear of professional destruction. It is time to return to Voltaire's enlightenment commitment to academic freedom. I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to death your right to say it. Thank you.

Thank you, Doctor Molster. Uh, next we'll go to Doctor Sabine Hazen. Uh, Doctor Hazen received her MD in Canada and completed residency at the University of Miami. She's the first woman gastroenterology fellow at the University of Florida, and became an expert in the microbiome. She is currently the CEO of a private gastroenterology clinic and a clinical trial drug development company, as well as Progenibium LLC, a genetic research lab that studies the clinical implications of the microbiome. Doctor Hazen.

OK.

Alright, I'm Doctor Sabine Hazen, a Research Gastroenterologist. For more than three decades, I have done hundreds of clinical trials 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 gut microbiome. The microbiome, your bacteria in your gut, is your immunity. In twenty nineteen I founded Progenobiome, which is a research laboratory. And I say research because the microbiome research is at its infancy, and it's not gonna be of my lifetime. My goal was simple, to rigorously study the microbiome in real-world clinical settings. My team and la- and I launched sixty-one clinical trials to actively understand the gut connection in various diseases, Alzheimer's, autism, Parkinson's, cancer. This is precision medicine taking care to each patient's unique microbiome signature because yes in the microbiome space we're all different and if we're all different there is no normal in the microbiome space. So in twenty twenty I found myself in a very interesting position. I was taking care of high profile individuals in Malibu, I had a portal with the FDA that could write protocols and submit protocols to the FDA. And I had a research lab that could look at the microbiome. So this unique position, I felt like was the best person to be looking at the microbiome and looking at COVID. Uh, while exchanging information with scientists at NIST, the National Institute of Standards, who were looking at COVID in septic tanks. And by the way, for those of you who don't know National Institute of Standards, they overlook FDA, CDC. So, with discussions, Progenobiome became the first lab worldwide to document whole genome sequencing of COVID virus in clinical patient feces. Our paper was published in Gut Pathogens in twenty twenty one, after a six month peer review, only to be retracted in May twenty twenty five without any valid scientific justification. or even notifying the peer reviewers that approved the paper to begin with. 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 that hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin reduced the viral presence of COVID. In other words, COVID disappeared on these. However, those drugs also killed the microbiome. And that was the important finding during the pandemic that everybody's different and everybody needs a different treatment. Um, it is also important to note that during the pandemic I treated under FDA oversight. I actually wrote three protocols on hydroxychloroquine versus placebo, and ivermectin doxycycline versus placebo. And During my whole time that the FDA was watching, we lost no one. No one died on my shift. And by the way, I've treated thousands of patients. Doesn't the public wanna know how did I treat? What criteria did I use to s- to divide the treatment in patients? Um, we conducted a review of these patients treated and noticed actually that ivermectin-based multi-drug therapy helped severely hypoxic patients. This data was published in twenty twenty two after eight months of peer review scrutiny and then we tracked it in March twenty twenty five. We also published cardiac safety data from our phase two trial, using hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin. You will remember during the pandemic that there was a concern about cardiac problem from hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin. My team risked their lives putting Holter monitors on people's hearts, to monitor and capture the QT prolongation, and there were no QT prolongation. We published this data in December twenty twenty four. The paper was retracted in twenty twenty five, February. These these retractions consistently challenged the feasibility of early treatment. Remember, if there was a treatment, vaccines would not have passed. Our most significant discovery however, however, was on bifidobacteria. What is bifidobacteria, you ask? a bacteria that's in your probiotics, when you turn your bottle of probiotics, that's the bacteria, it's bifidobacteria. Bifidobacteria 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 bifidobacteria, the sugar is not going into your cell. Ask yourself, how is, how are you gonna metabolize, how are you gonna have immunity if you don't have your cells working? So, bifidobacteria was an extremely important finding because we discovered that severe COVID patients lacked bifidobacteria, while the patients that were high risk exposed had a lot of bifidobacteria. We also discovered that people with autism, Alzheimer's, Crohn's disease, Lyme disease, irritable bowel syndrome, mental health, invasive cancer, lacked bifidobacteria. Bifidobacteria appears in the young at a high level and disappears as we get older. We found that vitamin C, bovine immunoglobulin, and ivermectin, a fermented product of a bacteria called streptomyces, could help increase bifidobacteria and restore. Is that why we were seeing possibly hypoxic patients improving? I wrote a hypothesis. Perhaps ivermectin was improving the bifidobacteria. That pa- that hypothesis published and retracted in twenty twenty three. When a hypothesis is retracted, we've lost science and medicine. We then presented data on the vaccines, and we discovered that the vaccines killed the microbiome, specifically the Bifidobacteria. That abstract won the best research award at the American College of Gastro, and reached eighteen thousand GI doctors, yet was never published. If you follow the disappearance of Bifidobacteria in the gut, start to understand disease. You start to see why the newborns, one in twelve kids in Califor- twelve boys in California has autism. If you look at the data that just came out that showed newborns, t- only twenty-five percent of newborns are born with adequate levels of bifidobacteria. So if you restore the bifidobacteria 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. In fact, ProgeniBiome has earned four consecutive awards at the American Col- College of Gastro, affirming peer recognition of our work, yet promising observations face problems and persistent barriers when attempting to publish papers pass rigorous review are retracted over minor, easily correctable issue. The main non-medical scientist that criticized my papers has patent on the microbiome. Can you say conflict of interest? So I ask Congress today, should non-physician without relevant clinical expertise review and override medical data from practicing physicians? True expertise must be challenged by 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. The American people deserve transparent, rigorous science. Protecting scientific integrity is not just about my work, but it is about securing the future of medicine for all. Because ultimately, we're all gonna be patients. Thank you.

Yeah. Thank you, Dr. Hazen. Uh, I was hoping we'd get through all the opening statements before we had to go vote,

I know.

but I've got a quick vote for so we'll put the hearing into recess and as soon as we get back we'll open it back up. So I No further disruptions. Our our next witness is Doctor Haseen Malhotra. Doctor Malhotra is a multi-award winning internationally renowned British cardiologist. He served an advisory role for health policy across governments, including as an ambassador to the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges and trustee of the King's Fund, a health policy think tank. He was ranked the number one doctor in the world influencing obesity thinking, and is named one of the UK's most influential scientists. Doctor.

Thank you, Senator Johnson. In January twenty twenty one, indoctrinated with the unlikelihood of any major harm, I took two doses. of Pfizer's mRNA vaccine, unaware at the time that it was in fact a prophylactic gene therapy product, and unlike any traditional vaccine. Although I was at very low risk of serious illness from COVID-19 due to my age and perfect metabolic health, I was inoculated 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. My fit and healthy seventy-three year old father, honorary Vice President of the British Medical Association, who also happened to be my best friend and last surviving member of my immediate family, died after suffering an unexpected cardiac arrest. Post-mortem findings revealed severe coronary artery disease, and subsequent published mechanistic evidence suggested that two doses of the mRNA COVID vaccine likely caused a massive acceleration in atherosclerosis leading to his sudden death. In twenty twenty two, I published a two-part peer-reviewed paper in the Journal of Insulin Resistance, calling for a moratorium on these unsafe and defective products. The most damning evidence was a re-analysis of Pfizer and Moderna's original trials. It determined a frequency of serious harm from the product that was two to four times more likely than being hospitalized with severe COVID. In my view, if the system had been more transparent, this prophylactic gene therapy would likely not have been injected into a single human being in the first place. Although there is now a multitude of high quality research supporting those analyses there's been predictable 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 the Reform Party political conference, I quoted Britain's most eminent oncologist, Professor Angus Dalgleish. He believes that the COVID-19 mRNA 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 Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, misled Parliament. suggesting that I'd claimed that all vaccines cause cancer. In quotes, " these dangerous conspiracies cost lives", he said. I also experienced public smears and attacks from influential sections of the medical profession. I'm a grieving vaccine injured doctor. I've been diagnosed with a persistent autoimmune condition related to loss of bifida bacteria in my gut. An advanced blood test suggested I'm at slightly increased risk of cancer in the short term. Looking at the totality of up-to-date evidence, and what you'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. 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 psychologist, Doctor Robert Hare and Law Professor Joel Buchan as legal entities that fulfill the criteria for psychopathy. Characteristics include callous unconcern for the safety of others, incapacity to experience guilt, repeated lying, and conning others for profit. The evidence presented here today exposes the corporate tyranny underlying public health practice. This profitability over people rooted in the neoliberal economic model has led to trust being an all-time low in the medical profession. A full public apology from government bodies and medical leadership to the vaccine injured and bereaved, is an essential first step to in restoring that trust. Tyranny 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. the tyranny is complete. 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.

Thank you, Doctor. Our next uh witness is Doctor Julie Gralo. Doctor Gralo is Executive Vice President and Chief Medical Officer for the American Society of Clinical Oncology. She is Professor Emeritus of Medical Oncology and Global Health at the University.

Thank you, Chairman Johnson. Ranking member Blumenthal and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to share my clinical perspective on this important topic. As you've heard, I'm the Chief Medical Officer and Executive Vice President for the Association for Clinical Oncology, or ASCO. a five O one C six organization established by the American Society of Clinical Oncology in twenty nineteen that represents more than fifty thousand oncology professionals who care for people living with cancer. ASCO works to ensure that all individuals with cancer have access to high quality care and we're committed to the principle that knowledge conquers cancer through research and education ASCO works to conquer cancer, and create a world where cancer is prevented or cured and every survivor is healthy. We appreciate the opportunities to discuss the critical role of MRNA technology in cancer care and the unwavering commitment to patient safety that guides its development. 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. Currently, there is no clinical evidence proving that MRNA COVID-19 vaccines cause cancer, or accelerate cancer growth. Cancer is caused by a series of G mutations and does not develop suddenly. Rather, tumor evolution is a multi-step process that generally takes years or even decades to manifest clinically. The appearance of late stage aggressive tumors within weeks or months of an injection is biologically incompatible with what we've learned from decades of research on the causes of cancer. In fact, RNA breaks down quickly in the body and doesn't enter a person's DNA. In other words, 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. MRNA COVID-19 vaccines protect patients with cancer, who often have compromised immune systems, increasing their 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 were twenty-four percent more likely to require intensive care and fifty-eight percent more likely to die in the hospital compared to after the vaccines became available. In contrast, a twenty twenty-five study led by investigators at Vanderbilt University found that cancer patients who received COVID-19 vaccinations had a fifty percent reduction in their risk of hospitalization. These data are reinforced by an ASCO study demonstrating a clinically significant relationship, between vaccination and survival in cancer patients diagnosed with COVID-nineteen. 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 cancerous and healthy dividing cells, MRNA technology is designed to teach an individual's body to recognize tumor markers that are unique to that patient's cancer, encouraging the patient's immune system to destroy just cancer cells, not healthy ones. 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. For example, just this past week at our annual meeting, researchers shared the results of a trial that shows melanoma patients who receive a cancer-fighting MRNA vaccine, in addition to immunotherapy, had better cancer 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 nonsmall cell lung cancer had better cancer outcomes than those who were not vaccinated. Existing research provides strong indications that MRNA vaccines will likely join approved immunotherapies as new options for patients with cancer facing difficult diagnoses. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on these important issues. ASCO remains deeply committed to advancing safe, evidence-based care for all patients, and I welcome your questions.