ICYMI: Sen. Johnson Joins House of Representatives Panel on Injuries Caused by COVID-19 Vaccines

WASHINGTON – On Monday, U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) joined U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), and seven of her House GOP colleagues, in a hearing titled Injuries Caused by COVID-19 Vaccines which explored potential links between COVID-19 vaccination and adverse events including myocarditis, pericarditis, blood clots, neurological damage, cardiac arrest, miscarriages, fertility issues, and more. The panel heard witness testimony on vaccine adverse events from medical experts Dr. Robert Malone and Dr. Kimberly Biss and also heard from attorney Thomas Renz who represented Department of Defense (DOD) whistleblowers who revealed increases in medical diagnoses among service members registered in a DOD database.

The senator discussed how U.S. public health agencies, including DOD, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), lack transparency regarding the COVID-19 vaccines and have failed to provide complete responses to many of the 60 public oversight letters the senator has sent. The senator also displayed his censored drug adverse event comparison chart showing the worldwide totals of about 1.6 million adverse events and 36,501 deaths associated with the COVID-19 vaccines. Sen. Johnson has held four roundtable (May 6, 2020January 24, 2022August 3, 2022, and December 7, 2022) events on COVID-19 early treatment and vaccine safety with world-renowned doctors and medical experts since May 2020.

Sen. Johnson’s panel remarks can be found here. Excerpts can be found below:


Opening remarks on federal health agency oversight and COVID-19 vaccine adverse events

Sen. Johnson: “I put on our first event in June of 2021 in Milwaukee to just allow five vaccine-injured individuals to tell their story. My hope was that the media would show some ounce of sympathy for their plight. That didn't happen. I've held a number of other public events like you're doing here today and always the focus has been on the vaccine injured because they deserve to be seen and heard and believed because they deserve treatment. No matter what percent of doses result in an injury, we can't ignore the plight of the vaccine injury. So, again, I really appreciate you doing this. I do have a chart that's been censored a number of times. I don’t know if they can get up behind me. This is CDC and FDA's own numbers. And yet, you know, through all the social media censorship directed by, unconstitutionally directed by, the Biden administration, people just don't want to see this. But these are the true numbers. The first five drugs that are listed here, this is over 28 years of reporting on the VAERS system and the FAERS system, the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System, you can see ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine are pretty safe drugs as is dexamethasone, the two drugs below—this is since the COVID pandemic—remdesivir and the COVID vaccines. Now, I don't know how anybody can take a look at our response to COVID and not claim it was anything but a miserable failure; we’re 4% of the world's population we experienced supposedly 16% of the deaths. The VAERS system on the COVID vaccines alone: 1.6 million adverse events, 36,501 deaths. Now, these are worldwide figures which are a little bit different than what you're showing in terms of U.S. figures. These are worldwide deaths. It's important to point out, though, of those, of that 36,501 deaths, 8,923 deaths occurred either on the day of vaccination or within day one or two. Now, there's always two complaints about the VAERS system. One, it doesn't prove causality, which is true, but when you have that correlation of 24.4% of the deaths occurring day zero, one, or two, it certainly is a correlation I would be concerned about, and I'm just not quite sure why the FDA, CDC, NIH are not concerned about or the general medical community. I do want to just quickly, and I'll do this quickly, talk about the oversight letters I've written trying to get this information during most of my public events, I always invited the heads of the representatives of the federal health agencies or Pfizer, Moderna, or Johnson & Johnson to come and discuss this with people like Dr. Malone, Peter McCullough, and the other experts I've had in my panels. They've never shown up. We had Dr. Peter Hotez, a real vaccine proponent, turned down, I think it's up to $2.6 million donation, to his charity just to debate a lawyer about medical, you know, RFK Jr.; he won't do it. That tells you something. But what also is pretty revealing is in the 60 oversight letters I've written to the FDA, the CDC, the Department of Defense, the NIH, some aspect of COVID, I've virtually gotten no response. I just want to talk about three general efforts. The first I want to talk about is the standard operating procedure that the FDA, CDC issued on how they were going to analyze their safety surveillance systems. So I first wrote a letter in June of 2022 because the CDC was nonresponsive to a Freedom of Information Act asking for those documents, the proportional reporting ratios that the analysis they're going to do, and then eventually the empirical Bayesian analysis. They didn't respond. Then we found out that, again, they weren't going to be doing PRR, they were going to be doing a Bayesian analysis, that was the FDA was going to do that, not the CDC. So its bottom line, cut to the chase here. It's been over a year and a half since I first tried to get that analysis of their own safety surveillance system, and they won't show it to us. You have to ask the question ‘why?’ Again, this is information the American public has a right to know. These are public servants, but they are so arrogant that they believe that they're not accountable to the American people, that they don't have to respond to congressional oversight. The other effort was regarding hot lots. This was pointed out by a fellow named Craig Paardekooper and Jessica Rose. There was 1 lot of Moderna had 5,297 adverse events reported to the VAERS system. This goes back to December 3rd, 2021. So the first year 1 lot had 5,297 adverse events reported. The worst flu vaccine lot ever reported had 137. There were 256 different lots of the vaccines in total, they had more than 500 adverse events reported and yet the response I get from the CDC or the FDA is even though you show them the data they write back, say ‘FDA’s analysis of counts of serious adverse events reported by COVID 19 vaccine lot numbers showed no unusual concentration reports of a single lot or small group of lots.’ So again, they are just willfully blind. With impunity they just say ‘we see nothing here, so quit asking questions.’ The last attempt was my 60th oversight letter, and this had to do with an FDA-funded, and now I found out it's an FDA-conducted study, that concluded, the study found statistically significant signals for myocarditis and pericarditis, but also in the primary analysis, seizures, convulsions, met the statistical threshold for a signal in children age two to four years following Pfizer vaccination, all three databases and in children age two to five following Moderna vaccination. Now, the reason I'm pointing this out is this is, again, not only funded but conducted by senior FDA officials. The results were, they concluded the data collection in April of 2023. They issued on, September 12th, 2023 after an Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. They advise that every American six months and up get these vaccines, even though they conduct a study, the data being collected ended in April that it has signals for myocarditis, pericarditis, and seizures. They didn't publish a report until a month after the committee recommended the immunization. What is going on here? So again, when you cannot get information that the American public deserves, when people don't show up for events like this and just be willing to engage in discussion or debate with eminently qualified doctors and vaccine experts, all they do instead is. they denigrate they vilify, they try and destroy their careers. Something's not right. Something smells to high heaven.”


Sen. Johnson questions Dr. Robert Malone on COVID-19 vaccine toxicity

Sen. Johnson: “You know, those few members who did show up, you're not going to get a lot of accolades for doing this. It's pretty lonely in the Senate. Pretty lonely in the House to, to be asking these questions, which I think is its own travesty. Dr. Malone, in our event about 12 months ago, on December 7th, that was billed as ‘What is in the vaccine? How does it work? How it would cause injury?’ I still don't think we got nailed down, that nailed down asmuch as I wanted to. It's certainly been described to me in layman's terms that you've got this lipid nanoparticle, bio-distributes all over the body. It injects this modified mRNA that lasts a lot longer in the body than it was supposed to. Now, you said something earlier that is slightly different from what I've heard. I've heard is it gets injected into the cell, it juices the mitochondria to produce the energy, to produce and express the spike protein, andthen the body attacks the spike protein, because it's a foreign body, it's toxic, and that creates inflammation, that's what myocarditis is. So that's my layman term of what happened. Can you accurately describe – again, we don't we don't exactly know what's in these, you know, this gene therapy, but how is, how does it operate and how could itcause these injuries?”


Dr. Robert Malone: “So the injuries are so widespread and many of them can be…”


Sen. Johnson: “Let me just add, we're hearing this, these turbo cancers.”


Dr. Robert Malone: “Yes.”


Sen. Johnson: “Again, if, if all of a sudden you're juicing the mitochondria of a cancer cell, again, as a layman, that would be concerning. So take it away.”


Dr. Robert Malone: “I think you're conflating two trains of research, the activation of mitochondrial metabolism and – which is the mitochondria are these energy sources that are within our cells. You can think of them as the Tesla battery for your cells. They are impacted in some way that's not clear by the nature of the composition of the material, and that, that's what's observed that as you administer the material to cells, you observe this alteration in mitochondrial function. The part that – mitochondria are not directly involved in producing protein, those areribosomes, and functionally what happens here is that this large molecule, I call it a string of pearls, the modified messenger RNA moves into the white part of the egg, the cytoplasm of the cell, and gets loaded on to these protein manufacturing machines that we call ribosomes. They do consume energy in order to make proteins, but it's those ribosomes that do the business. In terms of what could be causing the turbo cancers, certainly the modification of metabolism, which is what you're talking about, the energy generating part of the cell can contribute to that becausecancer cells are already kind of predisposed and off-the-rails in terms of their regular control. However, what we have learned recently, and this is literally just recently now, there's over a dozen labs that have confirmed it, and it's beenconfirmed by, as I mentioned, the European Medicines Agency, Health Canada, and the FDA is that we have these short DNA fragments. Now, science in the real world is a situation where we have constantly evolving understanding of a complex system, and in that evolving understanding, we often have situations where we find that things are caused by many phenomena, all acting at the same time. It is well established that DNA fragments will cause what's called insertional mutagenesis. They will stick themselves into the DNA of those cells that receive them. Short DNAfragments are particularly prone to this. It has been a topic of great concern by the FDA historically. They have basically parked those concerns and not done the types of studies that they would normally have done in the past for similar systems, but this type of insertion of genetic material into your chromosomes, and, by the way, this because asthe doctor will, I think, concur these particles are also shown to cross the placenta and so there's germ cells there in the fetus. There's germ cells throughout your body, like in your bone marrow, and then there's cells that are not stem cells – I should say stem cells, not germ cells. There are stem cells throughout your body, but many cell types thataren't. If you have integration or or DNA disruption of your regular cells in your body, that can lead to cancer, but if you have disruption in particularly many of these stem cell types, that is even more prone to cancers, including bloodcancers, which is among--among the profile of tumors that we're observing that are caused, that are associated with this turbo cancer. We have leukemias and lymphomas. So I think that it – I speculate that what we may find is that the incidence, the cancer risk here may be partially attributed to these DNA contaminations that would be consistent with the peer-reviewed literature. And by the way, these DNA fragments may also be shown to contribute to geneticanomalies in fetus, which is one of the most prominent causes of premature abortion. Do we agree on that? So I think that this question you've asked is touching on an evolving understanding or area of investigation that should havebeen well known, and previously, under FDA policy, would have been well investigated. We call this genotoxicity andinsertion of mutagenesis studies that were not performed.”


Sen. Johnson: “So I probably made a mistake concentrating on turbo. I really wanted to know, the harm to the lining ofthe arteries, the, you know, what's doing neurologically – so many of the women have neurological – myocarditis, what’s causing that?”


Dr. Robert Malone: “Okay, so we – what I can say definitively is that every aspect of these particles has a toxicity. The modified messenger RNA is intrinsically immunosuppressive. That's why it's been modified. It's been modified to be immunosuppressive. So the mRNA has intrinsic toxicity associated with it. This is what Karikó and Weissman got the Nobel Prize for was making it less toxic by making it anti-inflammatory or immunosuppressive. The lipidic components, the particles themselves are intrinsically toxic. This has long been known. It is the reason why I abandoned the technology. They're highly inflammatory. They destroy cells. When you use this in experimentation, you have to carefully monitor the dose that you administer and you basically administer up to a toxic dose in which you're still killing a large number of cells because it is membrane active, it disrupts membrane integrity. When youlose membrane integrity, cells die. Okay, so the RNA component is toxic. The formulations themselves are toxic. That's well documented. And then the payload, the thing that they are producing, the spike protein, this is, as I mentioned, one of the things that I was ridiculed for saying so long ago, but in fact the spike protein is a toxin that is now well established in the scientific literature, and I think there's wide consensus on that. The cardiovascular effects that you're talking about may also include a component of autoimmune disease that is elicited by the complex themselves,potentially binding to other proteins there. This is, the immunotoxicity is one explanation that many use for the cardiotoxicity. This autoimmune problem is a known complication, for instance, of the smallpox vaccines. The DOD dealt with that for decades, but the problem with that theory is that you observe the cardiotoxicity within hours to days. So you can observe the release of enzymes that are specific for damaged heart cells starting within hours ofwhen the injections are provided, and data suggests that it may be up to half of people that are receiving these have some degree of cardiac damage based on these enzyme releases. So there's direct toxicity, there's indirect toxicity,there is autoimmune disease, there is toxicity from the particles, there's toxicity from the proteins, there's toxicity from the mRNA. It's all a big mess.”

Sen. Johnson: “So, there is independent research looking into these things, but it's not coming out of  it's not beingdirected by the CDC, the FDA and the NIH, by and large, correct?”

Dr. Robert Malone: “By and large, and I've provided to Ms. Greene and her aides a library of thousands of peer-reviewed references with or without the abstract that I've requested they put into the record for this meeting that anyone can search now, peer-reviewed, published references of thousands of papers covering these adverse events. So, it's coming in from all over the world, and I’ve attempted to aggregate them for purposes of this committee.”


Closing remarks

Sen. Johnson: “So, my final comment, I really do appreciate you allowing me to be a part of this. Earlier on I said there are two problems with VAERS complaints: doesn't prove causality, it generally, dramatically understates by only 1%, 10% we don't really know. It dramatically understates the number of adverse events. So, again, I really can't thank you enough for holding this. Thank you for, you know, exposing yourselves to public scrutiny and vilification, because that's basically what you're going to get. We've got to get to the bottom of this. So thank you.”