← American Thought Leaders
American Thought Leaders
Sen. Ron Johnson: Here’s What We Found in 11 Million Pages of COVID Records
01:01:35
Loading summary
Transcript84 lines
- [00:00]
Senator Ron Johnson
Early on, there are 46% of those deaths occurring on the day of vaccination or within one or two days.
- [00:06]
Jania Kellek
In this episode, I sit down with Senator Ron Johnson to discuss the release of 11 million pages of COVID related documents which reveal safety signals for myocarditis and ischemic stroke that were downplayed by the cdc.
- [00:19]
Senator Ron Johnson
One of the first things we put in the search engine was myocarditis. We saw that they absolutely had and admitted that they had a safety signal on myocarditis and they hit it.
- [00:30]
Jania Kellek
Johnson argues the CDC obscured clear warning signs.
- [00:34]
Senator Ron Johnson
I didn't need a proportional reporting ratio analysis. I didn't need empirical Bayesian analysis to tell me there was something seriously wrong here.
- [00:42]
Jania Kellek
He points to a lack of transparency in a suppression of concerning findings.
- [00:47]
Senator Ron Johnson
The main point I wanted to make in the letter that we wrote to HHS about this ischemic stroke is we also found out the fact that they were well aware of the inadequacy of their safety surveillance analysis systems. You have to restore integrity to science. Science has been corrupted.
- [01:06]
Jania Kellek
This is American Thought Leaders, and I'm Janje Kelik. Senator Ron Johnson, Such a pleasure to have you back on American Thought Leaders.
- [01:16]
Senator Ron Johnson
Thanks for having me on.
- [01:17]
Jania Kellek
You just recently had a large document dump related to, let's just call it Covid data. So tell me about why you chose to publish what you did recently.
- [01:30]
Senator Ron Johnson
Well, we got the document dump probably about a year ago now. I mean, this was with RFK Jr coming in as Secretary of HHS promising radical transparency. I provided him a friendly subpoena to just help prompt the people underneath him to support him in his desire to let the public, you know, have the information the public deserves. And unfortunately, the agency itself did not respond to our specific document request, which is our preference, so that they've got to sort through it as opposed to us. But, you know, I think Bobby got a little frustrated because we weren't getting the information. So he really just ordered, give them. Give them information. So we got. We thought it was originally about 8 million pages. I think things. Think it ends up being about 11 million pages. So now you have to use AI and people think AI is just a real, like a miracle. And it is. But you still have 11 million pages to sift through and you have to know exactly what the search terms are. And as I talk to my staff, they'll put in one of these adverse events for the COVID injection and they get 200,000 pages. So now they have to sift it. So it's an Iterative process. But early in that iterative process, one of the first things we. We put in the search engine was myocarditis. And the staff sifting through all those thousands and thousands of pages that that inquiry provided, we saw that they absolutely had and admitted that they had a safety signal on myocarditis. This is by about May of 2021. And they hit it. They didn't immediately issue a warning on the Health Alert Network. They downplayed it and in any communication. So we held our first hearing as chairman of psi, Permanent subcommittee investigation. We held our first hearing, I think, In May of 2025, with that revelation, knowing that that was just the tip of the iceberg.
- [03:24]
Jania Kellek
If I can just comment. But we did know that there was some kind of signal around Micarta. I think that was one of the few things that we did know. Could you just clarify what you mean
- [03:33]
Senator Ron Johnson
when you say, sure, yeah. No, you know, we knew that, like, by January, February of 2021, the Israelis were asking CDC about it because they were seeing it with myocarditis. In particular, young men, were you seeing a safety signal? So that's what kind of prompted them to have this internal communication. And what we revealed is they, yes, the CDC had a safety signal. And they didn't immediately warn people. They downplayed it. They hid it. Okay, so fast forward. We continue to sift through documents, and my staff then determined that they also were seeing a safety signal on ischemic stroke in people over 65 toward the tail end of 2022 into 2023, week after week after week. So this is a consistent safety signal showing up with a bivalent booster. And within those communications, once again, you see that, okay, they've got this issue a study, or didn't issue a study, but they produced a study or had a study conducted for them. There were points in there they say, well, the study's complete, but they're not showing the results of it. Then when people ask for the results, well, the study's not complete. So they're just obfuscating the whole issue. And once again, they didn't issue an alert on the Health Alert Network. When they actually did write about it, they switched the internal communication from moderate risk to slight risk. So you got myocarditis, you got ischemic stroke over 65. And one of my concerns about producing this information seems, okay, well, that's all it is. I mean, the COVID rejection was so beneficial, it saved 3 million lives. And I want to talk about that claim. Okay, saved 3 million lives. So, okay, you have some, you always have side effects, right? But the main point I wanted to make in the letter that we wrote to HHS about this ischemic stroke and the hearing we'll probably have toward the tail end of April is we also found out and uncovered the fact that they were well aware of the inadequacy of their safety surveillance analysis systems. You know, I know epoch times, very early on got their prr, which was showing safety signals all over the place. But then CDC said, oh, but that's, that's, that's a bad system. You know, we're really relying on empirical Bayesian analysis, okay? You know, making sound like this is all this complex analysis and stuff. But they knew within their analysis of the empirical Bayesian system that there's a situation called masking. So in particular, with the COVID injections, you had Pfizer and you had Moderna, very similar platforms. They're both mRNA, very similar types of adverse events, very similar types of deaths. I mean, they're very similar. So what CDC did in their analysis is they would compare Pfizer. Let's say there were 10,000 deaths in Pfizer. They would be comparing Pfizer to Moderna and all the vaccines. So let's say you had 10,000 deaths with Moderna, 10,000 deaths of Pfizer and 1,000 deaths with other vaccines. So now you're comparing Pfizer, 10,000 deaths with the Moderna and all their vaccines. At 11,000 you go, there's no significant safety signals. It's masked. Now switch it. Now you're looking at Moderna. You're comparing Moderna to Pfizer in all the vaccines. You're comparing 10,000 adverse events or deaths with 11,000. You mask the signal. And they knew it. They fully understood that. And again, just lay people like ourselves as we're looking at this in 2021, and you're seeing charts that show the number of deaths due to vaccines going back 26 years. It's just this pretty steady line, not very many per year.
- [07:17]
Jania Kellek
Now you're talking about VAERS data, right?
- [07:19]
Senator Ron Johnson
VAERS data, okay? All of a sudden in 2021, it just spikes. I didn't need a proportional reporting ratio analysis. I didn't need empirical Bayesian analysis to tell me there was something seriously wrong here. I remember publishing my VAERS charts where there are a couple thousand deaths and then more thousand deaths then 10,000, 20, and we're up to about 39,000 deaths early on. There are 46% of those deaths occurring on the day of vaccination or within one or two days. Now we're about 24% of them. Of the 39,000 deaths reported worldwide on VAERS, 24% are occurring on the day of vaccination within one or two days. And they say, well, you know, VAERS doesn't prove causation. I mean, that's a heck of a correlation.
- [08:03]
Jania Kellek
Well, but also, now we can see, you know, looking back very clearly, I mean, some people saw it earlier, I think, but there was a huge disincentive to write those reports in the first place, right?
- [08:14]
Senator Ron Johnson
Yeah. They did not want to create vaccine hesitancy again when we released this. Again, we now have the documents, so now we're conducting interviews, and so we want to complete those interviews before I publish all the results. But within those documents, you're seeing people make those kind of comments. So I got to remind you guys, the administration, they really want to make sure that everybody gets these boosters. You know, we can't. So in other words, don't publicize this, downplay this, hide this, because we don't want to create vaccine hesitancy. But on this issue of masking, that really is.
- [08:49]
Jania Kellek
It sounds crazy. If I may just. I have to comment on this. It just doesn't make sense. As someone who's done, say, analysis and experimental design and something in my life, it doesn't seem to make sense to me to test an adverse event of one vaccine versus another one. You would need to have something that you need to have some sort of control group where you're, like, lacking.
- [09:13]
Senator Ron Johnson
So, by the way, now you're talking about the childhood vaccine schedule as well. I mean, as Aaron Seri has pointed out in Bobby Kennedy, they've never tested any of the vaccines on the current childhood schedule against a true placebo. They're always doing it against the previous version or the vaccine with all the adjuvant, you know, without necessarily the live virus. They're never testing it against strictly saline. But when it comes to Covid, you
- [09:38]
Jania Kellek
told me that they're looking at Pfizer versus Moderna, and they're saying that they're similar. But that's not a test for adverse events, is it?
- [09:46]
Senator Ron Johnson
What they should have done is they should have just tested Pfizer as standalone against all other vaccines, excluding the COVID vaccines. Okay, okay. And again, that's what the simple charts would do when you're seeing, you know, maybe 100 deaths a year due to vaccines, whatever, and then all of a sudden, we've got 8,000 in a year. You go back to swine flu, where they had finally about three dozen deaths reported and about 400 cases of Guillaume Barre disease. They pulled that vaccine off the market. And yet when I talked to Francis Collins at the end of April, when there were a few thousand deaths occurring on Vaers, he said, well, Senator, we've attributed about six deaths to the Johnson Johnson vaccine, thrombosis with women of childbearing age. So we've attributed six deaths. But, you know, Sandra, people die. But 46% of these deaths are occurring on the day of vaccination within one or two days. I mean, you're not concerned about that? No. Or if they were concerned, they were far more concerned about the fact that they're, you know, their end of the pandemic, their solution, you know, their vaccine. I call them injections. You can't create vaccine hesitancy. Again, the pandemic was completely mismanaged from the PCR testing all the way down. And unfortunately, all the people that mismanaged it, all the people that contributed to this management, which is the people in the federal health agencies, Fauci, Collins, all those people, the entire medical establishment, members of Congress who are pushing the COVID injection on their constituents, this entire group, nobody wants to admit they're wrong. So we have not had a Covid reckoning. We have not really taken a look at that critically and said, we completely blew this and lives were destroyed because of the horrific mistakes we made in ignoring early treatment, sabotaging things like Ivermectin, bunicide, these other molecules that did work should have been fully explored, should have been fully tested, should have been recommended, should have been used. There's a great anecdote of an attorney who was contacted by these families who, their loved ones are in a hospital, oftentimes held against their will, because once you were checked in, you couldn't check out like Hotel California. And they were just begging the hospital administration, the doctors, please, just try Ivermectin. Just try. Nope, won't do it. So they started taking these hospitals to court. And this attorney just became specialized in this. And I don't know the exact numbers. This is, you know, close. Of the 40 cases he won, only one person died. In other words, the hospitals were forced to give their loved one Ivermectin or one of these treatments. Of the 40 cases he lost, they all died. I know that's not a random controlled, you know, double placebo blind, you know, blah, blah, blah, you know, but it's pretty strong evidence. Just as the basic VAERS with strong evidence. So within these documents now we know, you know, one of the communications is showing the results of a more sophisticated system that would have, that would have unmasked this, which was being pushed on people like Peter marks early in 2021. I mean they were told our current surveillance system is inadequate. It is going to mask, this is going to be a problem. And those people are referred to as pests. Don't give them any more data, don't tell them to stop their work. Okay? So they were, they were being purposely told don't, we don't want to know this, okay? But they had a better system they were trying to get them to use. And so these people are communicating themselves using this better system. They show this report that there are 49 instances of extreme masking. And out of that 25 are showing a safety signal, things like sudden death stroke. So they knew this and the people of CDC ignored it. They shoved these people off to the side, they told them to stop their work. We don't want, the only analysis we're interested in looking at is the stuff that we want to look at that masks this. And they knew it. So I mean, I think this is a bombshell. I think this is a huge scandal. The question is, when we hold our hearing, when we present our report and our findings and finish our interviews, will the legacy media cover this? Will the corporate media cover this at all? They're part of the COVID up.
- [14:10]
Jania Kellek
I mean, just for the benefit of the audience, right? It's this Bayesian analysis system. Just the way the statistics are done is what the effect of that is. You get this masking. And then these people were basically saying, hey, our system is going to create this masking. We actually want to know what the truth is. And those people are shut down. That's basically what you're saying.
- [14:31]
Senator Ron Johnson
So again, you have a VAER system that they were touting before they got the emergency use authorization. I mean Tom Shimmer Bakura saying this is a great system. We're going to be watching this stuff like a hawk. Well, of course they didn't do that. But as soon as it starts signaling these things, now they start denigrating it. So you can't rely on VAERS because you got a bunch of cranks, a bunch of anti vaxxers putting in false reports. We also know from the Harvard Pilgrim study that was commissioned by, by the CDC to try and figure out how to fix vaers. This is well before the COVID strike. That Harvard study showed about only 1% of adverse events are ever reported. Because VAERS is very burdensome to complete. Doctors are not encouraged to do it. And so you've got this massive spike in deaths and serious adverse events showing on vaers and they're denigrating it. They go, ah, you can't rely on crakes as while internally, the people who developed the system to analyze what they're getting on vaers. Look, the very people who developed what they were using say that's not going to work. We've got a different system that will work. Use it. They were completely ignored. They were, they were called pests. They were told, stop your work. You know, do tell them not to give us their study. So, but, but we, but we. Now we have evidence of their study. Now we have to gather more evidence. So again, this is, they knew this and they covered it up. And how many lives were devastated because our federal health officials simply were not transparent and honest with the American people, really with the global population.
- [16:13]
Jania Kellek
And I mean this is, by the way, just what PSI does. You're the head of this. So out of curiosity, aside from this, it seems like you're putting a lot of effort, a lot of that permanent subcommittee on investigations power into these types of questions. What else are you looking at? We'll jump back to this in a moment. I just thought I'd mention for those that don't know what PSI is and
- [16:34]
Senator Ron Johnson
what it does is the permanent subcommittee investigations. And yeah, it can pretty well do an investigation on anything. I'm obviously focusing on this because during COVID I was holding hearings as chairman of Homeland Security on early treatment. Those doctors who had the courage and compassion to treat people, their lives and careers were destroyed. Okay. Which kind of caught my attention going, what is going on here? And then I held all these public events where, you know, I allowed the injection injured to just tell their story. Those people were denigrated. I mean, to this day they're still not being acknowledged. This morning I saw a video from a person who's being treated with severe COVID injection injuries. The only place he can get treatment is in Japan. He's got a central line into his aorta. You know, apparently they're having results, but it's like one of the few places in the world that actually acknowledged the fact that these are these injuries, these, these disabilities that people are suffering were caused by the COVID injection. Again, if you're not willing to look at the root cause of what's causing your ailment, you're not going to be able to solve it. So Here in America today, people that claim they were injured by the COVID injection, they're gas lit. Their doctors say it was all in your head. It's just psychosomatic. I mean, the medical establishment almost in total is ignoring and denying these injection injuries, which means these injection injured individuals are, I mean, they're just being ignored. They're not getting adequate treatment. We're not putting research dollars into finding out what's happening now. We're putting some research dollars into long Covid, which is probably a very similar phenomenon, probably caused by the spike protein. That was the nasty part of the coronavirus is the spike protein. That was what was most toxic about it. And yet that's exactly what the MRNA turned your cells into a manufacturing site to produce. There's a body distributed all over the body. I mean, it's pretty easy for a layman to understand how dangerous those MRNA injections were and why it shouldn't have been unleashed on a global population, by the way. So you say, what else are we looking at? So now we have a doctor called Dr. Wafik Eldiri. He was the director of oncology for Brown University. Very prestigious. He's public published papers on oncology. You know, I think he, he edits an oncology peer review type of journal. He, he wrote, he published a study with another doctor and just looked at over 300 case studies of cancers that the people suspected were caused by the COVID injection. I mean, a lot of these are right, this, you know, these cancers are occurring right at the site of injection. I mean, there's all kinds of reasons for suspecting this. And so he just wrote a paper, the plausible mechanism of how the COVID injections could have caused these cancers. By the way, the spike's protein is showing up in tumors. It shouldn't be in tumors. Okay. Again, indicating it's what might be sparking the malignancy. So he writes this paper and now his career is being destroyed. It's been destroyed. He's been fired, forced to resign from directorship of Brown University of their director of oncology. He has been persecuted, best word again, is persecuted by pub peer and people like Elizabeth Bick and other people who are just going back to every last one of his publications or a lot of his publications and just picking them apart, you know, just putting claims that he's got to defend. So again, they're trying to destroy his reputation, his past research. And this is not unusual. I've got a number of other doctors who complain about the same things, like it's Such an esoteric issue.
- [20:18]
Jania Kellek
Same group. You mean attacking?
- [20:20]
Senator Ron Johnson
Yeah, there's a lot of the same people. And it's like, who are these people? What are their qualifications? Who's backing them? Who's putting them up to destroying the research that is just contrary to the medical establishment or the federal health agencies or the big pharma's narrative. I mean that's what's going on. If you're trying to do a study or if you're trying to publish research that is contrary to what big pharma wants, what these powerful interests want, they come out and they destroy you. Just, just like the doctors who push early treatment. No, no, we're going to have the, you know, the Pfizer Moderna injection. That's how we're going to end this pandemic. Early treatment need not apply. We need to sabotage a Nobel prize winning drug, Ivermectin, incredibly safe drug by the way.
- [21:06]
Jania Kellek
A couple of questions. First of all, you mentioned this not wanting to cause vaccine hesitancy. When you look back now, I remember this being talked about often over the years as I was covering these types of questions during the COVID years. Do you think ultimately that's the reason based on everything you've seen now, that just the operative principle was anything that might cause vaccine hesitancy or getting people, you know, basically the uptake, keeping the uptake of this, of the COVID shots up, that was the operating principle.
- [21:43]
Senator Ron Johnson
Is that harming a multi billion dollar profit industry or to not.
- [21:49]
Jania Kellek
Or not harming it, you mean?
- [21:50]
Senator Ron Johnson
Or you don't want, you don't want to harm this, you know, so. Yeah, but that's, I think there's ego involved on the parts of like Anthony Fauci who just wanted to be the savior. Probably in the back of his mind, he probably realized I probably caused and helped this pandemic be created. So at minimum I want to be the solution for it. Who knows? All I know is I was fortunate enough to be talking to Michael Yeaden, the 30 year head of research for, you know, vice president research for Pfizer, especially in toxicology, who just went through the basics of why he was beside himself when he found out what this COVID injection was going to be. He was just beside himself. So once I got that education, there was no way I was going to get that injection. Which is also why I was very carefully following Vaers as soon as they started publishing the results and why I was so alarmed by it.
- [22:45]
Jania Kellek
I mean millions of people were involved. What I'm saying in affecting the policy as it played out. Right. So is it the thing that people were thinking, whatever it is that we need to do, we need to just make sure there's no vaccine hesitancy or whatever?
- [23:03]
Senator Ron Johnson
Yeah, that was a big part of it. But again, it's the public.
- [23:06]
Jania Kellek
I'm trying to understand this.
- [23:07]
Senator Ron Johnson
The public has been hoodwinked into believing these experts. And I guess my job is to, as much as I can, reinstill the basic of science, which is skepticism. Right. I mean, when you hear scientific consensus, you go, there's like, there's no worse term for science than that. There's no such thing as science is all about taking a look at the consensus and poking a hole in it and testing it and go, I'm not quite sure of that. And so all of their effort to not create vaccine hesitancy has literally created a, I think, a necessary and legitimate explosion in vaccine hesitancy where there's not only just the COVID injection, but, you know, everything on the childhood vaccine schedule.
- [24:02]
Jania Kellek
And, well, the polling shows this, doesn't it? Like, it's certainly around. I mean, and there's no. There's. I don't think, if I recall correctly, they can't recruit for trials now around mRNA.
- [24:14]
Senator Ron Johnson
Yeah, Pfizer just canceled their trial for their latest booster or whatever because they couldn't recruit enough people. So, I mean, there's obviously people, you know, that are been speaking about this, you know, a relatively small group, but because they have alternate media now that their voices are being heard. But what's really driving the injection hesitancy is the fact that people saw it for themselves. The Rasmussen poll said that something like 25% of the American population believe they know somebody who died from the injection. So many people. Again, there are millions of adverse events reported to Vagares. Again, that dramatically understates how many there actually were. So I've talked to so many people who tell me their stories of, yeah, I was out for a week, you know, my blood pressure spiked.
- [25:03]
Jania Kellek
Right.
- [25:04]
Senator Ron Johnson
I mean, it's like, you know, I
- [25:05]
Jania Kellek
know, I just talked to somebody.
- [25:07]
Senator Ron Johnson
Perfectly healthy athlete was forced to get the injection. That's when he started getting end up with four cases of COVID after he got the vaccine. And that, by the way, was the number one adverse event, was getting Covid. So. But yeah, there are more polls out there now that there are a lot more people that are willing to question, you know, should I be vaccinating my children? And Joe Rogan, I just watched a podcast with him and this is important that thought leaders like him are coming out saying, well, duh. I mean, you see the dramatic increase in the number of doses of childhood vaccines. At the same time, you see the dramatic increase in autism and other chronic illnesses. And of course, part of our PSI hearing, Dell Bigtree through ICANN and Aaron Seri prompted Henry Ford to conduct a study using their data. Vaxxed versus unvaxed. About 18,000 people, 16,000 children, 16,000 fully vaccinated, 2,000 completely unvaccinated. And the summary result is the vaccinated were sicker. They were two and a half times more likely to have a chronic illness than the unvaccinated. You look at the Amish population just
- [26:21]
Jania Kellek
with respect to that study, what happened with that study?
- [26:24]
Senator Ron Johnson
Well, so
- [26:27]
Jania Kellek
you held a whole hearing on this.
- [26:29]
Senator Ron Johnson
So Aaron Seary and Dale Bigtree got to know the doctor who was in charge of that medical center and they kind of did a dare. He said, listen, if you want to shut us anti vaxxers up, and I don't think either Del or Aaron, I'm not an anti vaxxer, but if you want to shut up the anti vaxxers, do a study. You've got the data right there. I think I will. And the only thing they said, okay, the only thing we ask of you and we appreciate you doing the study, that you will publish results regardless of what they reveal. And the study showed the exact opposite, that if you got vaccinated, you're two and a half times more likely to suffer from a chronic illness. Now, it showed no correlation with autism. But again, when you had so few cases, I mean, you still see even 18,000 people is kind of under. But what it shows is it should have required more study. What they did with the study is they buried it until I became aware of it. And you know, I think both Aaron and Del were. I mean, they kind of prompt this guy. They didn't want to step on them and force disclosure of a study. They kind of got in confidence. So I don't have that worry. So let's hold a hearing and I will, using the Senate, you know, Senate business, I will release the study that should have been released. Again, I'm not saying it's definitive, but it should have been released back when the results were in and it should have prompted more study. More thought.
- [27:54]
Jania Kellek
Yeah, I was going to say, like this kind of thing, I mean, it's stark and it definitely says we need to look into this more. I mean, at the very least. Right. That's what it says.
- [28:05]
Senator Ron Johnson
It doesn't, by the way, for your listeners, if you want to focus on kind of the seminal work that kind of brings us all together, it literally is Aaron Seri's latest book, Vaccines Amen. I've read Dissolving Illusions, Turtles all the way down, Peter McCulloch's book Vaccines. What is a mythology, ideology, reality? They're all great books. But if you want to skip that step process that I went through to come to my conclusions, just go to Aaron Series of Vaccines. I'm in. It's just a great book just to
- [28:32]
Jania Kellek
kind of help understand sort of the development of the whole process and the kind of messaging around it and so forth.
- [28:39]
Senator Ron Johnson
It lays out the reality. Let's go to some of the mythology. Okay, I mentioned the. Because this came up in one of our hearings, my ranking member wanted to refute everything I'm trying to reveal here, actually went out and held a press conference before our Voice of the Vaccine Injured. I was just giving these parents, these people who believe they've been vaccine injured. I've just been giving them platform to tell the story, right? So the ranking member goes out and says, I hope nobody pays attention to this thing. It's not credible enough. It's not worthy of the public's attention. I think it was in that hearing he had a chart that he showed from the Commonwealth Fund saying that the Vaers, the COVID injection saved 3 million lives in 2021 and 2022. Now, bear with me, it's relatively simple numbers, but you have to hang with me this. In 2019, before the pandemic, there were 2.85 million deaths in America. So under 3 million. Right. So the year, the pandemic, by the way, if that were to grow just kind of, you know, that number of deaths have been growing slowly because of population increase and also the aging of the population to the point where last year should have been around 3 million deaths. Okay? It was slowly growing. You know, last year should have been about 3 million. So 2019, 2.85 million. The year of the pandemic, it shot up to 3.4. Obviously something was happening here. Okay, Another half a million deaths. 2021 was the year of the vaccine, right? If it really was going to end the pandemic, you would think we'd come down back, you'd start moving toward the baseline, toward that normalized baseline. You know, we didn't we up to 3.5 million the next year. We came down a little bit to 3.3, but we're still way above that. That the normalized rate of deaths. Okay, so again, 2.85 to 3.4 to 3.5 to 3.3. So they're claiming in this Commonwealth Fund study that the vaccine saved 3 million lives in both 2021 and 2022. So again, deaths are going up. It's way above the baseline. In order to have that to be true, you'd have to assume we were going to have 5 million deaths per year in both 2021, 2022. It's just, it's farcical. I mean, again, I don't need an empirical, Bayesian, you know, sophisticated mathematical analysis to just show there's no way the injection saved 3 million lives in 20, 21 and 20. There's no way. There's no way. If you were old and vulnerable, the vaccine might have given you some protection where you didn't have a severe. So that's possible. I just don't know. There really have not been decent studies to prove that. You'll never have decent studies to prove that. But just the basic math disproves 3 million lives saved from the injection in the US in 2021 22. It's farcical.
- [31:33]
Jania Kellek
You mentioned the hearing that you held about giving a platform for the vaccine injured people. You know, as you well know, you know, my wife and I, we made a film about the plight of these people. Where are we at right now?
- [31:50]
Senator Ron Johnson
Well, I think I know. I've been told Jay Bhattacharya has agreed to produce an ICD code, which is what doctors and all healthcare providers use to get reimbursed for a particular health condition. So the COVID vaccine injection injured have never had an ICD code. So if they seek medical care, they're having to do it for something else. So that's incredibly important for the injection injured that they have that code to acknowledge the fact that their condition, the things they're suffering from, the disability, has been caused more than likely by that COVID injection. That'd be very helpful. So that's some practice.
- [32:30]
Jania Kellek
Well, just it helps you to know that there's this. These are the types of treatments which you might consider. These are the types of.
- [32:36]
Senator Ron Johnson
But here we are, six years past the pandemic, we still don't have the ICD code. They've been asking for it for quite some time, so maybe they'll get it now. So that's some progress. As I mentioned, that video I saw of this gentleman who's got a central line in his, you know, his aorta getting treatment in Japan, I think by and large, the COVID injection injured are still being largely gaslit and ignored and being told it's all in their head or, you know, that kind of stuff happens. You know, you have sudden stroke.
- [33:09]
Jania Kellek
You know, there was, you know, Brianne Dressen, who, you know, testified in this hearing, was in the film, who I've interviewed, she talks about having got. Her and very few others having gotten the golden ticket, so to speak, being able to be treated at an NIH facility for the. For her injury. So there is some knowledge around how this stuff can be treated, even within the government.
- [33:35]
Senator Ron Johnson
I wish I could say that Bree's been cured. She hasn't been. This has been, I think, very helpful to her. But, yeah, she's one of the very few that have gotten that kind of treatment. But she was gaslit. She was lied to by people like Peter Marks. I mean, they led her down the primrose path. They kept it all very quiet. They didn't disclose anything because they didn't want to harm their chance to have the NIH actually take this seriously. And that was all BS on the part of Peter Marks.
- [34:03]
Jania Kellek
What I'm thinking here, right, is that there is some knowledge around how to. Even within, like, you know, of course, there's a whole lot of knowledge that has been developed independently by some of these doctors, like at the Independent Medical alliance and so forth, about treatment. And on the other hand, there's knowledge within the government how to do it, like some. Brianne, of course, she's not cured, but it helped her a lot. She should be the first person to say that. And so it would seem like there's an opportunity here. Right?
- [34:36]
Senator Ron Johnson
But only if. Only if their injury is acknowledged, if they're given the benefit of the doubt in terms of. No, we're interested in this. I would first go to Japan, go, what's happening over there? I mean, that sounds. Again, that's just off of one video. But you have to have that kind of open mind. You go, what is being tried? And then part of the things we're getting involved in is rare diseases because it's just incomprehensible how FDA has been handling treatments for rare disease. And just given these people that have very little hope, just given the middle finger makes no sense. I'll give you a quick story. I was the champion of right to try. That was back In, I think 2018 is where we finally passed that.
- [35:21]
Jania Kellek
And so just just to be clear, that's legislation that allows people to try
- [35:26]
Senator Ron Johnson
a novel that has not been fully FDA approved, Right. If they're terminal and they have no other option, no other treatment, not available for clinical trial. So unfortunately, to get it passed, we had to really narrow it because the establishment, Big Pharma people didn't really like that law, but they couldn't prevent it from being passed. But a lot of that was based on my contact with ALS patients. But kind of tailing that process, we also got connected with the Duchenne muscular dystrophy community and Jordan McGlynn, his mom Laura. And so I've gotten involved in that community as well. But during that same time frame back then, there was no treatment for Duchenne muscular dystrophy. It's a genetic disease. It produces very stunted growth, loss of muscle control and early death. And the general, I think it might be all boys, but generally young boys. So there was a treatment that had been tried and seemed to have some success. And so the families were really advocating make this more widely available. And so they had a FDA advisory panel where I think there's like 50 or 60 of these families just begging this advisory panel. I think there are 11 people on it. You know, please just give us access to this. I mean, we, we're willing to take the risk. I mean, we know what the end result of our child's disease is going to be. This gives us some hope. This is looking like some real Progress. And vote 10 to 1, the FDA said no. I mean, the company's providing it for free. These are completely informed parents, as best as you can be informed about a drug that, you know may help, may have some side effects, whatever. They're willing to take that risk, including
- [37:14]
Jania Kellek
death, because the other side of it is so bad. Right?
- [37:18]
Senator Ron Johnson
And the FDA continues down this. Now, at that point in time, we made such a stink about it, they reversed. The FDA overrode that advisory panel and they did approve it. Now this exact same drug is going to be pulled. Now you have, I mean, I had people up on the hill here. People are outliving their potential, certainly out walking their potential. And the fda, you can't understand. I mean, there are other rare diseases, the same type of thing. There's a drug for a condition called ataxia that reduces the progression of disease by 50 to 70%. We had a doctor from Harvard who's working with these patients, you know, testifying and hearing, and he says, the fda, the reviewers are saying, why should we listen to you? Because I'm a doctor employed by Harvard and I'm treating these patients and I see the results Maybe. Who else are you going to listen to? But they're just saying no. Sanfilippo syndrome, the same type of thing. It's like, why would you say no? I mean, again, you've got the companies that are willing to some of these things too. By the way, there's so few patients with these rare diseases. There's no economic incentive. But for some companies, it's worth providing drugs and, you know, doing the experimentation research on a very small population because they learn for treatment of other potential diseases that have an economic benefit. But if you pull, if you pull the rug out from one of those companies where they can't provide these drugs, they can't even conduct the research. They can't. We will have no development for rare diseases. And that's what's at stake. And again, for the life of me, I cannot understand what's happening in the current FDA in terms of what's happening here.
- [39:05]
Jania Kellek
Well, so let's talk a little bit about this because I think there's, you know, probably some viewers of this show and some people have been guests on the show that are kind of sure, there's codes coming in, right? These vaccine injury or COVID vaccine injury codes coming in soon, but a lot of people, I guess we're expecting more action, faster. How do you relate to that?
- [39:35]
Senator Ron Johnson
Those of us who are pushing a different approach, something that's against the current narrative or the current protocol or the current drugs being used, the highly profitable drugs being used. I mean, cancer oncology should be one of them. Okay. We're up against powerful interests. We're up against big Pharma, who has spent billions now on advertising on TV having bought the narrative on network news programs. It's interesting if you take a look at the journalism that occurred before the 1986 act and certainly before the 199192 regulation change that Clinton allowed. Big farmers started advertising. There was investigative journalism on childhood vaccine injuries. It's why that you had the 1986 act, you know, people, you know, parents were being put on Phil Donahue and other, other outlets and, you know, 60 Minutes was talking about this stuff.
- [40:30]
Jania Kellek
This is something that, that Aaron Seri, I think, told me at one point, perhaps even on camera, he said, well, you know, companies were saying we're going to go bankrupt if we're faced with these lawsuits. And that's part of the reason for the legislation in the first place.
- [40:44]
Senator Ron Johnson
And so again, you can understand the rationale. If you believe that vaccines really can save millions of lives, you probably need some vaccine manufacturers. So in order for that to happen, based on what people were experiencing. I mean, children getting severely disabled or dying. What is SIDS all about? Okay, I started thinking about SIDS because during COVID we had sads. Never heard of sads. Sudden Adult Death Syndrome. Well, gee, what's changed? Never heard of SADs until the COVID injection started coming. But it couldn't be the COVID injection because we know that only does good. I mean, what's so bizarre about all of this is what is a vaccine? What's it impacting? It's impacting your immune system. Right. So many of these chronic illnesses are about immune dysregulation or autoimmune diseases. Right. But the people pushing this on us, I mean, they're unbelievable blinders. You know, you purposefully impact the immune system, but they have this religious belief. Well, but the way we're designing it only has a beneficial impact on the immune system. There's no way we could be doing any harm. It's only good. There's no harm. It's absurd. I mean, particularly then when you look at the correlation of the number of vaccines given with increase in autism, the skyrocketing rates of autism, and chronic illness, it's like, okay, what's changed? Same thing with sads. It's like all of a sudden you have this term. You have to come up with a term because adults are dying suddenly. What changed? Well, yeah, we had Covid, but I didn't hear about SADs during 2020. You didn't see athletes drop dead on the field or collapse on the field or newscast. I mean, you've seen the video reels. I'd never seen that until the COVID injection began. So again, you don't have to be a research scientist, you don't have to be a medical doctor to realize this ought to be looked at.
- [42:50]
Jania Kellek
Right. There's a lot of people in this country that will listen to the types of things you're saying right now and say that's actually, you know, foreign disinformation. You're actually being led on a. You know, you're. You're being. Basically, there's people trying to subvert a good system that's working that have sold this lie. And there's all these, you know, and it's work because of social media, because we know, actually social media is very effective at spirit spreading crazy ideas. Right. And good ideas, too. Right. What would you say to people who genuinely worry that this whole line of thinking or discussion is some kind of subterfuge, misinformation I would say read vaccines.
- [43:38]
Senator Ron Johnson
Amen. Because it just shows the lies you've been told. I mean, the COVID injection, it was going to stay in your arm. They knew it wouldn't stay in your arm. They knew it'd biodistribute. You know, the lipid nanoparticles designed to permeate difficult permeate barriers. Okay, so we've been lied to time and time again. And then if you read Aaron Singer's book, he's got one chart on page 84, which I think is just excellent. You know, dissolving Illusions is all about making the case that most of these infectious diseases were pretty well conquered before vaccines ever came on the scene. They were conquered because we stopped living in squalor. You know, basic sanitation, a lot cleaner water. Okay, so you take a look at the rates of infection, whether it's diphtheria or, you know, all these things dramatically declined, declined by, you know, 95, 96, 97, 98% before the vaccines even came on or, you know, began being administered. So on this one chart, you know, Aaron lists the number of deaths for each of these diseases the year before the vaccine started being administered for that disease. If you total them all up, it's less than 5,000 a year. This is dating back in the 40s and 60s, and we've gotten better since then at treating illness. Right? So these claims of vaccines having saved 154 million lives. Now, that's globally, but, you know, in the US millions of lives, well, only 5,000 people a year suffer from the diseases that we're vaccinating against. So, again, just simple math. You go, these claims are complete bs. I mean, total incomplete. And it's very, you know, from. There's excellent video, too, where they have a TV program talking about measles and how deadly. Another outbreak and you're deadly. And then it exposes that or whatever, however you pronounce that word. Compares it to a Brady Bunch episode where the whole family's got measles. And Alice comes down, I got it, too. And they're laughing it off. When I was a kid, and I know there's a difference between German measles, rubella, and normal measles. And yeah, there's no doubt measles can be devastating, create death. But when I was a kid, we got sent over to the house of children who had chicken pops or mumps or German measles, the whole neighborhood who had infected. So we got it over with, and now all of a sudden, we literally vaccinate against chickenpox. One of the things in Aaron Sery's book is if you've actually had measles, a study, you have a dramatically reduced risk at heart disease. Well, why would that be? I mean, how could that possibly be? Well, you know, when your body, which is our God given immune system, is a marvel, I mean, what it does is marvelous, okay? And I don't think we can even begin to fully understand it. All that's all these research scientists trying to do is figure out how can we help it, okay? But your body immune system reacts to an infection like measles, and apparently in doing so, it sets up potentially some kind of protection against future heart disease or what causes that. So it's not a plausible mechanism. Again, I'm not a doctor, not a research scientist, but that's what a study says. So by vaccinating everybody against measles, you may, in your ignorance, you may have just reduced your ability to fight off or prevent heart disease. You might have increased the instance of heart disease. Again, we, we just don't know. And that's, I've said this in a couple of my events where my opening statement, I'll say, listen, I am amazed at the knowledge that mankind has developed through the millennium. I mean, it's just what we have learned is amazing. What we can do is amazing. But you compare that to what we still don't know. I think what we don't know vastly exceeds what we actually do. And we, it would do us well to have that level of modesty and humility as we approach us. So again, all the things I'm saying, and trust me, I'm not saying I'm a know it all, there's so many things I don't know. I understand that, but what I do, what I have found out is I've researched it. And that's getting back to your question. What do you say to these people? Do your research, read these books, your eyes will be open and take a look at what happened during COVID Did it make any sense to you at all that our federal health officials, their guidance was if you get first of all these PCR tests, which dramatically overstay the number of cases, which is why you had so many asymptomatic cases. Right? But their guidelines, if you got Covid, if you had tested for it, is go home, don't do anything, maybe take Tylenol, which by the way, is a more dangerous drug than Ivermectin, but put that aside, do nothing, go home, be afraid and hope. Pray you don't get so sick that you get put in a hospital and throw in a ventilator where about 90% of people died on a ventilator. Okay. Where they wouldn't administer some of these drugs that I believe proved pretty effective at curing you. So again, it's a matter of educate yourself. It would be nice to be able to believe these experts, but understand there aren't many peer experts. There's no expert that knows it all. And so many of these experts are conflicted, particularly in the medical community with big pharma and stuff. They're doing research for them. Most of the research we rely on to approve a drug or it's funded by the actual company. That's true. Across the board. It's big egg, big food. All these studies that old. This thing's perfectly safe. And how do we know that? Well, studied by Monsanto. I mean, you literally can't make this stuff up. So, no, I'll go back to science is skepticism. We have to be skeptical. We've been lied to way too many times. There are so many powerful interests, whether it's ego, whether it's reputation, whether it's billions of dollars. There's something driving people to push things on the population that they shouldn't push that we ought to be skeptical of.
- [50:12]
Jania Kellek
You mentioned you got this 11 million page document dump from Bobby Kennedy, chief of HHS. Where do you think the MAHA agenda, that Bobby kind of took the mantle, so to speak, at HHS on where do you think it's been most effective, most successful, and how consequential is that?
- [50:34]
Senator Ron Johnson
I think without a doubt in terms of food, how do we evaluate ingredients? What's safe to eat, what's healthier to eat? That is something that is supported by everybody, that's completely nonpartisan versus the things I've been talking about here in terms of vaccines, COVID injection. People do not want to admit that, that maybe they shouldn't have fully vaccinated their children or they maybe shouldn't have taken that Covid shot or that maybe that COVID injection might result in cancer down the road. I mean, I fully understand that. I just can't ignore reality. But when it comes to food, I think we all realize, yeah, I probably shouldn't be eating those, you know, those Skittles or, you know.
- [51:19]
Jania Kellek
Yes, yes.
- [51:20]
Senator Ron Johnson
So, I mean, that resonates. And again, I don't think we have. From my standpoint, we should know so much more about nutrition in the human body and what we should put in it. What we shouldn't, you know, some of these supplements, that type of thing. We should just know a whole lot more, you know, what are the right levels of different things we can test with, blood tests, that kind of stuff. We should know so much more and we don't because we've been so dedicated to. Well, we just want a pill. Where's the pill again? I think Casey means her book Good Energy. I thought it was just beautifully written. From a standpoint of our bodies, we need energy, right? I mean, everything needs energy. Our energy comes from the sun and through photosynthesis. We get the plants collected, then animals eat the plants and they convert that energy into meat. And then we have to convert both plant and animal into energy in our bodies. And that's what our mitochondria does. And so if we harm our mitochondrial health, if we inhibit its ability to convert that food into energy, we're going to not be healthy. Because if we can't convert to energy, we can't heal ourselves. So again, just to me, in layman's terms, the way she laid that out, Go. That makes sense. Maybe I ought to quit eating those donuts. Maybe I'd be eating more whole foods. It's obvious, isn't it? Now, doing it is easier said than done. I'm hoping that the big food and big agriculture embraces this. I think it creates all kinds of great opportunities for smaller farmers. Pure organic types of things. Higher level, probably more expensive. But again, we kind of need those niche businesses. But I'm hoping big Ag recognize the fact that this is something we should do. Let's look at our ingredients. In the one event we held with Bobby Kennedy and KC Means and a bunch of these nutritionists, the thing that shocked me, I had no idea we approve ingredients in food based on grass, generally recognized as safe. Europe actually approves them. Like we approve drugs. They approve ingredients for food. They have 400 approved ingredients. We have 10,000. So somewhere in that 10,000 versus that extra 9,600, that's probably stuff that we probably shouldn't be putting in our food. Okay. Like petrochemical based dyes. Okay. Is there a need for it? You know, the food babe held up, you know, Fruit Loops from Canada kind of like sort of dreary colors. And, you know, the Fruit Loops in America said, whoa, you know, give me some sunglasses. You know, they're bright and, you know, attractive. Do we really need that? So again, hopefully, just common sense will drive, you know, big food and the American consumer to just trend toward healthier things. Fewer Ingredients. I mean, I'm certainly, you know, I'm looking at processed food and I'm trying to buy the stuff that has the fewest number of things in it. Just as, just as a start. Say, I don't know, I don't know much about these things, but if it's just got, you know, basic food ingredients and I can pronounce them, not some big long. Not that I'm saying every ingredient has big long names. Harmful. We just don't know. And so we need to know. So I think the first task of Bobby Kennedy, I've always said this, is he needs to return restore integrity to science because science has been corrupted. You need some turnover, you need fresh eyes looking at this stuff. I mean, that put him in so much control over so many people, which is why you get these people to write that proximal origin paper, Right. Even though the people who wrote that came and said, this is looking pretty man made to me, you know, within two phone conferences knew there's no way this thing was man made. So I mean, that's just ethereal corruption. So that's Bobby Kennedy's first task, is you have to restore integrity to science. And I'm not opposed to government funding of it, but there's got to be far greater controls over how we do that. Sometimes government has to, because there's just not a profit motive to drive certain research.
- [55:24]
Jania Kellek
So are you saying in addition to the dietary guidelines you mentioned, in addition to, you know, removal of some of these chemicals like petrochemical dyes and things like that, that this is an area where progress has been made?
- [55:36]
Senator Ron Johnson
Yes, but it's going to take some time for that progress to be felt because you have to first redirect the effort, you have to set up the controls, then you actually have to start undertaking the studies. Right. So it's a multi year program. So I'm hoping at the end of this administration that the next administration continues those same efforts.
- [55:55]
Jania Kellek
So something that you were involved in in the previous Congress, which is pretty close to my heart, I just wrote a book about it. It's this. The book is Killed to Order. It's about China's forced organ harvesting industry. You were in the Senate behind the Falun Gong Protection Act. It didn't pass that time, it just was recently has been reintroduced as a bipartisan Falun Gong and victims of Forced Organ Harvesting Protection Act.
- [56:25]
Senator Ron Johnson
That's a mouthful.
- [56:25]
Jania Kellek
It's a mouthful, but I think it's. Seems to me like you need an acronym for that. I don't Want to tout my own horn?
- [56:36]
Senator Ron Johnson
Let me tout it. Okay? You have done a phenomenal job researching this and exposing it and highlighting it. I mean, literally, you've done a phenomenal job. I can't explain. Literally, I can't explain why we didn't pass that a few years ago. I'm no longer in foreign relations, so other people have taken the lead on that. You know, I've talked to chairman of foreign relations. He doesn't seem opposed to it. So I think because of all the work you've done, you've set up the conditions where just get that in a markup on foreign relations, bring that to the floor of the Senate, Unanimous consent. I don't see how anybody could object to that law. Congress is so dysfunctional. There's so many priorities tugging at us all that there needs to be a champion and there needs to be public support. And that means things have to be exposed, and you've done that.
- [57:25]
Jania Kellek
So I just have to say this for the record, because really, I don't think you know, what Kill to order does do. It brings together the work of 20 years of really excellent researchers who, in some cases, you know, gave up their lives not like the previous lives that they had been living right, in order to do this. In fact, Ethan Gutman has a book called the Xinjiang Procedure, which just, you know, almost published at the same time, looking at how this whole horrible practice, it was built on the backs of the Falun Gong practitioners. But then around 2015 or 2016, where really not that much had been done, they sort of added, you know, dehumanized another group of people, added another group of people, very vulnerable as well. So I'm just. I'm personally very concerned that this will just continue unless I appreciate you kind
- [58:14]
Senator Ron Johnson
of spreading the credit around. But, I mean, the bottom line is, if it weren't for the epic times employing you utilizing that platform, this would not have gotten the type of exposure and the public pressure that can be brought to bear to make sure this thing actually finishes across the finish line.
- [58:30]
Jania Kellek
Well, we'll be watching very closely and reporting on everything that comes out. It's great to hear that final question. You told me some time ago that the reason you ran again was mainly because you wanted to help these people who have been, you know, COVID injection injured, to use your term. I asked you a little bit earlier how that's coming. You know, how far do you think you can take this?
- [59:02]
Senator Ron Johnson
Probably the main reason I ran is I couldn't turn my back in my country. I realize this is a unique position. I'm a reasonably unique individual here in Washington D.C. with my manufacturing background, am I willing to. My willingness to speak out, okay, go against the grain, go against the narrative. But you know, a big part of that was no, nobody else was even acknowledging the vaccine or the injection injured, much less, you know, working to help them out, you know, give them a platform or advocate for them. So no, that was a big part of my running in 2022. And we're making progress. I mean, one of the reasons, you know, you had me on is because now we have gotten these documents. It's just prove that will expose what happened. It starts that Covid reckoning again. It's frustrating. I mean, I think this, you know, I think I know what happened. I understand the corruption. But the general population doesn't know it until you can show it in all its gory detail. Until you have the absolute proof, until you can show. Here's an email. This is what they said. I'm not telling you. This is what I assumed happened. This is what they said. We can't publish that. Take that information. Tell her not to give us any more. Don't do any more of these studies. We don't want to know that all these adverse events are mass. That there's safety signals for 25 of them, including sudden death and stroke. We don't want to know that. Tell her to shut up. She's a pest. So now we've got that. Hopefully that will be a blockbuster so the legacy media will actually pay attention. What's happened, for example, the voice of the vaccine injured. I told you my ranking member went out in a press conference, said I hope nobody watches this. It's not credible, it's not worthy of attention. So we had one hit piece pre written by I think Ms. Was it MSN now? Is that what they call it now? And that was it. So what the press is basically doing in reaction in mind is not necessarily attacking me so much anymore. They just ignore what I'm revealing. They're ignoring what I expose. So I appreciate this opportunity. I appreciate really everything that Epoch Times does. I mean, you're a true journalistic effort. Now we've lost that. We don't have that in the legacy media. It's a shame. But I appreciate you giving me this platform, tolerating me for an hour and thanks.
- [61:19]
Jania Kellek
Well, Senator Ron Johnson, it's such a pleasure to have had you on.
- [61:22]
Senator Ron Johnson
Thanks for having me on.
- [61:24]
Jania Kellek
Thank you all for joining Senator Ron Johnson and me on this episode of American thought leaders. I'm your host, Jania Kellek. It.