Dr. Jessica Rose
Day 2 · September 9, 2026 · 0:50:58
Key points Dr. Jessica Rose is a Canadian researcher with degrees in applied mathematics, immunology, computational biology, and postdocs in molecular biology and biochemistry. She presents data she says shows massive underreporting, arguing VAERS COVID reports should be multiplied by a factor of about 26 to 30. She says global adverse-event reports rose roughly 1,300 percent in 2021, which she characterizes as a clear safety signal requiring a causality assessment. She contends an early death signal in VAERS in January 2021 was ignored, unlike the 1999 RotaShield vaccine that was withdrawn over far fewer reports. She criticizes Canada's compensation program as run by a conflicted payer, designed in secret, and approving only about 7 percent of claims. She argues COVID shots produced roughly 118 times more adverse events than influenza vaccines over a matched period, calling it anomalous. She dismisses the 'millions of lives saved' claim as based on a single modeling study and urges people to refuse future mandates.
Speaker 4
0:03 Welcome back to day two of the afternoon, and I'm going to turn it over to my colleague, Mr. Sean Butler. Speaker 5
0:12 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 0:14 Our first witness this afternoon, is it okay if I call you Dr. Jessica Rose? 0:20 Because you've got a PhD, postdocs, postdocs. 0:25 So our first witness is Dr. Jessica Rose, who is a Canadian researcher and 0:32 Dr. Rose, first of all, we'll swear you in. 0:34 So, Dr. Rose, I guess you'll take the Bible in your right hand. 0:38 Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Speaker 5
0:46 So I just want to introduce you to the inquiry. 0:48 So Dr. Jessica Rose is a Canadian researcher with a bachelor's degree in applied mathematics, a master's degree in immunology, 0:59 a PhD in computational biology, two postdoctoral degrees, one in molecular biology and one in biochemistry. 1:10 She has her most recent or more recent research efforts are aimed at a descriptive analysis of the vaccine adverse event reporting system data. 1:21 And she's also done some research into the vaccine injury support program for the purposes of this inquiry. 1:29 And Dr. Rose, I understand that you've prepared a presentation for us, so I'd invite you to present. Speaker 1
1:35 Thanks. 1:38 I have a few slides. 1:40 It's all about data, various and sundry, Canadian-American, some information on the VISP system as well. 1:49 Before I start, I just want to extend very heartfelt thank yous to Dean and Sean and your wife, Teresa, 1:58 the MPs for showing up, and the injured, most of all. 2:04 I mean, I've been doing this for five years or so, and I'm only doing it for the injured people. 2:10 So I think that this has already been incredibly impactful, and I think it's going to resonate throughout the world. 2:19 I honestly believe that, with or without my testimony. 2:26 So I want to start with some American data. 2:29 This is the V-safe data. 2:30 This was an app created by CDC, Centers for Disease Control in America, to enable the regular people of the world to download the app and report an adverse event if they succumb to one. 2:45 This had to be FOIA requested by the Informed Consent Action Network and Aaron Seary's legal team. 2:52 So this data that became available was only made available because it was FOIA requested. 2:59 It's very important that I make that point. 3:02 It took a year and a half to complete that process. 3:06 And I analyzed it about two weeks after the data came out. 3:09 And you can see on the bottom bar that there were almost 800,000 reports of the 10 million that were reported that required medical care. 3:19 Now, that was the surface level data that we had. 3:22 Another staggering thing about this data was that only 30,492 of those reports were linked to VAERS, which is the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, which represents an underreporting factor of approximately 26. 3:37 Senator Johnson mentioned that pharmacovigilance databases that are passive, which means it requires a volunteer submission, are highly underreported, and they are. 3:47 So all the numbers I'm going to present to you today in reference to VAERS, you have to multiply them by at least 26. 3:54 That's the point. 3:56 Very recently, in August 2026, Brett Zavleffy, a colleague of mine, and Nelson Liu, these are MIT researchers, submitted a preprint on the subject matter of this data, and they found the following. 4:09 There were almost 2% of the 10 million reports that reported over three months after their last shot that their health condition was worsening. 4:21 And half of those, which is about 1%, a lot of people, 100,000, explicitly reported prolonged disability, hospitalization, or severe and debilitating adverse events. 4:33 Now, if you consider the fact that 272 million people in the United States received at least one dose by extension, you can... 4:44 make a prediction that over 5 million people in America alone might be suffering with debilitating injuries. 4:52 So this is not a small deal. 4:56 I'll go quickly through this because it's an obvious slide. 5:00 Prior to the COVID-19 injection rollout for four years, 2016 to 2020, all the data combined, gathered by the WHO and the Uppsala Monitoring Center, which is run by the WHO, 5:15 have a total of less than half a million adverse event reports for all vaccines combined across the world. 5:23 Come 2021, this rose, same people reporting this data, to almost 6 million. 5:31 That's not a small discrepancy. 5:34 That is a safety signal. 5:38 1,300% or more increase in the number of global reports. 5:44 Now, whenever you're analyzing or investigating pharmacovigilance databases, you have to follow up. 5:53 And if there is a safety signal detected therein, you have to do a causality assessment. 5:58 These are the Bradford Hill criteria listed here. 6:01 This is what the CDC, the FDA, and the WHO use. 6:04 They've traditionally used in the past. 6:06 And they have used these to make determinations of causal effects that you can see on the right. 6:13 But this is a short list. 6:15 So these are the ones that we all heard about, the myocarditis, pericarditis, thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome, deaths which were causally linked to the TTS. 6:27 Guillain-Barre, which we heard about today, and anaphylaxis, of course. 6:30 There was a particular Moderna batch number that had to be withdrawn in the United States because the signal for anaphylaxis was so high. 6:40 Temporality is the mandatory gatekeeper of these criteria, of course. 6:46 One thing has to come before the other in order for a causal effect to be there. 6:49 And the shorter the timeframe between those two things, the higher the likelihood. 6:54 I've heard a number of people here saying that they got their symptoms within hours of their shots. 6:59 So that's the most important criteria and it's satisfied. 7:05 So these are acknowledged by all of these agencies here, ACIP, CDC, FDA, and EMA. 7:11 So this is not anecdotal. 7:15 Like I said, pharmacovigilance, which is necessary when you're dealing with vaccines, includes follow-up, and it works. 7:22 So back in 1998, there was a vaccine called the RotaShield vaccine, and within VAERS, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, 7:32 There were 15, one, five intussusception reports. 7:36 Intussusception is when the bowel folds over on itself. 7:39 It's very painful. 7:40 This was in children. 7:42 The CDC saw the signal. 7:44 They looked it up. 7:46 They suspended the vaccine because this was considered to be a strong enough safety signal to do an investigation. 7:52 And lucky that they did because follow-up had almost 100 confirmed cases and 60 within a week. 7:58 So that's showing a temporal signal. 8:01 Eventually in 1999, the manufacturer themselves voluntarily withdrew the product because they saw that it was damaging kids. 8:11 So the point of this 8:13 before I show you that, is that VAERS works. 8:16 I'm absolutely sure everybody here has heard, well, you can't use VAERS to inform causation. 8:22 It's like nobody's saying that. 8:24 But you need to have a detection system ongoing in order to detect the signals with proper signal maintenance, like Senator Johnson was speaking about. 8:35 And then you have to do follow-up. 8:37 You have to do a causality assessment. 8:40 which was not the case in the context of the COVID-19 quote unquote vaccines. 8:46 This is my data. 8:48 I've been looking at VAERS since day one of the rollout, December 17th, 2020. 8:57 And there was a death signal on January 30th, 2021, that was not deniable. 9:04 634 cases of death. 9:06 Now, last time I checked, you can't recover from death. 9:09 This is clearly showing that most of these deaths are occurring in our elders, but this makes sense because they were targeted first for the products. 9:18 So my question is, why did the early death signal not prompt similar action in the COVID shot context? 9:25 Because this is CDC data. 9:27 VAERS is owned by HHS and its daughter agencies, FDA and CDC. 9:33 One more thing about the U.S., and this is important. 9:36 They also have a... 9:38 an HHS medical countermeasures injury compensation program, as Senator Johnson pointed out. 9:43 This is all they have. 9:45 And they themselves report that they received 13,333 COVID-19 claims, which was 27 times the claims in the program's first decade alone. 9:56 They completed review of about one-fourth. 9:58 And they only found that 3% were completed. 10:02 And those people were eligible for compensation. 10:06 That does not mean that they received compensation. 10:10 And as React 19 point out, astonishingly, the CICP has rejected over 97% of the COVID-19 vaccine injury claims. 10:18 So this is a global problem from my point of view. 10:23 So this is a little bit of information that I found from an ATIP document, thanks to the people who got this to me, about the VISP or the VIAP program. 10:35 It is called a no-fault-based compensation program. 10:39 This was new to me. 10:40 I had no idea what this meant. 10:42 And here's the timeline. 10:44 So late 2020. 10:46 A group of people got together. 10:49 They wanted to design a no-fault vaccine injury compensation scheme in Canada. 10:54 In June 2021, they created VISP, which was formally launched. 10:58 This was run by a private contractor named Oxaro Inc. 11:02 funded by Ottawa, and in April 1st, 2026, more recently transitioned to 2viap, which is run by PCAC. 11:10 So there's a little bit of a conflict of interest there, if you ask me, because they authorize and promote these so-called vaccines. 11:19 They're the promoter and the payer. 11:22 Now, something that didn't surprise me, but annoyed me, 11:26 was to found out of the eligibility requirements, which means that somebody has to prove that they were seriously and permanently injured. 11:35 And as we've been hearing here today, I mean, that's almost impossible. 11:40 To establish causation in the first place is very difficult to do. 11:45 To do it in the face of agencies and individuals who refuse to acknowledge that even vaccine injury is a thing is even more difficult. 11:57 So what no fault from my understanding actually means is that proof of negligence is not required. 12:03 And it actually steers most of the injury claims away from lawsuits, which is very interesting to me. 12:12 So there's a bunch of money set aside by the Canadian government for people who can prove that they got injured and they can get some of that money. 12:21 And as far as I know, they've dealt out about 21 million so far, which is nothing. 12:27 What I thought was interesting within this 362 page document was that the design and the planning of this no fault vaccine injury compensation program was all in secret. 12:43 I put the red box around secret, but these documents were labeled secret and I don't understand how or why that would have been done. 12:51 All of these plans were done behind closed doors. 12:55 And it was to, by their words, bring Canada in line with its G7 counterparts in the context of mandatory vaccines. 13:05 I'm going to go quickly through here. 13:06 The principal reasons to align with other countries, like G7 countries in developing the NICP, 13:16 Well, if it's principled, then why was it redacted completely? 13:20 As was the declaration of conflict of interest, as were the arguments against vaccine injury compensation, as were the final words. 13:29 All three pages of the conflicts of interest listed by the Canadian COVID-19 Vaccine Task Force members were redacted. 13:38 All of them. 13:41 One more thing. 13:42 This I thought was, again, very annoying but not surprising. 13:48 On page 330, there's a question, what is the government of Canada doing to address vaccine hesitancy? 13:55 So the World Health Organization identifies vaccine hesitancy as a threat. 14:01 This is their words. 14:02 The government of Canada made addressing this threat a priority. 14:07 And in early December 2020, PIHA consulted with all the other provinces and territories on the establishment of a pan-Canadian no-fault vaccine injury compensation program. 14:18 And they planned out in this 362-page document how to combat, that's their word, concerns of Canadian citizens. 14:27 And, you know, Theresa Tam was mentioned yesterday. 14:31 I was shocked Senator Johnson didn't know who she is, but she was first and at the front of this combating of misinformation campaign and the concerns of Canadian citizens were 14:43 A lot of time and money was spent on studying this concept of vaccine hesitancy. 14:50 And this might shock you. 14:52 I was surprised by this. 14:54 A poll was done on September 11, 2020, and it showed that almost 60% of people were not the strong supporters of getting this COVID-19 shot. 15:07 they were polling people. 15:09 They were trying to figure out where Canadian citizens stood. 15:13 And they found out that they stood pretty firmly on the side of not getting it. 15:18 And that's why the campaign was launched. 15:20 This hesitancy idea needed to be obliterated. 15:26 Again, their words combating the concerns regarding vaccine hesitancy. 15:32 was a priority to those involved developing this compensation program. 15:38 Shockingly, this is the only available data that the regular person gets to have access to online. 15:47 And I can tell you with certainty that this total claims received number of 3,557 is an underestimate of the number of people who submitted claims. 15:59 And shockingly, only 252 were actually approved. 16:04 That's about 7% of the total that were received. 16:07 And this number is an underestimate. 16:10 I heard somebody mention that they went through the appeals process and it might disgust you to find out that of the 551 listed appeals that were received, only a fraction were assessed and even a smaller fraction were actually approved. 16:27 So only 30% were actually assessed and only 2% were approved. 16:35 This is the data that you can access online, which again, I heard a reference to that was underreported and it absolutely is. 16:43 And I'm going to show you why I think that. 16:46 So this represents all of the total adverse events reported and the serious adverse events, which includes death, hospitalization, an emergency room visit, a life-threatening illness, a birth defect, or hospitalization. 17:02 These are serious conditions. 17:05 And according to PHAC and the CAFIS system and also Health Canada's Vigilance Program, these are the three sources of data that I found I could access something. 17:20 They found that one in 9,000 people reported a serious adverse event. 17:25 Now, that might not sound like a lot, but to me, that sounds like a lot. 17:29 Myocarditis and death on the right were both reported to be temporarily related to the shots. 17:37 Now I wanted to show you guys something interesting. 17:40 The way that PHEC presents their data is per total doses, so approximately 102 million doses in Canadian data. 17:52 If you change that to people, 17:54 So instead of per 102 million doses, you have 32 million people approximately who got one or two shots. 18:05 It's interesting how the rate goes up. 18:08 So this is one of these little magic tricks that you can use when you present data. 18:13 You can either make it look better or worse, considering what your story is. 18:18 And I know how gross that sounds, but it happens all the time. 18:22 So they don't report it this way per person, and they might do that for a reason, but this is how they present it to the public. 18:31 I'm going to stick with the way that they do it in order to be consistent. 18:38 So VAERS, in short, Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, is a passive reporting system, which means that anybody can volunteer a report. 18:47 But as Senator Johnson correctly pointed out, about 67% are submitted by health practitioners and nurses. 18:54 And it serves as an early warning system or signaling system for adverse events not detected during pre-market testing or clinical trials. 19:02 And underreporting, as I stated, is a known imperfection. 19:07 This system is not perfect, but it's what we have because vaccines are liability free. 19:13 This is what we have. 19:15 And let me tell you, has it been used? 19:17 Oops. 19:21 So again, there's a Lazarus study that Senator Johnson referenced that says it's 100 times unreported, underreported. 19:28 I would say it's closer to 30 in the context of the COVID shots. 19:32 So now I want to show you the difference between U.S. VAERS data and the Canadian data that I just showed you. Speaker 5
19:38 Can I just stop you and clarify? 19:40 Because when you're saying 30, it's based on this reporting on an app, but Speaker 1
19:46 No, this is different. 19:47 This is VAERS. 19:48 So vSafe is separate. 19:50 That's the app. 19:51 And VAERS is the online reporting system. Speaker 5
19:54 Right. 19:54 But what I want to understand is, I think earlier you said, based on this app reporting, you thought that VAERS was underreported about 27%. 20:08 But we don't, we're assuming then that there's, that's compared to those two, but how many people 20:16 use that app and download that app. 20:17 I'm just curious if maybe the study by Harvard saying it's underreported by 100 might be correct. Speaker 1
20:26 It could be, but that was in a different context. 20:28 My belief is that because COVID was global, everybody knows about it. 20:34 More people know about fares now. 20:36 I'd say the underreporting factor in the context of the COVID shots is closer to 30. 20:40 I've actually calculated this using Pfizer's phase three clinical trial data as well. 20:46 I got 31. 20:48 So it's in very strong alignment with my previous calculation. 20:54 But you never know. Speaker 5
20:55 No, and I'm just asking the question, and I understand that you have a PhD in computation. 21:00 No, no, it's not just that. Speaker 1
21:01 It's because I've been doing this for so long. 21:05 I dare say it's closer to 30, which is still gross, because when you multiply almost a million reports by 30, that's a lot. 21:14 So... 21:16 A lot of people say that the numbers are much higher in VAERS because it's overreported and everybody knows about it. 21:26 These slides that I made today are going to blow all of those lies out of the water. 21:31 So this slide represents the fact that there are far more reports in VAERS in the U.S. database than in Canada. 21:42 There are far more Americans than Canadians, but I'm going to show you the rates. 21:46 These are rates actually right here. 21:50 So preliminary comparison, we can see Canada's low on the reporting scale. 21:58 US and Canadian citizens received the same product, so why aren't the reporting rates the same? 22:04 So let's focus on death reports. 22:07 Again, using KFISB, HACC, and HC's Vigilance Program. 22:11 The death rate is low. 22:14 So this is a rate. 22:15 This isn't numbers. 22:16 This is per 100,000 doses because I kept in line with PHAC's presentation. 22:22 And it's very clear here that from these two adverse event data collection systems, actually it's one versus three for Canada, the Canadian rate is really low. 22:33 And you might think, well, maybe VAERS is just high. 22:36 Maybe it's overestimation. 22:38 Who knows? 22:40 But it's interesting to note that where VAERS is passive, which means it's a volunteer reporting system and anybody can report, and they do, the Canadian systems are a hybrid of a passive and active system, which means that they're much more highly vetted and much more controlled on the front end and the back end. 23:03 Charles knows a lot about that. 23:07 that process, anybody who's tried to submit an adverse event report in Canada can vouch for it being rejected or, you know, getting caught in the system. 23:22 It's really interesting when you look across the other pharmacovigilance databases around the world, the Dane in Australia, Univigilance in the EU and the Yellow Card system in the United Kingdom, 23:35 that it still ranks the lowest. 23:39 VAERS is still up there, so it's probably about double the average of the other three. 23:46 But it begs a serious question as to why it's so much lower. 23:52 And there are possible logical reasons for this, like variations in how systems define and code and clean, where time window reports under-reporting differences could be there. 24:04 But it's real interesting how in America, it's actually mandated by law that if you are a physician or nurse, practitioner, and you even suspect that somebody has an injury due to a vaccine, you are required by law to report that to VAERS. 24:23 They don't. 24:24 But, you know, Rochelle Walensky, who was the director of the CDC at the time, is on record stating this. 24:30 This is a fact. 24:31 You can go to prison if you don't. 24:33 You can also go to prison if you report a false adverse event to VAERS, by the way. 24:39 They make it look like they take this real seriously, and I'm just quoting what their rules are. 24:45 So that could explain why the data collection rate for death in the United States is higher, but it also indicates that it's probably more accurate. 24:57 So... 25:00 Here we go with another chart. 25:03 I hope you guys aren't scared by graphs. 25:05 These are very simple. 25:08 What I decided to do when I looked at the VAERS data, because we're lucky enough to have it go back to 1990, so we have a really nice baseline to refer to. 25:21 And I looked at the number of authorized vaccine types, which you can see in green, versus the number of adverse event reports in VAERS over time. 25:32 So I looked at 1990 to 2020, and I extended the number of vaccine types in this particular plot to 2025 so that you could see the continuing trend. 25:46 it doesn't look that obvious to a non-math person, but to me, it's obvious that these two lines track real well together. 25:55 They're both on a slight up, you know, incline. 25:59 They're very proportional. 26:01 There's a proportional increase in the number of adverse events reported in relation to the number of products that has been increasing slowly over the years. 26:12 That's good. 26:13 But the 26:14 you know, just shows a relationship between the two, a correlation. 26:20 Now, something I 26:22 thought I might do to help everybody understand what I'm about to show you is if the line, if the blue line, the number of adverse event reports in VAERS was continued in a quote-unquote normal way in the context of the number of vaccine products that were added to the schedule or that were new authorized between 2021 and 2025, which would include the COVID shots, you'd kind of expect it to track 26:51 to about 53,000 reports. 26:53 You know, it would be a little bit higher than it was in 2020. Speaker 5
26:56 So that's your blue square? 26:59 That's the blue square that I just popped up. 27:02 Okay. Speaker 1
27:03 That's what we would expect. 27:05 Like we in statistics, we have observed versus expected. 27:09 So a lot of the time you you'll run a statistical test and you'll say, OK, this is what we expect and this is what we observe. 27:15 And you can make a conclusion. 27:17 So this this isn't cut in stone. 27:20 This is just basically me as an investigator without bias, making a predetermination as to what it might be if things were normal. 27:33 So are you ready? 27:35 This is what we get. 27:37 So in 2021 in VAERS, and I'm gonna show you this in a much more clear graph on the next slide, we have a surge up to 753,047 reports in 2021. 27:51 It doesn't fit on any line. 27:53 This is an anomaly. 27:54 No matter if you're a data analyst or you're looking at pharmacovigilance databases or not, this is anomalous. 28:01 And this has yet to be explained by the owners of this data, which is HHS, CDC, and FDA. 28:10 So observation does not match expectation. 28:13 I'm going to show you the clearer plot after I show you something else quite staggering. 28:22 And that's the conclusion. 28:26 So another thing that I've done in my years of studying this is I decided to put away any argument that this is just because, you know, there were more COVID shots rolled out. 28:39 Of course, there are going to be more reports. 28:42 So what I did was I timeframe matched the influenza vaccine data and the COVID-19 shot data by the number of adverse events and also the number of types of adverse events. 28:55 So when you submit a report to VAERS, you get assigned, or when you go to the doctor and they diagnose you with, say, myocarditis, you get assigned a measure code, which they submit to VAERS. 29:08 And of the measure codes, you can choose between, or you can choose up to 25,000-odd. 29:14 So myocarditis is a measure code. 29:19 That's going to be important when I show you what I'm about to show you. 29:22 So in about 462 days, I did this analysis back in March 2022. 29:27 There were 2.3 times more COVID shots doled out than influenza shots. 29:34 However, instead of a proportional increase, which you would expect if these things weren't more harmful, 29:43 What we get is this. 29:45 So this is the total number of adverse events collected from VAERS for the COVID-19 shots versus influenza. 29:53 This is 118 times more. 29:56 That is not proportional. 29:58 That is anomalous. 30:00 That's a safety signal, if I ever saw a safety signal. 30:04 And probably even more concerning is that the number of adverse event types of the 25,000 that you can choose from 30:13 went up 6.2 times when you compare it to flu. 30:16 This is a clear indication of comprehensive damage, which is perfectly aligned with the fact that this is mostly, if you ask me, this is immunologically based damage. 30:32 Everybody's talking about autoimmune conditions, hematologic issues, brain issues. 30:38 This is all based 30:40 in immunology going wrong, being offset for some reason. 30:46 Every clinician I've spoken to, every pharmacist I've spoken to, every person who's injured I've spoken to has indicated that there's something very different about these shots, harm-wise, comprehensive injury-wise, 31:04 And I can tell you, there are almost 2 million reports in VAERS in the context of the COVID shots now. 31:11 And they range from chills to death and everything in between. 31:19 So if the COVID shots were not more harmful than the influenza vaccines, these numbers would be proportional. 31:26 End of story. 31:28 So this is the chart that I showed you before. 31:31 This is my classic bungalow skyscraper plot that I call it. 31:36 So on the x-axis here, you have the years that VAERS has been on the go since 1990. 31:42 So like I said, we have this beautiful baseline. 31:44 This is their data, by the way. 31:46 I do nothing to this data. 31:48 I just present it. 31:50 The average number of adverse event reports per year for all vaccines combined up until 2020 was about 23,000, okay? 32:01 Easy peasy, normal, normal. 32:02 A few more products on the market, a few more types of adverse events, a few more adverse events, nothing anomalous. 32:10 Enter 2021. 32:12 We have this enormous surge of adverse event reports 32:17 whereby the average, even though people stopped getting the shots, let's hope, the average is still way above the baseline. 32:28 So there is absolutely nothing normal about this. 32:34 And again, I have to say this again, this has yet to be acknowledged by the owners of the data, which is why people like Senator Johnson 32:45 pardon me, are so important because he actually looks at bears in particular and he recognizes this and he calls it out. 32:54 I'm sure if anything was going to be done with this data by them, but I hope so. 33:01 One more chart, which kind of proves the point. 33:03 This is a comparison of influenza vaccines from 2019 to remove the bias that might've been injected in 2020. 33:14 and COVID-19 from 2021. 33:16 So it's a one-year match. 33:18 This is per million doses. 33:20 So this is normalized data. 33:23 And there's a huge difference between the total reports, which is on the left, and the deaths on the right. 33:32 This is exactly what Senator Johnson was talking about yesterday. 33:36 There's nothing normal about this. 33:39 If death... 33:40 Surging like this doesn't comprise a very loud and clear safety signal from this pharmacovigilance database. 33:48 I don't know what does. 33:51 So it's not. 33:52 This completely puts to bed the idea that it's because there were more shots doled out. 33:58 It's not because of that. 34:01 You might be stunned to find out that there are a lot of Canadian adverse event reports in VAERS. 34:09 VAERS has two sets of data, the domestic data, which refers to the United States of America, and a foreign data set, which is just as large, which contains more than a million reports. 34:24 It's a massive file, and it contains the data submitted by the manufacturers of the products, like Pfizer, Moderna, and AstraZeneca, directly to VAERS from people who are living abroad. 34:36 Perhaps they're American, perhaps they're not. 34:38 But there are millions of these reports. 34:44 As per Canada, there's a way to sift this data out because there are like 58 variables in VAERS that you can choose from. 34:53 One of them identifies the country of origin of the submitted adverse event report. 34:59 So there's almost 9,000 COVID shot related Canada source AEs reported to VAERS. 35:06 And as I was saying before, temporality is like the cornerstone of causation. 35:12 It's the first step to proving that you have, you know, a vaccine causing a specific adverse event. 35:20 These are serious adverse events here. 35:22 So this is a narrow form of the data. 35:26 And you can see that by day seven, there were like most of the people who reported their serious adverse event, and this includes death, happened before day seven. 35:38 This is a temporal signal. 35:40 I used exactly what CDC used before that caused the rotavirus vaccine to get pulled from the market. 35:48 I chose serious adverse events, and I went within a week. 35:52 And it's the same. 35:53 I mean, I guess if it was 1998, maybe they would be doing something. 36:00 So 43, this is another staggering thing that I found. 36:04 According to the VAERS handbook, of any set of data that comes in, approximately 10 to 15% of those reports will be considered serious. 36:14 The ones that came in from Canada, almost half of them were considered serious. 36:20 This is anomalous in and of itself. 36:22 This is way above the baseline. 36:24 71% of Canadians reported an SAE within seven days of injection. 36:30 And this is in VAERS data. 36:33 Like, I just saw this and I was like, what? 36:36 Does this comprise the adverse event reports that were reported by CAIFS and PHAC, et cetera? 36:42 Like, are they even aware of this? 36:45 Is there any crosstalk between these data sets? 36:50 Nobody knows. 36:53 So again, I used the CDC parameters for withdrawal from a vaccine of a vaccine. 36:59 And I showed that the number of series adverse event reports after dose one, after dose one, one dose, by days to onset, which is seven days, is the major proportion, 65.4%. 37:15 So this is crazy. 37:17 That's exactly what you look for from a pharmacovigilance database to comprise a signal to follow up and do a causality assessment with the intent of pulling the product from a market if it's killing people. 37:31 Seems kind of obvious. 37:33 I'm almost done. 37:34 I have to address this, this millions of lives saved claim from the shots. 37:40 This is absolute, I can't swear, so I'll say boohickey. 37:45 And what most people won't have realized is that this thing, this statistic, this mantra that we hear is literally based on one peer-reviewed article, this article here. 38:00 There are a couple others, but this is the one where everyone gets this quotable statistic of 20 million people where deaths were prevented. 38:14 I'm a mathematical modeler. 38:16 I take great pride in all of my training and, uh, 38:22 not creating bias when you make your assumptions about your model, not interjecting anything when you go through your design or when you estimate your parameters. 38:31 But it's not an exact science. 38:34 It never has been. 38:35 All it can do is give you guidance to make potential predictions about future outcomes. 38:42 That's all a model can do. 38:44 This is a modeling study. 38:47 Depending on what the IFR, the infection fatality rate was, which differed depending on demographic, it differed depending on variant. 38:56 There were so many variables here that could be different that would make the outcome of this model, the conclusion of the study, different. 39:06 It's worthless. 39:07 I mean, I'm sorry, authors. 39:09 I don't mean to offend you, but it might not even be your fault that this became the... 39:17 the mantra of the world to support these shots being safe and effective. 39:24 Maybe you had nothing to do with it, but I really want to make sure that people know that next time somebody says, because the legacy media loves to revert to this, well, it saved millions. 39:35 No, no, it didn't. 39:37 There is nowhere that you can cite that proves that beyond a shadow of doubt. 39:43 This is based on a modeling study. 39:46 It's only an idea. 39:47 And you know what? 39:50 I'll take it one step further. 39:52 If you actually wanted to prove to someone that the shots are killing people, if you tried to do that using one modeling paper, you would get laughed out of the door. 40:02 I'm sorry I'm getting a little bit testy, but like, yeah, it's all of this really annoys me because the data is here and the data. 40:13 And none of this needed to happen. 40:14 And it happened for a reason by people who knew. 40:19 So pharmacovigilance, I will defend it. 40:22 It's extremely important. 40:24 It's kind of like a real world phase four trial. 40:27 So after your clinical trials, your one, two, threes, which aren't supposed to be overlapped, which they were for Pfizer, and they aren't supposed to be rushed. 40:37 You have to look at what's happening in a larger demographic of people when you administer the product. 40:43 You have to monitor because maybe because your exclusion criteria list was so long, you didn't represent a certain population like pregnant women in your trial. 40:56 So you have to monitor this. 40:59 COVID-19, quote unquote, vaccines are liability free. 41:04 Now, I think that was the target. 41:06 So there's no impetus or motive to make them safe. 41:10 That's a fact. 41:12 They're not. 41:13 They're not effective and they're not safe. 41:14 And I could talk for another three hours about why they're not effective. 41:18 And by the way, somebody should prompt me at the end of this to talk about the DNA contamination issue. Speaker 5
41:24 And actually, I'm going to ask that we stay away from that because we haven't had time to review what you want to say. 41:29 No problem. 41:30 So we want to end, but probably we've got about five minutes left. Speaker 1
41:37 You guys can read this. 41:38 I... 41:41 I just want to end by saying pharmacovigilance signal that is undercounted or ignored and thinly compensated when recognized is incomplete public health policy. 41:51 And that's what this has all been about. 41:52 It's always been about, well, you have to do it for your health. 41:58 You have to do it for others. 41:59 You have to do the greater good. 42:03 of this was about public health policy. 42:05 This was about investments and stock markets and a wealth transfer that we've never seen the likes of, if you ask me. 42:15 And the really hard part to swallow is all the casualties along the way. 42:21 You know, there are some people who make claims that I don't really stand by, that they're, you know, the quote-unquote, they're trying to kill us. 42:29 Maybe they are. 42:31 But, I mean... 42:33 It doesn't matter because the casualty list is so high now. 42:37 It might as well be that way. 42:39 I really have to wonder where the care in health care has gone, if it was ever there, because I don't see it. 42:55 I clicked the wrong button. 42:56 That's it for me. 42:57 I do this for the injured. 43:02 I'm doing this for humanity because I think we're actually in an existential crisis right now. 43:11 And when they do this again, because I believe that they will, just say no. 43:18 Hold on to your national and personal sovereignty and just say no. 43:22 Assert yourself. 43:24 You have support. 43:26 Trust me. Speaker 4
43:30 Thank you, Doctor. 43:30 Does anyone have any questions? 43:34 We had a question the other day about the self-reporting. 43:38 Sean, remember we were talking about it went offline before. 43:41 Is that actually true? 43:42 Yeah. Speaker 5
43:43 Yeah, so what, Jessica, Dr. Rose, what Mr. Allison is speaking about is, so before with our, just Health Canada's regular adverse reaction reporting system, pre-COVID, so pre-COVID, it was online. 44:00 And a doctor could just go online and fill it in. 44:04 a citizen could go online and fill it in because the idea was, well, it's meant to be an early warning system, like you say, not be evidence of causation, but to raise a flag that, hey, maybe we should be looking at causation here and very quickly. 44:21 Well, so that disappeared shortly before COVID. 44:25 It's back now, but it disappeared. 44:28 So during the COVID period, Canadians could not submit information 44:33 to online. 44:34 And then also they created a system where now you had to submit to a provincial board. 44:41 As we had Dr. Hoff speak at the press conference. 44:44 So it seems to me that actually that's how you short circuit an early warning system is you put barriers between the doctor or the patient and the reporting system. 44:57 And that might be one explanation as to why we had 45:03 not the only explanation, but one explanation for why there's less reports of canon. Speaker 1
45:08 Well, that also requires pre-thought. 45:14 That had to have been done with intention. Speaker 3
45:22 Thank you very much for your presentation. 45:23 It's quite stunning. 45:26 As far as the number of cases that were reported, 45:31 compared to regular years. 45:34 You mentioned January 2021. 45:37 And it's interesting because I had one constituent that came to me. 45:43 Her name was Francie Dupron. 45:45 And she said that her mother in January 2021, seven years old, she took a Moderna vaccine and within 10 minutes had difficulty breathing. 45:58 And they administered two EpiPens and couldn't save her. 46:02 She died within 15 minutes. 46:04 She died? 46:04 Died, yes. 46:05 And from severe athletic shock, despite never having had an allergic reaction in the past. 46:13 And so it's, yeah, this is just one of the many cases. 46:17 So I just want to appreciate just the information that you're bringing forth right now. 46:23 It's important to Speaker 1
46:24 It's very important. 46:26 I hope I filled some gaps. 46:28 I bet you I could tell you that lot number. 46:33 There is a full awareness 46:36 within the agencies and the manufacturers, if you ask me, of all of this. 46:40 And again, not to revert to what Senator Johnson was saying, but he's absolutely right. 46:47 I am always thinking to myself, like, these guys must be pulling their pants right now with all of this data coming in, because they're the ones manufacturing the products. 46:58 They're the ones, they're not liable. 47:01 But what about their consciences? 47:03 Like, 47:04 What about their kids? 47:06 Like, how do they, I don't understand that part of it. 47:11 Like, how do they keep doing it? 47:14 Like, you can be forgiven for making a mistake if you ask for forgiveness, if you're honest, if you tell the truth. 47:21 But if you know that you're doing something bad and it's hurting people and you keep doing it, it's malice. 47:30 Like, I don't get that part. Speaker 4
47:34 Okay, we're almost out of time, but Mr. Mahal, you wanted to ask a question. Speaker 2
47:39 Thank you, doctor, first of all, for all the detailed research and facts that you have presented to the committee. 47:45 You mentioned that there is a parallel legislation, there is a legislation in the U.S. that mandates the nurses and other medical professionals to report these kinds of vaccine injuries. 47:57 And I practiced law for about 12 years before jumping into this role. 48:01 We had a legislation, it's called Child, Youth and Family Enhancement in Alberta that mandates the legal professionals, anyone who comes in contact with the children, and they believe that there is a harm or there is a threat that they need to report to the authorities and they take it from there. 48:16 Yet we see all the witnesses or many of the witnesses, they were in fact being pushed back by the professionals, by the specialist to not report it or not acknowledge that these are vaccine injuries. 48:30 So not only that we need to have a parallel legislation in Canada that mandates, I'm not going into the conscious of, you mentioned on the conscious part too, on the manufacturers, but what you think needs to be done in regards to a legislation that would not in fact force the specialist, even though who wants to come up and help, would not force them to go into hide, rather it would require them to say, 49:00 Report it to or encourage the victims to report it and come forward and participate in all these fact findings. Speaker 1
49:10 What do I think would help? 49:12 All this guilt tripping has to stop. 49:15 I just don't see how, like, I have to think of it from the top. 49:21 It's everybody's afraid from either side of the fence to report or the doctors are afraid to report. 49:28 Even in the States, they're legally mandated to do so. 49:31 They're not. 49:31 They're not. 49:32 They just refuse. 49:35 They're off the hook because when your mind doesn't believe in vaccine injury, if you don't believe that it's real and a patient comes to you, even in anaphylactic shock, and they say they just had a vaccine, if you don't believe that that's a thing, then you'll probably deny them and then you're not culpable. 49:54 You don't have to report. 49:55 So... 49:57 It's like it has to come from the top. 49:59 Like we we have to stop being from your point of view. 50:03 How can we change that status quo then? Speaker 2
50:05 What should be done to change that status quo? Speaker 5
50:08 Can I interject? 50:09 I'm sorry, but it's just I don't want to tell a witness at the end that they can't testify. 50:13 So especially a vaccine agent who's at the end of the day. 50:17 So I've got to find we just got to cut it. 50:19 But I do want to. 50:21 Dr. Rose, thank you for coming. 50:23 And I hope that the inquiry and the public understands you did some original research for this. 50:28 Yeah, yeah. 50:29 And so this is some of this data. 50:31 It's being presented for the first time at, you know, great work. 50:35 And Dr. Rose traveled an enormous distance to be here in person. 50:40 And we think as we asked you if you would come in person, we understand that it was a huge inconvenience. 50:46 But we are thankful to have you. 50:48 And I assure you that this has been very valuable. 50:52 Thank you. Speaker 1
50:52 Thank you for having me. Speaker 5
50:54 Dr. Rose, thank you very much. 50:55 We do appreciate it.