REP CLAY HIGGINS - NATIONAL SECURITY DIMENSIONS OF COVID VACCINE DEVELOPMENT & DEPLOYMENT

US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES HEARING ON VACCINE INJURIES

Chair, Marjorie Taylor Green, U.S. Representative, Serving 14th District, Georgia.
Monday, November 13th 2023

Speaker:
Congressman Clay Higgins, Louisiana, 3rd Congressional District, US House of Representatives

Committee Assignments
Committee on Homeland Security. Subcommittee on Border Security, Facilitation and Operations (Ranking Member) Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response and Recovery.
Committee on Oversight and Reform. Subcommittee on National Security. Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties.

Transcript:
"This is certainly not my area of expertise. But you and I have met and spoken before. And I'm like many of my colleagues. I've invested hundreds of hours into careful research and reading and listening men and women from across the world that do have expertise in this field and from the very beginning when I met Dr.

Fauci I didn't trust him from the moment I met him and I began to have, you know, I'm suspicious by nature perhaps because of my background but Uh, I generally don't trust the government and the the covid pandemic appeared to me to be to be born of a weaponized virus. It was sticky. Uh, it it injured, weakened and sickened as opposed to, uh Kill, you know, which is always a goal for biological chemical weapon in the, in military conflict is, you know, one dead soldier is one dead soldier, but one week and six soldier requires a couple of soldiers to help them.

So you decrease the impact effectiveness of that, of that force, uh, with, with a chemical or biological weapon that's designed to, to cause weakness and fatigue, illness, sickness for a long period of time. And COVID appeared to check all those boxes to me, just as a reasonable man would. With, um, you know, six decades of life, it appeared to me to be weaponized.

And then, and then studies, you know, began to be completed across the world. And, and there was further suspicion behind this thing, just before the facts. And we began to really question. Exactly what was the, the, the connection between the, uh, the massive entities, the pharmaceutical, uh, giants that were going to create the, the, the VAX in a few different forms.

And you had a population that was being groomed across the world to begging for this VAX. To me, it appeared untested. I damn sure wasn't getting it. My family wasn't taking it. And, and yet the world was, was incredibly, uh, receptive to the idea of this untested Vax. So some of us being investigators by background and nature, we started looking into the ingredients, which you call the contents, this Vax, as it began to be rolled out, like what the hell is in this stuff?

And, um, some of those contents were protected by, by law, you know, proprietary protection for non active ingredients and binders, et cetera. But some other nations, reflective of their own laws, they, they had, you know, across the world released different list of contents. And we began to compare those as the translations became reliable.

And one of the suspected contents in the facts is graphene. You've heard it. You've read it. I'd like to hear your opinion about it because I've read and did many legitimate scientific research. Papers that that appears to be a dosing experiment would for and the graphene is somehow included in that. Um, it could be the most nefarious, you know, worldwide conspiracy to to to decrease.

The population of the world by by decreasing in birth rate by large percentages, as Dr. Biss has noted here. Many studies support that the long term injury and and and impact of not just COVID as a as a virus, but the but the vax itself. Is quite significant is difficult to discount when you have thousands and thousands of legitimate scientific reports from across the world come into similar conclusions.

So, I ask your opinion, sir, on just how deep is rabbit hole. Thank you for the question, Mr Higgins, and the opportunity to address it. Graphene oxide is a known environmental contaminant. Uh, it's it's readily present in the environment at different levels and often contaminates many things. Uh, graphene oxide is even used in the wax that I have on my black car.

So there's a common environmental contaminant widely available and, uh, to the extent. So this is, this is an issue which has come up repeatedly over the last three years and, uh, has been examined at length and often generated quite a bit of heat and controversy. Uh, in my opinion, uh, we have more significant concerns in the range spectrum of things to be worried about.

A graphene oxide contamination, which is difficult to definitively demonstrate and can be a artifact of how one analyzes the samples that makes sense does not seem to be a, uh, in my opinion, professional opinion. Anywhere near as much of a concern as the DNA fragment contamination that comes from manufacturing process two, which was rapidly deployed.

So that's a genome proven genotoxicity risk. And, uh, right now we have European medicines agency health Canada and the FDA acknowledging that it exists, not having, uh, communicated that fact to the general. Public, um, not having disclosed it to physicians, and in some cases, not even having apparently been completely aware of that contamination and the nature of that contamination coming from the DNA templates that produce the RNA.

So, in my opinion, uh, graphene oxide remains largely an unresolved issue, uh, to be honest with you, uh, and the reason it's unresolved is because Most of the regulatory agencies worldwide have conceded to a, uh, contract terms that the, uh, sampling of vials, in other words, lot release testing by governments, which is usually done independently of the manufacturer to verify that the specifications the manufacturer says are being followed are in fact being followed in most nation states that's been prohibited by contract and there's been prohibit.

Prohibition to actually sample those vials. So, for instance, those saying that, sir, in the interest of time, that there's no guarantee that there wasn't cross contamination during sampling of the vials. There's no guarantee there wasn't cross contamination, but I have to tell you honestly, sir, I can't tell you that it doesn't exist.

That that is that contamination does not exist because we not have not had rigorous testing on a routine basis to rule it out. It's another one of those things like the reasonable question. No, because I mean, one would one would consider exactly why would it be listed as it? In the, in various nations as one of the, you know, one of the contents is some of the ingredients.

It appears, it appears that much of that may be an artifact. If I could shift to Dr. Biss, Dr. Biss, could you speak to, um, the long term impact of, of a child in the womb when the mother has received? What have you noted in a couple of years of observation here? What's it look like? And that'd be my final question.

We do have literature that shows that fully intact messenger RNA crosses the breast milk, um, more than likely, um, Dr. Malone had already stated previously. We know the lipid nanoparticles go throughout the body. They don't stay in the deltoid and they do concentrate in endocrine organs. Um, specifically, the ovary was the highest.

I will tell you, when a female is developing in the womb, she will have all the eggs she'll ever have her whole life. Once, once that fetus is 20 weeks halfway through the pregnancy, unlike men who regenerate their sperm on a daily basis, a female's born with all the eggs she'll ever have. And they start to die off at birth and usually they're all gone by 50, which is what menopause is when you run out of eggs.

So we don't know what we don't know. My concern is that this is going to be. A potentially multi generational problem, which we should have learned the 2 drugs we've used in the past diethylstilbestrol or D. E. S. daughters. That was a synthetic estrogen given to pregnant women didn't harm the pregnant woman.

However, the female offspring were shown to be at increased risk for genital cancers, primarily cervix and we all know about a little mind. We've never given any drug newly out of the gate ever, ever, ever to a pregnant woman prior to this pandemic. That would have made no offense to Mr. Renz malpractice attorneys salivate.

This never should have given the pregnant woman because we had no long term data on pregnant women. Last I checked pregnancy is 9 months. This was given to pregnant women in April, starting in April of 2021, safe and effective jab in every arm. We had no long term data. We have spoken about the v safe data.

There were, if you analyze the v safe data correctly early on with regards to miscarriages, the rate that was quoted in the New England Journal of Medicine article was not correct. It was quoted at 13 percent. When you actually did the real math, the miscarriage rate was 83 percent. Wow. Thank you for that brightening answer, Madam Chair.

I yield."