CDC Whistle Blower Full Audio

Video Transcript:

I just wanted to get your thoughts on, you know, if you, you know, if you would have any ideas on how to fix this. I mean, how would, if you were in a position to do so, how would we ban, you know, first and foremost, I think that, you know, getting to Marisol out of vaccines is just long overdue. And... Well, tell you what, let me tell you my fault on that, okay? Yeah. You know, in the United States, the only vaccine that's the limit is for pregnant women, right? Right. So, my theory on that is that the drug companies think if it's at least in that one vaccine, then no one could argue that it should be out of the other vaccine outside of the US. Right. So, I don't know why they still give it to pregnant women, like that's the last person I would give. Mercury. Yeah, yeah, it just makes absolutely no sense. And it's a full 25 micrograms, even if you see in the infant formulations for the flu shot, which, you know, you're not supposed to give flu shot until six months of age. The infant formulations have 12 and a half. Yeah. And the maternal flu shot still has 25 micrograms, so it's given them any time after. Right. And so, I still think, I don't know, I guess you didn't like the idea. I still think that starting a campaign, that, you know, I merit all from vaccines caused ticks, you spur to campaign, and you just make that your mantra. I really do believe you. I do. I do like that idea. I just, you know, it does cause ticks. The thing that is getting a little disconcerting is that I, you know, I work with focus autism, and I work with the head of focus autism. It's a guy named Barry Teekel. Barry is, his wealth came from a roofing company, roofing materials company called Bradco. And he recently wrote a letter to Thomas Frieden, and one of the things that, can I wrote the letter? I wrote the letter. So, one of the things that we highlighted was that, you know, even with the CDC's publications, there hasn't yet been a publication except for Tozi in 2009 where you've been able to get that book over there. You know? 2011 Institute of Medicine, Vaccine Adverse Events, meetings and reports. 2011 IOM didn't even consider it to Marisol. They were basically told by the CDC not to look at mercury. It wasn't a part of the matter. Right. Well, it was supposed to be, you know, they were working on the MVPO plan for a long time. And that was being run by Larry Pickering, Larry Pickering ran the, you know, MVPO plan. And I thought, I helped them write that. I thought they kept verbal IQ and kicks in there. That's the last thing I had looked at that I thought it was in there. But they did. And I have a tape transcript of this. Ellen Clayton, who was the chair for the vaccine adverse events and causality committee, said specifically, we were not asked to look at mercury at all. And so we didn't. And this was at the, I guess the petitioner in a national vaccine entry compensation program had a yearly conference. And this particular year was back in Oakland. And so they had, you know, specific presentations. You were able to get transcripts of the presentation. And I did. I got an MP3 of it. And I have it on transcript that she, so anyhow, I mean, what we're doing is we're going to go back. And I wrote a rebuttal to the letter that Beth Bell sent, you know, because it just, there were a lot of things in there that were, it was, it was, it was like, let me just, let me just tell you why Beth Bell wrote to you. Do you know why she wrote you? Do you understand the structure? A little bit, but go ahead and tell me anyway. All right. They move to quote unquote make immunization independent of the immunization program. And move it into a separate center. And so, you know, the, what she did, the nurse of emerging and zoonotic infectious diseases, is that right? Yeah. And so it's in a really silly place, but they, they did it theoretically because they were trying to make them independent groups. Right. But they are not, they are not independent at all. So, Beth is the bottom line. So she, you know, she's tight with all these people. Oh, absolutely. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I have no doubt. But where do we, where do we push? I mean, you know, one of the things that I've met is that I've seen. Well, I mean, here's what I, here's what, let me just say. So, I see a lot of your stuff online. I saw you in the interview, Congressman Posey. Is this Posey? Yeah. Right. That was not my best interview. I, I basically was the king of arm. And I was also breathing heavily in the phone. I did not do it. No, I know, but I just think there has to be a mantra. And it's, you know, the mantra should be, we know, we know, cymerist all causes ticks. That's been demonstrated. That's been demonstrated in the big studies. And just keep saying that we know cymerist all causes ticks. Because the CDC never says cymerist all doesn't cause ticks. The CDC always says cymerist all doesn't cause autism. So, you have to take it off that. You have to take it off that. And I really do think it's a public relations campaign. But I also have to say, you know, these drug companies and their promoters, you know, they're making such a big deal of these measles outbreaks. And they, you know, now they're making a big deal that polio is coming back. And polio comes back all the time in third world countries. And it's like a never ending thing where the press just loves to hype it. And it's fierce people. It scares the crowd out of people when they, you know, when they hype those two types of outbreaks. But I think, I think, you know, they teach you at the CDC, you have to stay on message. And the message that I think would start getting out. And then you wouldn't have the press jumping on you saying, well, vaccines don't cause autism. If you said, yeah, that's true, but vaccines do cause ticks. And then eventually, eventually you could get the message over to, oh, ticks are like five times as common among kids with autism or whatever the number is. Right. Right. It's about four times. But yes, yes, absolutely. So I just think it's, I really do think it's staying on message with something different than autism because the press and everyone, you know, Jenny McCarthy, all those people, you bring up autism and vaccines and you just get hammered. Who's the company that was, you know, who sponsored one of your groups? Oh, Kelly. Yeah, Kelly. I mean, Kelly just got fried. They just completely got fried. Yeah. Yeah, I saw that. So I think in the short term, you take it off to something that's true and it's a different story. It's a different story. And you can point to that Italy study and just look at the means. And the means are quite different in that study for text. I really do think that's actually supports the idea. Right. And then the other thing about the Italy study, the Italy study was the only randomly assigned study and it was a much smaller exposure. So if you find something in there and they found two positive effects, right? I'm recalling correctly. Right. Right. You know, again, again, it's, you know, a study that randomly assigned, it's the only study I know where there was random assignment. And you found two negative associations where it was increased likelihood of maternal, I mean, wasn't it the verbal IQ? I thought it was a whole new thing. It was verbal IQ and I can't remember the other one. Yeah. But I'm telling you, I guess my recollection is correct. So the characteristics were significant in earlier drafts of the paper. Right. And what happened with that information request, they put it into the FOIA office. Yeah. You know, once it's in the FOIA office, it's gone. That can take forever. It can take forever. No, I know. It takes two or three years, right? Right. They tell me there's two and a half years behind. They actually said what's the pose thing, they put it in the tree that is FOIA, because it's not the head of a committee. Right. So I just, again, I think it's, you got to come up with a different message where you won't get hammered and they can't deny it. Right. Right. The only thing I know for sure, the only thing I know for sure is that I really can say that pretty confidently. Vaccines cause ticks. And we then, we replicated that. The burial article replicated that and showed that once you took into account the number of tests and reduced them down to come to the consular, the one thing you couldn't get, you know, get to go away with the tick effect. Was the tick effect right? Right. I agree. And, you know, I'm even, you know, I'm even using that in my son's vaccine core case because he has ticks. And so we can, we have that. So, you know, and it's been confirmed, you know, in several studies, not to mention your study. And then the burial study that was reanalysis in 2012. And I'll go back and I'll look at those memes on Tozi as well. That's a good idea. Look at the memes. They're very close. You could do a simple T-test and see they're very close to significant. Right. The other thing I wanted to ask you, have you ever contacted Dr. Doria and South America, the person who's done the vaccine studies? I've been contacted with Tozi. Yeah, I think the contact with Tozi. Is it a male or female? Is it a male or female? It's a male. It's a male. And then, and then I believe that I don't believe the way that it goes that his wife works with him as well. Okay. So, there's a male entity. Yes. Right. So, there's a one, you know, there's a two scientists that actually seem motivated and seem to try, you know, wanting to study the problem. Yeah. So, I don't know if they still are. I don't know if they still have that. But I will, you know, you make a good point. And because I'm looking at other scientists that do not have, quote unquote, tarnished reputations to look at their name on it, people immediately dismiss. Yeah. Yeah. You're right. And the other thing, you know, the other thing for you to consider is to find, you know, to find a couple of scientists you trust. That's true. You know, I'm not very high on the list myself. No, I know, but I'm just saying that if you're really serious about this, you find a couple of good scientists and you have, you, you walk them through what you're doing. And, you know, if you can convince a couple of good scientists what you're doing makes sense. And then you encourage them to submit papers. And here's the other thing is you got to get it out of the medical journals. You got to move it to the psychology journals. I don't know if you saw the burial article got published in the psychology journal. It wasn't actually, it was like pediatric psychology. Right. Right. It was the journal of pediatric psychology. I saw that. Yeah. If you get it out of the medical world and into the psychology world, you're not going to get as much bias from the medical establishment that has such a stronghold over these medical journals. Right. Right. So, yeah. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. I have, you know, I, is, I'm not as well traveled in, in that realm is, is journal of pediatric psychology a good one to look at? It's a great journal. It's a very good journal. And we got great reviews from that journal. I'll tell you. So, they actually made us up our discussion. They actually said, why are you downplaying the association with ticks? Well, there it is. Well, you can find a job. See, see, this is the deal though. You're a spray shooter. I mean, when you, when you, when you did your, when, when, when you did the 2007 paper and then 2012 follow-up paper, you call the spade a spade with particular effects. And so, you know, this is why when, when I look at, you know, when I look at dreams, they're green with, they're burning, it's a former graduate student. Mm-hmm. Well, that's, that's right. You know, and one of the things I found out, now, now just, just to ask you the question, and to let you know, I did go to the Office of Oversight and Government Reform, I see the office. Yep. I saw what had been turned over. I will say that over 50% of it came from you, because I can tell what comes from you and, you know, I just know what you have. And so over 50% of it, in fact, all I did was I got up to the C's, the letter C in the alphabet for your stuff. That was it. And so that is still, you know, being, being reviewed by the Office of the General Counsel somewhere. So I only got, got up to the letter C on your deck. There was, there was a lot of stuff. Now, I got kind of worried when I saw that, and I believe I know what's going on, but I saw that email that you forwarded that Office of General Counsel is trying to pull out. And I think that the Office of General Counsel is trying to pull together, like, how much effort they've had to put on my fliers. You know, that's, I'm not, I'm not really, I'm not, that didn't put me in my happy place. So do you think that they're just using that to go back to, to, to IFA staff, or, are you still there? Yeah, can you hear me? Yeah, I can, I can, yeah, yeah. No, sorry. You know, her sending, yeah, her sending this email, the fact that I didn't come from someone with a lawyer, it came from this woman, you know, who's just out of school and doesn't know her head from her ass. I mean, this is the type of stuff, this is the type of stuff they do. Right. Right. So, you know, they don't say who it's from, they just say, OJC, OJC, they don't say who it is. I don't think that they're in my FOIA case, in my FOIA case, there, there aren't any pending motions. The FOIA, the FOIA appeal right now, the, the, the, the next, you know, the, the decision basically comes from the appellate judge. And so, we're, you know, both sides have presented their arguments in the appeal and, you know, the appellate judge may come back and ask more information. So, I don't think that has anything to do with the appeal case. I have to do with, OJC does not want ISIS office to release any of that, those documents to me. I've seen them, they would not let me take them out of their office. And I didn't, I believe you, I was tempted. I had, I had like a half a gigabyte hard drive in my pocket that I could have whipped out when nobody was looking. And I didn't you, I didn't, I wouldn't, you know, I don't want to go to federal prison. And so, yeah, yeah, no, you know. No, no, no. But, but this whole thing was very interesting. But I do think it has something to do with it with, you know, what's going on with ISIS, you know, with, with that information request. Oh, no, I, I think they want you as far away from those documents as possible. Right. I mean, there were very compelling things in there. And, you know, it, it, it, it will be interesting to see what happens. You know, we'll see. But, I did, I did want to ask. I, I have, I pretty much completed the reanalysis on the DISTEPHNO MMR study. Yep. And those spreadsheets that you sent me. Yeah, I'm out here talking. What was that? I have a spreadsheet, a spreadsheet that you sent me. Race one, race two, and race three. Can I, can I ask where those came from? Were those just ones that you had or were you compiled results? Those were analyses I ran for a group. Every single, every single, every single, I felt, spreadsheet you've seen. Were there analyses I ran for our group? Over, you know, several year period, where I should present the results to the group. Right. Right. Now, and, and, okay, so, so these were, these were your analysis files. And then you would, you would basically present them directly to the group. I would, I would on a weekly basis meet with the BORCO authors. And we would discuss results. You can see how, you can see how those progressed over time. Those are, you know, I'd wait for, not only what, you want to know the only way I was able to keep track of the data on those files. Yeah. The servers, the servers would change all the time and they would change the data on the files. And thank goodness I put the actual, the name of the file. Right. Because otherwise you wouldn't know the week that I had done it. No. That's fine. No, that's fine. But the question I had, if you go to Race 3, then you had alternative models. You did, you, you have a Results tab. It's like the second tab that's in the spreadsheet. And it, it looks like, on black, on time. Okay. And the reason why I'm asking this is like, because I told you before, I got a really strong effect with African American meals. Yep. And, and for, and I saw the effect, it was statistically significant at 36 months as well as 24 months. Yeah. It wasn't as high as at 24, obviously, it was like 1.73 or something. So, that black on time, do you know, was this, was this just a conditional logistic regression? Yeah. Yeah, it was a conditional logistic regression. Okay. So, the, the numbers then would, the, the way I understand that the odds ratios that you came up with, then if, if you just ran it as on time, then you would get a specific odds ratio. And, but, would that, would that be assigned to 36, 36 months cutoff or how would that work? No, on time would be, if I'm remembering correctly, and I don't have it sitting in front of me, on time would have been that they would have been vaccinated by 24 months of age, right? They would have been vaccinated by the recommended, okay. And then it looks like you, you did this unmatched and, and probably also conditional logistic regression. And then it went out just by a little, they were basically the same, they're basically the same in each one. So, did, now, did, did you ever run that, did it slice it further just to look at African-American males? I'm, on my guess as I did, but I can't call honestly the only thing, you know, in terms of memory, like I can look at those files and I know I ran those things. I don't know what else I ran. I can look, you know, I could look through the SAS program that never looked through those historically, but I believe I have them historically. I think they're, you know, well, I think they're there. I can't remember off the top of my head. Yeah. Honestly, the way I remember things is I'd come up with the files and I save them and I can go back and review them. Yeah, review them, okay. Okay, yeah, I did, would you be able to do that? I mean, I really, I can try some of the SAS program. Okay, okay. Now, on, then, in one of the things that I did find in this weird is that when I'd use the 26 months cut off for African-American males, I only had seven cases after, in the after 36 months. Okay, so the cohort was getting small. I had, you know, I had like seven cases and I can't remember how many controls. And then, obviously, the lion's share of the cases were for individuals that got the MMR before 36 months. Now, when I wanted to correct for low birth weight, so I threw out low birth weight. But what I found was that in my cases, after the cases in the individuals that got the MMR after 36 months, I wasn't throwing low birth weight. I was throwing out individuals that didn't have a bit of a birthday report at all. So, you know, you basically look at that and it was essentially the same as the birth certificate cohort. Does that make sense? Let me, I can explain it one other way. When you look at the data and you look at African-American cases of autism, there are seven cases. There are four cases that did have a birth certificate and that were normal birth weight. And then the three remaining cases didn't have a birth certificate so they didn't have birth weight information at all. That were vaccinated late. That were vaccinated late. And so, I did not, you know, I did not include that in my analysis because I felt like a cohort that had, you know, I've left in five cases and I just didn't want to include. Yeah, you're going to get, you're going to be criticized for that model. Right, so I threw that particular one out. The four, you know, and I don't, you know, don't take this as a criticism. I'm just trying to understand what was in the paper. But when... Let me just clarify for you, you can criticize the hell out of this. I don't, you know, I don't think it was perfect and I will tell you, you know, we were locked in to analyses. That's the problem with all of this is we agreed upfront what actually with this paper, you know, I agree. In this paper, we deviated from what we agreed to upfront. Right. So, great. But the only thing, if you look at the final paper, when they looked at the effective race, they only looked at the effective race in the birth certificate cohort. I know. That doesn't seem right to me. Why would you toss out what, you know, you don't need a birth certificate. You don't need a birth certificate. I agree. No, I'm going to create, I thought you found that immediately. I thought you told me you found that immediately. Yes, I did find that immediately, but I wasn't sure, you know, I want to go back to these things. I'm not, you know, you know, I'm not an audiologist by training. No, no, no, no, I know, but I just want to say that you found what I considered the biggest problem. So, I, well, this is, here's what I want to be careful of. Okay? Yes. I want to be careful of not, here's what I want to say is, you know, like if I were forced to testify or something like that, I'm not going to lie. But I also don't want to say things to you right now that aren't, that aren't some written form. Right. I want to be very careful about that. And I will say if I'm forced, you know, if someone is a comes through legitimate channel, then I'm forced to answer questions. I'm not going to lie. I've, I basically have stopped lying. So, so, did you raise that issue at the time when, when, or did you, where you allowed to see the issue? I raised it. I will say, I will say I raised this issue. I will say, I raised this issue the two days before, the fact that I can talk honestly to you about this now is so free. So, I'll just say that. Good, good, good. I'm glad I'm glad to hear that. Okay, well, let me, let me check, I jotted down a few notes on this. Now, and have you ever been to, you know, one of the things that I noticed when I was back in DC going to the document at OGR, and I am, and you've told me several times, nobody ever is ever going to put, nobody's stupid enough to put in an email to, you know, never need to dilute down this relationship. Never, or you get rid of this relationship. Never, never, never, never. What, what is said in these, in these closed door meetings, I mean to, to people say, oh, well, this is unacceptable or, or is it just, do they always say, oh, this can't be right? Or, I wish I could tell you the quote that was said, but there is a specific quote about this very finding that is, will be etched in my head for life. Okay, and you don't have to tell me that's one. I'm not going to tell you that it was, I want of the other co-authors. Okay, it is, okay. I wish to, my pilot, for life. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Okay. Well, you give me a lot to think, you always give me so much to think about. I really, I want to go back and I want to think about this whole issue with ticks. If I was to press the soft spot in the CDC in terms of, like, submitting a response letter, I think the response letter will come back, and I'm going to sign it, and we're going to get some other scientists to sign off on the letter as well, as well as very legal. But, and one of the things that I thought, you know, regarding to Marisol, is it should go to Frieden, because Frieden could be the guy that saves the day. I mean, he's got clean hands, I think. He does have clean hands, but I don't know where he stands on all this. I really don't. Okay. I do think this, this is what I think Frieden has done. I think he has closed himself off from all of this and avoids it and says, you know, this is Colleen Boyle's and Melinda Wharton's problem. So, really? I think, well, that's what I'm guessing. I don't know that for sure. I'm guessing that, that right, that this is just a political hot potato and they made a lot of mistakes. And, you know, there's a lot of documents they don't want you to see. And, you know, what I was relieved about, you know, when I sent you what the National NIRD did in terms of the request, they don't usually include, you know, Melinda Wharton and Kristen Polps in those requests. They usually just include David Chey and I. So, you know, we're often the targets of all the foias and they don't make a broader. And what I find even funnier is Kristen Polp is the person directing this document gathering. So, how? That's in Polp. Oh, what? How I know. She is sick. She was sick and deep into all of this. She was a go-between. All the communication went from me to Brookberry to Kristen. So, everything was filtered through Kristen. Yeah. It's written in the report to the Marlinda Wharton and it's still the case. And it wasn't really Kristen. Brook was the one that really could not stand me. Brookberry could not stand, you know, I would get on the phone with her. And for the longest time, I would deal with Lorraine Spencer and bless her heart. I mean, she did the best she could possibly do with me. And, you know, I was not a nice person. I was a very, I was a very, very angry person when I was dealing with Lorraine sir. And, but it's interesting to see that Kristen is still kind in the middle of that because, you know, when things got sort of switched around and I was no longer dealing with Lorraine Spencer than I was dealing with Kristen Pope and Brookberry. Yeah. And I have to tell you, you know, Kristen and Brook knew I was sitting on a lot of documents. And when I shared all these documents, I actually, Brookberry is probably, I mean, you saw my email. She's probably the only person I trusted to give me a straight answer. Yeah. I went over to her office and I said, I hear they want us to share everything. And she said, yep, they want us to share everything. So, wow. You know, it was a situation where they, it was the first time they said they want everything associated with any summer assault. But they do want this, they are arm wrestling with oversight and government reform right now. I mean, big time, I've gone back and forth, I get calls from oversight and government reform staff and they'll have a list of questions forming. They want to know about the litigation because CDC is claiming it's turning client privilege. Yeah, no, they're trying to box you out. Yeah, that's fine. Oh, I know. Yeah, it's sitting on a mountain. It's all right. But here, I mean, here's what you have to do, honestly, and I'm telling you from the way I've changed my life. Here's what you have to do is you just have to try not to get emotions involved. Say, as settled and found as you can be, talk to people about how to market this fact that I'm Marisol causes picks. It's a marketing thing. It's all about marketing. And you have to learn how do you get a message out. And I'm telling you, if you take autism out of it, you will get that message out. And once you get that message out, do you think a pregnant mother would want to take a vaccine that they knew caused picks? Absolutely not. Absolutely not. I would never give my wife a vaccine that I thought caused picks. Right. Right. I mean, that's genius. It's genius. You've told me this before. I just didn't sink in. So, okay. There's a marketing thing. There's a marketing thing. You have to figure out how to market this. And it has to come from other voices. It can't just come from you because they made you the poster boy of, you know, they want to portray you as crazy. And, you know, I honestly, I think you're, you know, you've been persistent. You have been right. I will say most of the time. I will say the guyers were not right and the guyers. You know the guyers. I don't know them personally. But I know things they did. You know, they took exact copies of papers we wrote and they published them on your down name. So, yeah, word for word. And I do. Okay. I know a little bit about that. So, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So, anyway. Go ahead. Go ahead. I'm sorry. No, I'm just, I just want to get back to that. Okay. Stay on message. The animusants have to press one jump on you for. Right. Right. Absolutely. And give others people their faith. You have to get other times just to say it. Again, you're the, you're the, you're the poster child for this crazy person bothering the CDC making their life so difficult. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. You're right. Okay. Okay. Hey. That's, this is going to be extremely helpful. If you do get a chance, if you can look at your staff's output and see if you ever did that. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I'll forward you. I'll forward you a lot to program. Okay. Awesome. Good. Sorry. Thanks Bill. Good talking. Good bye. Bye. Bye. Pasi is, he seems like he's on the warpath. So, yeah. He was happy with, he was, happy with, so that's very sure. So, yeah. And I didn't know about this study that Tom Info was talking about. I asked Marshall in about it and she said she was going to find out for me that I am going to find out. You know, anything about this study? I have no idea what he's talking about. I, I, I heard that and you know, my initial thought was, well, you know, the way he's talking about it, I can predict what the outcome is going to be. But, you know, going back to what you said previously, I'm sure they didn't look at ticks. Well, let me tell you something really interesting I learned about this week. So, in the midst of this, and you know, I was yelling at Marshall in this week, I mean, Marshall in the night war. I was, I suggested I resign and it's like that type of stuff going on right now. And the whole place is a big pressure cooker. So, so, and I don't know if you know this, the CDC was invited to testify and they declined. So, really? Yeah. And Marshall said that she's been offered to testify. She won't, Colleen has been offered to testify. Colleen said she will never go and testify again. So, they don't, Satina. I mean, it's very, it's a very, very rare incident in instance that they would ask Lisa, Tina. Really? Oh, yeah. No, no, no. Representative, I said I didn't like to use the Satina unless he's really cornered to do so. It's just, you know, it's one of the things where you, if he goes there too often, is that, you know, you're the inevitable criticism. And he's trying to lobby for future chairmanship. Now, he won't be the chairman. Most likely his, his term will be up at the end of 2014. So, because it's a six-year term and he had his six years. So, but no, they just don't like to use him. So, I, I, I used to, you know, I used to be a page. I worked in a, I was a page in the US when I was 14 years old. You're kidding. You're kidding. No. But let me just say this. So, all right. So, I just, you know, I don't know how, where you're going with all this or how this is going to be. How this is all going to play out. I just want to tell you one thing. Right now, I'm sitting in a very pretty position in terms of providing you a lot of information. And let me tell you what is just become available. And I was talking to Marshall and my team lead, my immediate supervisor this week. And I was telling him what should, should be done because it's just outrageous. You will, you will buy when you hear this. We have 800 kids with autism that have all been given the ADI, well, autism diagnostic interviews for the parents, right? And the AHS was educated. Right. So, all of them have been given the ADI and ADI. So, they've all been given these instruments, all confirmed pieces of autism. We have population controls of similar size. And we have disability controls of similar size. Now, this is the study I was brought into clean up, you know, dianes and dial left town, left for Denmark. And then I was brought into clean it up. And it's a big mess. And, but regardless, there's now data available. And there's going to be more data available. We're going to have 1200 kids with autism as part of this study with all their medical records and all their vaccine records abstracted. So, what's amazing, now this is what's going to be shocking to you, it shocked the crap out of me. They have, you know, six different sites contributing data. And they all put in proposals to do studies. So, so far there's about 50 proposals in for people ready to do studies. Not a single one of them looks at vaccines, not one. So, I, well, I ripped into these people this week. And I'm like, these vaccines studies have to be done. This is the largest case control study you could ever do. They're all objectively identified as kids with autism. You have the vaccine record and what I just, you know, I after seeing the potty, you know, hearing, I was like, what are you, I was like, how are you guys going to answer the question when, you know, they want these environmental studies and want to look at all these respect. What are you going to say when you have 1200 autism cases and a bunch of controls and you never looked at vaccines and you have all their vaccine records? I'm a witness. And we have their pre-nail. We have all the pre-nail stuff. You have a pre-nail? I mean, it's like Disney land. It is Disney land. So, here's the point. Now, here's what I said to them. I said, I told them this study needs to be done. I said it should be contracted out to some end of an organization. And I said, groups like safe lines should be included in the study. And we were in safe line to be sitting on this data and not have, you know, an independent group, independent of the CDC completely. I said, CDC not even touch it, not even have a co-author on it. Anyway, so the point I'm trying to make is I want to give you the name of the study. So you can start telling people to ask questions about this study. This data is sitting ready to go and no one has analyzed it yet. And they don't really want people to know that this data exists again. You know, you were the first person to get them on my autism. I just simply, we actually got you that data. It's incredible to me. I'm very thankful. Let's put it that way. It's my bugling that it's that on one CD and this actually the guy who had the one CD just came down with pancreatic cancer. So, literally, I mean, literally that study data could have been gone for good. Yeah. Anyways, so the name of the study is the study to explore early development. It's called seed. If you go on the CDC, what? Seed. Yeah. Do you have a computer in front of you? Yes, I do. You know, just search for CDC and then seed and autism. And you should be able to pull up a description of the study. Okay. Hold on. Seed. Autism. Disorders. Okay. There it is. Yeah. Okay. Let me bookmark this while I've got it. Well, that's the gold mine. That's the mother load of mother loads because it doesn't matter what info does. He doesn't have confirmed autism cases in his study. This study will probably be some type of record review where they just look at kids who have autism and the records. So, is this data that I would eventually be able to access myself? Well, right now it's under lock and key only the principal investigators can get access to it. Right. If you get, if you can get congressman starting, is even a posse to start asking questions about the study, this will become, this will become the, you know, the leak in the day. Oh, my goodness. Oh, my goodness. Here, here, there's a tab on data and statistics that I'm looking at. Okay. And I see that. And so, now there's one, there's one study that's been published from it just describing the study and the sample. So, okay. Diana Shindel is the first author. It's a 2012 paper. And you can just look it up. And my text is beyond the website. I'm not sure. But it's a Diana Shindel paper. And it just pissed me off. I read it for the first time Friday. And she references two of her papers with Thorsten. I was just like, are you guys fucking insane? Well, here it is. I looked it up on PubMed. Okay. It's in Jad. Journal of Autism. Yes, yes. Yes, yes. Yes. Okay. So, that's the one, that's the one paper that described the first sample. There's seed one and seed two. I held it on. There's like 20 co-authors. Yeah, it's all the PIs. Everyone. Okay. It's a big study. It's a, you know, there's six sites that are contributing data. But it is the mother load. It's literally no one. Oh, and then you know what else I found out this week. I almost went nuts. So, do you know the name Lisa Crowen? Yes, and at least a crowen. And she's California. Yes, she's at Northern California Kaiser. So, Diana Shindell is still involved in these studies. So, there are 50 proposals. One of the studies is on prenatal infections. And I started asking questions. I'm like, who's doing the prenatal infection? But Lisa has invited Diana to participate. I'm like, you are having Diana Shindell as a co-author of a childhood infection. Well, well, well, well, well, she's in Denmark with her boyfriend. I just, you don't know how insane this all is. This is just absolutely insane. So, then the martialist and my supervisor, it's Laura Sheve. I don't know if you've ever seen that name. Yes, I've even lost the name before. Yes. Yes. So, anyways. The children are looking at them and they're like, oh, maybe you're right. But maybe that is the best idea. You think? You think you're right? I think you know, Diana is in your self-indangered, just by showing your head. I could not believe she was there. I could not believe she was there. I can only get this. That is just crazy. Yeah. So, anyways, the bottom line is, the bottom line is, I want to help you get the best state available. That is the best state available. No one has analyzed it yet. If you can get someone, and I just, Brian, you have to get someone other than you asking these questions because you are like, you know, they just, they... I'm damn it. It's good. I understand. No, they... I do have some people of mine. I absolutely have one more. You just have to see these questions around to different people and have different people ask these questions. And, you know, so it's prenatal. I was told there's both maternal influenza, you know, prenatal records. There's rogam. Really? Yeah. So, it's all there. But I've never looked at it yet, but I could actually, I mean, like I could actually go into the database right now and do a frequency count on things, but I'm not... I'm not going to do anything like that right now. I'm just really trying to sort this all out. I'm trying to... I'm trying to, you know, I'm being in trouble because I'm blowing up and stuff like that, and I'm getting really agitated and I just settle down. Right. So, we did mention on, I think, on a previous voicemail, something about maybe taking a leave of absence or putting in for a new assignment. Yeah, I was considering getting detailed out of the branch. The downside to that is I would no longer have any access to this type of information that I'm sharing with you. I'm learning more and more. As I ask more and more, I'm learning more and more. I am... These people are like in one big bubble. And their bubble is getting smaller and smaller. But these PIs, and it's two PIs that are really tight with Diana. It's Lisa Cron and Danny Saillin. Do you know Danny Saillin? That name, F-A-L-L-L-I-N. That's the name that's not familiar to me. All right. She's a genetics expert and she is at Hopkins. Okay. And... So, at least Cron as well. Right. Now, Danny really likes Diana and is tight with Diana because we've been collecting genetic information on all these subjects. All these subjects have blood strong and swabs and swabs. So, here's the other crazy thing is the CDC has not been able to get resources to sequence. All these kids that we have, and we have samples where you could sequence every single kid. And only a couple hundred have been sequenced. And it's because Danny Saillin went and got money from the NIH. And I'm just like, are you serious? You guys can't go out and get a small sum of money. And it's not even a lot of money. It would just be a couple million dollars. And they could get every single kid sequence. They're hitting on these samples. Yeah. They're hitting on these samples. Yeah. They're hitting on these samples. Oh my god. It's just like... When I heard the cons, and like asking these guys questions, like, what are you guys doing? I'm like, we are sitting on this gold mine and it's just... Here's the deal. The CDC is... They're paralyzed. The whole system is paralyzed right now. And the whole branch is paralyzed and it's becoming more paralyzed. So, there's less and less and less being done as the place just comes to a grinding halt. So, really what he needs is, you know, for Congress, is to come in and, you know, say, give us the data and we're going to have an independent contractor do it and bring in the autism advocates and have them intimately involved in the studies. Right. Right. So... Wow. Wow. I don't even know what it began. I mean, this... Yes. I can definitely talk to Bill Posey about this. I think that you... Well, ask about this study. Just start asking questions about this study. I will. I will. And be able to kind of sit down with and explain what's going on with this study. And just ask questions. I mean, I don't want to appear to know too much. Yeah. Yeah. I want to take you back to something and if you don't want to talk about this, just find... Let me just say one more thing. One more thing is you saw that slide that I sent you, right? Yeah. The beryl. Yes. Yes. Yes, Jeffrel. And you saw the last three slides, right? Yes, they did. Did you see the reviewers comments? Yeah. Did you see that? Did I ever... No, I know. And we were just trying to demonstrate that when this paper sat in Clarence for over a year, the birth defects made us add the guy from Rochester as a co-author. I've never been involved in a study like this before. I was asked to add a co-author in the middle of clearance. So you were told that get out in the middle of the clearance process, then that guy was recruited. Yes. The birth defects recommended that we add him as a co-author because they said we didn't know enough about ticks. So they added Ed Tervations, Buddy of the Scars at Rochester. Oh, so that Ed Tervations friend? Yes. Okay. So we added him and then we... Every step of the way we had to water down the discussion and then we got it out. And those reviewers, that is an example of what happens. Every single reviewer said, why are you not highlighting your significant goals? It was an unanimous opinion of independent observers. Well, I tell you, it ain't for good reading. I was unbelievable. It was pretty amazing. And it seems like, you know, with it being too vicious, it seems like sort of the visceral response to a lot of people in CDC, whenever they see a connection between an adverse event and a vaccine or a vaccine component. No, I know. And I actually presented it to Marshall and the Branch. It was before I moved in there. I had Jack presented and Jack and I prepared those slides. And I was very happy that we put in the final slide that we confirmed. I don't know if you read that conclusion. Yes, we confirmed that the size of the tick. You did? And that's it? You've given me such a gift. I mean, that's such a hook in terms of getting to Marisol out of vaccines, getting them out of the screen. Absolutely. I am telling you, if people went around saying that you think a mother, you and I have had this discussion already. But again, this is what blows my mind. What blows my mind is somehow, kicks it not been added to the vaccine, you know, to the adverse event schedule. Right. Right. It's not on me. It's not it. So definitely not a table injury. Yeah, but why? Like, this is what I don't get. Like, how does... How... Like, how are they... I started wondering, like, how does something get on to the table? Well, and this is huge. No, you told me. But how does something get on to the table? I don't get it. Oh, it has to go through HRSA. It's... I don't know if it's ACCV that puts it on the table, but it is very, very difficult to get something on the table. I know that much. Got it. Well, anyways, you have that to support, you know? Yes, I appreciate it. That was... That was amazing. Yes. The other question I wanted to bring up was you would... Two voice males ago had talked about two individuals that... I wasn't sure... And if you don't want to answer this, that's fine. But do individuals that you wanted to point out some of their activities or perhaps some of their behavior? Well, I... This is Brian. This is where you and I don't know each other very well. And I... Here's what I struggle with. I struggle with saying anything that isn't in writing that can't be backed up. Because here's my fear, okay? I can. So let's say you go public with anything, okay? Whatever. And then it becomes clear that you got information from me. And then people... I talked to you. You have a son with autism and I have great shame now when I meet families with kids with autism. Because I have been part of the problem... Well, not for me. But for me, personally, my son got his vaccines in 1998, dude. You don't have children at that one. No, no, no, no. Here's what I shoulder. I shoulder that the CDC has put the research 10 years behind, all right? Because the CDC has not been transparent, we've missed 10 years of research because the CDC is so paralyzed right now by anything related to autism. Right. They're not doing what they should be doing. Right. Because they're afraid to look for things that might be associated. So anyway, so there's still a lot of shame with that. So when I talk to a person like you who has to live this day in and day out, I say, well, you know, so I have to deal with, you know, a few months of hell if this all becomes public. No big deal. I'm not having to deal with a child who's suffering day in and day out. So that's the way I view all of this. I am completely ashamed of what I did. Well, that's that. But you were told to do specific things. Well, you know, the higher ups wanted to do certain things, and I went along with it. So I, you know, I was, you know, I was in terms of chain of command, I was number four out of five. And when you have three, was it Melinda Warden? No, no, no, no, the co-authors, right? So we have, you know, Colleen. Yeah, Colleen was the division chief, Marshall and with the branch chief. And Frank was the branch chief at the time. Right. Now, now, now Colleen is a center director. Frank is the director of immunization safety and Marshall and the branch chief. They're still all much more senior than me. So we're in a room discussing these things, and there's things I've shared, there's things I haven't even shared with you, because I can't prove it. And that's what I struggle with. I don't want to share things with you that I can't prove that there aren't hard records. Because I am worried that the other four people will collude and say, no, that's not true. So that's my fear word against theirs and they're the higher up. Well, they're higher up. It's four. Does that mean I wish it didn't? No, I know. No, I know, but that's the way it'll play out. So that's why I'm trying to give you as many hard records as possible. And I think I've shared those last two that I sent to you. I don't know if you looked at them. Did you look at those results? Yes, I did. Did you see that the strongest association is those without mental retardation? Right. The isolated, non-isolated, there's the non-MR mental retort. So the effect is where you would think it would happen. It's with the kids without other conditions, without the comorbid conditions. Right. And honestly, I looked at those results. I had not gone through these hard copy papers. I don't think I've ever gone through them since 2004. And I came across those and I'm like, oh my god, I'm like, yeah, this is 0.97 to 16. I'm like, yeah, it's not statistically significant, but the rest of the issue is 8. And if we had one more subject that probably would have been significant, I just look at that. I'm like, oh my god, I cannot believe we did what we did. But we did. Yeah. So it's all there. It's all there. I have handwritten it out. I understand your reluctance to names, specific names, because if you can't prove it, you're awarding it. There's an empty 401. It'll be 401. So what I'm trying to get people starting to ask questions about seed, I am sitting in a dream spot to basically give you feedback how that information is playing out. That would be tremendous. But there is the dream data set. I'm saying this is dream data set. Again, Brian, I don't know if vaccines cause a certain percentage or whatever. I can say commonly, I do think some are so causes ticks. I'm not sure about the rest. I don't know, but I will say that ticks, I can say ticks are four times more prevalent in the topic. There is a biological, there is biological plausibility right now. I really do believe there is to say that, if I'm a causal autism-like teacher, that's the way I would say it. So anyway, so I want to be a research. I want to be valuable to you. I want you to have someone in the system that can give you feedback as these things go through. And as long as you're willing to let me sit where I am, I'll sit as long as I can tolerate it. And we'll just keep going. Okay, well I appreciate it. You've given me a lot to think about. Let me really kind of explore this seed website. And get the paper, get the Diana, send out the message. I will. I've got access to JAD so I can do that. Okay, great. Okay, thanks a lot Bill. All right, good talk to you. Good talk to you. Bye-bye. Yeah. I'm sorry, I'm about as bad as I could tell you so. I'm trying to toggle two calls just like with you on me. I always want to do the free conference call line because that's a little bit of a good thing. I'm sorry, I'm about as bad as I could tell you so. I'm trying to toggle two calls just like with you on me. I always want to do the free conference call line because that's a little bit easier. So you're getting ready to head out for vacation. Yeah, we're leaving tomorrow. Okay, okay. Well, do you have time to talk tonight? I mean, I don't want to be too long because I know you've got work in the morning. Yeah, now is better than any other time so won't we talk now? Okay, okay, I appreciate it. I wanted to talk to you about the MMR study. I just let you know. I wrote a paper on my results on MMR. Yeah. And that paper is out for peer review right now. And what I was thinking about this and it hadn't dawned on me before, but it will, it will most likely include, you know, depending on the peer review and everything, include something that I got from you. I wanted to let you know that as soon as possible. I haven't heard back from the peer review. I'm not sure how long it's going to take. You know, they have a web system, but one of the things that I demonstrated in the paper was that by taking the cohort of African-Americans and then limiting it to only those that had the valid Georgia birth certificate that the relationship went away. Yep. So anyhow, I'll keep you apprised on that, but I'm concerned. I wanted to ask you a few questions. You had said earlier that you were referring to MMR study and you had said something about being locked in on specific analyses. And I wasn't sure what you meant. I thought, well, maybe you have an IRB and they lock you in, you know, to what you're going to run. Right. So let me just give you the three studies. Sorry about that background. I don't know if you hear that. I'm up in a hotel at a super fun site for my other research and it's been a crazy experience so far. So there's three big studies I worked on, okay? 2007 New England Journal paper. And we had an external panel of consultants that included Valley Bernard. Right. Then we had the 2010 price autism time marathon paper. Right. And we had an external panel that included Valley Bernard. Right. And then for this one. And so let me just say for those two, for those two we agreed with the panel up front what the analysis would be. Right. And then we didn't deviate from those analyses. We presented them as we found them. And then we said, well, it can public use state of sets and people can go do additional analyses if they want. And you've done that. Yeah, we did that. Now with the MMR autism one, the we had an analysis plan that we were supposed to execute as was written. And you know, I'm going to be sharing these draft analysis plans that we had and you can see whether we did what we said we're going to do. Right. And what I'm trying to establish is if anything, you know, if, and I... Let me just, let me just please, just so you understand this, we didn't have an external review panel for the MMR autism one. So it was the one study where we could end up replicating exactly what Tom Verstretten ended up doing which was just creating a mess while the CDC tried to sort out something they couldn't understand. Right. Okay, so go ahead. Okay. You know, I want to, you know, I'm thinking about this like a trial lawyer. And okay, down the road. Yeah. This becomes public. And CDC says, well, that's Bill Thompson. He's crazy. Yeah, they will. Yeah, but then we have a case that shows, okay, these are the analysis analyses that you agreed upon. And then you had your Verstretten OSHIT moment. Yep. And then you basically deviated from that particular plan in order to reduce the statistical significance that you saw on the African American cohort. Well, we didn't report finding that all I will say is we didn't report what they're finding. And I can tell you what other, I can tell you what the other co-authors will say. Uh-huh. They'll say that they didn't think the rate variable was reliable. This is what they're going to say. But okay, okay, okay, claim that out. I mean, as a statistician, that doesn't make any sense. But I'm not going to defend it. I'm just trying to explain. Oh, right. No, I understand. I just, I just think that, you know, that, that, we, if, if, if other co-authors were coming forward, were, were trying to dispute and say, well, we didn't think that that was a good, you know, that, that the race was reliable. And, you know, I'm trying to play that out to, because, you know, because they, they, when they say something like that, they basically paint themselves in a corner. Well, that's, all I'm going to say is they're going to say that. Okay. I know that is what they will say. Sure. The only two people that can really answer that question will be Marshall and her colleague. Frank would not know that. I don't, I wouldn't know that because I don't know that surveillance system. Right. Kanye has left. Right. Kanye is gone. So the only two people that could defend that particular question would be Marshall and or Colleen. Okay. And that's all I can say. Okay. Okay. Well, yeah, that makes sense. Okay. Okay. Now, on the run, you, you supply, you supply a lot of different tasks programs to me. Yep. And I haven't tried to see if they'll run on SAS Enterprise Edition. I need to try that. But I was wondering, did you save any of your SAS output? I have, I have SAS output, but I only kept SAS output for the final, the near final programs after we had, you know, gone through six to nine months of this. So the only documentation I have are those Excel spreadsheet that we set all these findings over time. Okay. Okay. But you don't have like the SAS listing file or not. Nope. Okay. Okay. Understand. So you've got the, what, what was any output is in the spreadsheets? Every, every time we met, which was, you know, every time we met, I would create a new Excel spreadsheet and I would put in the new results in that Excel spreadsheet. And then we would need, and we would discuss them. And I would back and run more analysis. Right. Right. Right. Now, going back to when the, when the Stefano study was, was, first initiated, was, what was, was, was race a big factor because essentially what, what appears in the final publication is that, that race in general is downplayed. Of course it is. Right. Right. It's downplayed. But was that, was, was that a major objective in, and, and, you know, if, if you can show me the, what was planned in, in terms of the, you know, the SAS runs, that, that's going to answer that question. But when you had the discussion, you know, I think of metropolitan Atlanta and I think, okay, this is, this is a great place to get African Americans because there's more African Americans that live in Atlanta. Have you seen that, in that, Atlanta, have been living like, like, right in California? Yeah. Right. It would be the perfect city to do it. But as you can tell from the sample. And I think this is, in general, true at the time, and it's still true, is that whites get diagnosed from that system that still exists, and that we still publish, you know, the prevalence from whites get diagnosed with autism at two times the rate of blacks. So in 1996, when that was done, you know, that's before the big explosion. Right. So, I mean, whites are getting diagnosed twice as much as black. Yeah. There's not enough data really to do like, it's socioeconomic breakdown. Well, you can, I mean, you can, well, did we include, no, I don't think we've been having that. No, no, there's any, there's, I think there's, there's like maternal education might be there. Well, this is the reason. Is they were getting the records from the schools and from the clinic. Right. So, you don't have the sociodemographic data in there. Okay. That brings up another interesting point, which I never even thought of. That's amazing. Because, you know, the thimerasol studies, it was so important to get education and income because there's a reverse association if you don't adjust for it. So, in fact, you could argue, you could argue the stuff in the paper is like a bunch of crafts because the better educated moms get their kids vaccinated earlier. So, if we didn't adjust for that variable, you could argue from the other two studies, we had a craft study because we weren't even adjusting for the appropriate variable. Right. How would that play out? How would that play out? Inter-educated moms. Then, if we do that, then basically what we're saying is probably the level of education in the African-American community for moms that's going to be lower instead, therefore they're probably going to get vaccinated later. Right. And, in fact, what this was suggesting is that among the blacks, the ones that were getting vaccinated earlier were more likely to have autism. Now, the way that would play out, if you thought of this bias, you would say the ones getting vaccinated earlier are the ones from higher income backgrounds. Therefore, they could get, I mean, if you just wanted to assume that bias was real, then you could argue that it's the educated black moms that are getting their kids vaccinated earlier, and that's why you found that a fact. And, they're getting that a fact, and the ones that are getting vaccinated later are under diagnosed. Yes. Okay. And not. Okay. And remembering that this was... What does it mean to me when I was a six? 1996, so the level, you know, you didn't get early diagnosis then. The age cutoff was like between six and thirteen years of age, so I felt pretty comfortable using the full cohort. I didn't feel like, oh, I need to exclude anybody because, you know, the average age of autism diagnosis. But still, yeah, I can see that being a point that could be argued. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Good. Good to know. I didn't even think of that, so just now. Right, right. Well, it does kind of play backwards in terms of, well, those kids that got vaccinated later than you would expect with less healthcare-seeking behavior, so they would be less likely overall to get an autism diagnosis. Yes. But if you had the... So, if you had a maternal education, then you could correct for that. Right. So, but I don't think I have it. You could argue the most important confounder was not included in that study, so why would you even consider the results valid? Valid. Right. Right. You can't say either way. Exactly. Essentially. You know, you can't... And you can use the other two studies to make that argument. Well, and it's interesting, you know, because we don't see an effect whatsoever in light. I mean, you take... Well, you take African-Americans out of the mix, so you don't see the effect in non-blacks, periods. Yeah. I actually think the most interesting result, the elevated ones for the isolated ones that don't have other co-morbid conditions. Right. What I think is interesting, because I've always believed that you would most likely find... If you could find an effect, you would find it among the ones without mental retardation. Those are the ones where the results would be more sensitive. The kids without other co-morbid conditions would be more likely to have something due to some exposure versus something that's biological. Right. Right. So, you... So, you... something biological, then you would expect to come more bit of use. Well, the kids with mental retardation is probably unlikely that mercury exposure causes mental retardation. How well, though, if you've got... You know, and you... Like you said before, you're... You're not really the person to answer this, but how well do you have those records? Because a lot of times, if you have an isolated autism case, you're going to have mental retardation. I don't... You know, I don't know. I'm out in the community. I don't really know many autistic kids that aren't mentally retarded. Oh, I don't know. I actually don't know that for sure, but my reading of our own paper, the recent papers, is there a huge increase in the number of kids who have... who don't have mental retardation. That number is going proportionately, is going up. Right. So, I still... But that could be part of that. It could be a healthcare-seeking behavior because if it's in vote to get an autism, and I deal with this as a parent all the time. You know, some genius walks up and tries to have a conversation with my kid, and I'll look at the parent and say, oh, my son has autism. He's not verbally, he doesn't speak. And then look at me and they'll say, yeah, my kid has autism too. And I'm just like, what the fuck? Really? We should be so lucky to have that kind of autism. Yeah. Why didn't you know what type of autism you've some had? So, I would... So, you know, many forms of retardation have a strong biological basis based on some, you know, prenatal insults over genetic predisposition. Sure. So, I would just assume, and maybe assuming, wrong, that if you have mental retardation that's less likely going to be due to an environmental exposure. That environmental exposures are going to cause more subtle effects. Right. This is my function, but I'm not... Again, don't... I think... No, no, I understand. You know, you're not familiar with where that particular data set... I mean, you used the data, but you didn't call it. What makes sense to me is that you would see something similar to the mercury fishing exposure. You would see a couple of points... A couple of points decline in IQ, but you wouldn't assume that it'd be a 15 point decline on average, which would, you know, put a lot of people into the mental retardation category. That, you know, three or four IQ points, I could see that, and that's essentially what lead does. You know, decreases your... You know, the lead exposure, you could see a 15-year IQ by maybe like three or four points. Right. Okay, okay. Yeah, this is making sense. Now, okay, I want to switch gears here really quick. I'm going to the seed data. Yeah. How? You know, from my conversation I have with you back at the end of May, you have access to seed data, right? You, today, you cleaned it up, you actually cleaned it up after Dianish and left, and so you have access to that database. I am direct access to that data. Data, okay. So, if I got a scientist that I would assume is trusted, you know, it would never be me in my wireless dreams as much as I would love to get into the seed database. I'm not going to think about it. In fact, in fact, I did access. I did request access to the public use status-head people. And they referred me to the state of Georgia seed site. So, I looked at the response and laughed, and I thought, okay, that's just what this way expected. But if I had another trusted scientist, somebody like Kathy DeSoto, you know, for example, you know, there's others. Is there a way to get them on the seed team? You know, like you had said, yeah, I could talk to Posey about it, and I have to talk to one of Posey staffers. But is that team pre-assembled or...? Well, here's the deal, and I've been having a lot of discussions about this. And it seems like I've... I've started a conversation with a very happy about the... You know, there's the project officer who does all the contracts stuff for the study. Right. He came to my office today, and she said, I heard you told Marshall in that you think someone outside should do with the vaccine study. So, it sounds like Marshall is trying to move forward on that idea. Oh, wow. But, you know, I think what Marshall in wants is one of the principal investigators from one of the sites that takes a lead. But as I told her, I s