Right on Point

Ep. 32 - Emily Tarsell, VAERS reporting of Gardasil injuries

June 21, 2021 Wayne Rohde
Right on Point
Ep. 32 - Emily Tarsell, VAERS reporting of Gardasil injuries
Show Notes Transcript

Emily Tarsell, mother of Christina Tarsell who died as a result of a Gardasil vaccine stops by to discuss her legal journey thru the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Her petition on behalf of her deceased daughter, won compensation.

Emily also discusses her study, Significant Under-Reporting of the Human Papillomavirus Vaccine-Associated Serious Adverse Events in the United States: Time for Change?, 

Support the show

Emily Tarsell



gardasil, VAERS report, vaccine, symptoms, case, published, codes, death, cdc, event, paper, signal, hpv vaccine, study, review, doctor, fda, 


Wayne Rohde, Sponsor, Emily Tarsell


Sponsor  00:10

Children's Health defense is proud to be a sponsor of the Right on Point podcast, a weekly discussion of legal issues and initiatives to protect our most cherished resource our children, hosted by Wayne Rohde.


Wayne Rohde  00:29

Welcome to the Right on Point podcast everyone, hope everybody's doing well today. Thank you for listening. Once again, we meet up for the most intriguing show discussing your civil liberties, your legal rights surrounding the COVID epidemic, state and federal government actions and health freedom. Get out to our website right on point dot online. To review previous discussions the show notes in the bios of our guests. Good afternoon. My name is Wayne Rohde, your host, I want to thank our new sponsor, for the podcast, Children's Health Defense and the Defender. The Right on Point podcast is very delighted to bring you a platform that shares exciting and informative shows and delivered by tremendous guests. We have one here today. So let's dig in a very interesting topic to discuss. So question to my listeners and several questions. How many of you know about the VAERS system which is the vaccine adverse event reporting system, CDC has maintained it since its inception in 1990. How many of you have inputted in an adverse event into the system I have for my son? Do you know there's a federal law requiring doctors and clinicians to file a report for any adverse event. But the fallacy of that law is that there's no teeth to it, there's no penalty if they do not file, they're just said to require them. That's it. Then comes the Gardasil vaccine, which was approved around 2006 and add it to the table within the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, along with Hepatitis A vaccine at the time. Very soon after, VAERS started receiving reports of injuries from the Gardasil vaccine. And it's been quite a few. However, VAERS is vastly underreported, as many of us know about or spoken about, and we've criticized the system is just tremendously under reported. But it's interesting to note this is that there's mild reactions, and then there's serious events. And that's what we're going to talk about today. So it's a tough question or answer to get to what about the serious events that have been reported? There's a new study that was released published in May of 2021. Just last month in the Science, Public Health Policy and Law Journal, a study titled Significant Under-Reporting of a quadrivalent, HPV vaccine associated serious adverse events in the United States: is a time for a change? One of the co-authors of the study is here today with us. Her name is Emily Tarsal. Welcome to the program. Emily, how you doing?


Emily Tarsell  03:40

Hi, Wayne, I'm doing well. Thank you. How are you doing?


Wayne Rohde  03:45

Well been a busy day. And it's gonna continue to be busy and a lot happening in this world. And there's it's been a very popular topic for the last month in regards to VAers reporting. And it's quite interesting. And thank you very much for being one of the authors. I think there's five of you that were put together this paper, so this had to be a significant amount of time and research. It was published in the Science, Public Health Policy and Law Journal, which is part of IPAK, the Institute for Pure and Applied knowledge. Tell me about this paper. And for the listeners, we're going to put a link up to the paper, so you can download it to your own computers and read it later. It's, I don't know, maybe 25-26 pages long. Tell us about this paper. What was the purpose of it? What did you discover about it? go from there.


Emily Tarsell  04:51

Okay, thank you. First, let me just recognize the other authors. Dr. Lucjia Tomlienovic, James Garrett, Dr. Christopher Shaw and Mary Holland, Esquire. And this paper was an outgrowth of some research I started back in 2008. My daughter, Christina, Marcel had gotten the HPV vaccine in 2007 in 2008, and she died 18 days after her third shot in 2008. It was 18 days after her third shot, and at the time now prior to that I had never heard of theirs. We had never been informed about that system. She had always gotten vaccinated as a child, we were never given any information, which is contrary to legal requirements about vaccine injuries, let alone bears. So and initially, I did not connect her death with the vaccine Gardasil. But when they could find no, you could determine a cause for her death. And as I learned about other deaths, falling Gardasil hit other parents, and I began to compare notes and do research and, and it became clear to me that there were patterns that were reported by these other parents. And when I called my doctor to report Chris's death, my doctor actually said, I should file a various report as itchy. And as did and then as did the, the pathologists who, who did the inquiry about looking for a cause of death, which is all fine. So that was my first introduction, that there was such a thing that you could call in, if you had, the rationale behind it is that there's this data source that is co-managed by the FDA and the CDC, they themselves do not do the investigation, they contract out that process to another organization, which is a very small division of a military complex organization. But in any case, anyone can file an heiress report, it can be the victim, it can be parents of the victim, it can be a doctor, and so forth. And I thought by filing the report, and calling the CDC and telling them about my daughter's death, that there would be an investigation like you would expect, you know, if there were an airplane crash or something like that, you know, that they're going to look into it. But I quickly found that was not the case that, you know, doing any research about it, or trying to find out if there were patterns, adverse symptoms, for these girls, including my daughter would die from a vaccine that was going to be up to us. But I did file a report. And the CDC did not get back to me for about a year to ask for her medical records. And at that time, they did a cursory investigation to see if she had streptococcal virus and she did not. And then they said, well, cause of death is undetermined. Just as an aside, I learned that Merck, the manufacturer, had filed a VAERS report. And through FOIA request, you can get copies of all various reports that are filed for your particular case. And Merck had claimed my daughter died from a viral infection. When there had been no evidence, no one had ever said that was the cause of death. And so I wrote letters to them, and we wrote back and forth and I asked them how, what was the basis for them saying that which they had published on the worldwide web? And they said, the doctor's office said that and I have gotten letters from the doctor's office that said, No, we never reported that to them. So the long and short of it is Mark filed a false explanation for her death, which is still there, because they never take down anything that's filed on VAERS, you can add comments to it. But they never remove anything. So, so that was the beginning of this astounding realization that, that reports, which we assume are being investigated, aren't necessarily being investigated. And I wanted to know more about that process. And I wanted to know if there were other patterns. Now, one of the positives about VAERS is that you can access it publicly. So through a website called Wonder.dot safety at cdc.gov, you can look up various reports by number. And so I began to query the various reports. And I read 1000s of them. A pattern that I had not been expecting, became clear to me that I was reading reports of things like cervical cancer, and lupus, and paralysis of the stomach and autoimmune disorders of various kinds, that were being labeled non serious by theirs. And I mean, you don't even have to be a physician to realize that those are serious conditions. And how could it be that these are being coded as non-serious? So I had a friend who is also a co-author on the paper, who is a statistician, James Garrett. We did kind of a pilot, just PMI. You know, he randomly selected 2000 cases, I went through them. And I also needed to know though, what is the definition of a serious debt. And about that time, in 2009, August 19, 2009, the Journal of the American Medical Association published a post licensure safety surveillance report for QA, Gardasil and they had data in there about the number of reports they had within this timeframe from June of 2006, when it was licensed to December of 2008. And they had their definition of what a serious event was. And they were giving figures about what was the rate of serious adverse events, as well as giving, you know, specific symptoms and what the reports were about that. So that became the basis for what eventually became a study. And so from that information, and the reports that I was reading, I looked up the definition of a serious event now in that report. And what you will still find on their website, is that a serious event is worn, whether it's death, whether it's a life-threatening illness, which required emergency room interventions, which required hospitalization, or prolongation of a hospitalization, or which resulted in what they said was permanent disability. Well, but when I looked up the Code of Federal Regulations, there was one other category that they did not include. And that was in that that was said to be if there was a persistent or significant disability or incapacity. Now, the term significant disability, a persistent or significant disability and capacity overlaps with permanent disability, but they really are different things. Right. So first of all, I was shocked to see the FDA and the CDC in their report didn't include that group. And I knew from the cases I had read and the moms I had talked to and so forth, that there were a lot of girls who, and at that time, it was girls, they had not yet approved of the boys. Yeah, there were a lot who had suffered significant and persistent, you know, disabilities and incapacity. So, um, we kind of in this pilot, I did, I found, you know, I, it seems to make a difference, if you include that criteria, but I really needed researchers who would independently test that hypothesis, and could gather data independently. So I wrote a proposal, which was accepted by researchers at the University of British Columbia. And they began an independent test, doing something similar, where there was a random selection of 2000 cases, the lead investigator at University of British Columbia was with Dr. Lucjia Tomljenovic. And she did the first pass through of those 2000 cases to see, to see if she found a difference. Because in the JAMA Report, they were saying that 6.2% of all adverse event reports regardless, so we're serious. Well, when I had done my, you know, initial pilot, look to me, like it was at least 12% or more, Dr. Tomljenovic in her independent review, determined that if you applied the right definition, she came up with 15%, we're serious. So at that point, the researchers in this on this paper decided, well, we really need to have licensed physicians, look at the same data and see what they come up with. Give them both the definitions, the one the FDA and the CDC gave us initially, and the definition that's in the federal Code of Regulations. And give them a randomly sampled list of cases to read and evaluate using the criteria, and each of those, each of those criteria and see what they determine if that case is serious or not. I do want to emphasize that when you do that, you're not saying that the vaccine caused the injuries are caused the death. But you it is an indication of whether that event was serious or not. The role then of the FDA and the CDC would be if the rates are high enough, then it could signal that there's a safety concern that needs further investigation. So this was like the first, you know, our approach to it. And what, well, to make a long story short, the doctors who got to re- evaluate these cases, that were 10 doctors, this was all voluntary. We had no funding. Everybody was doing the work pro bono. And the doctors to the extent possible, we're not known to the researchers. And these 10 doctors came when their work was reviewed by the statistician. They came up with more than 12% of the cases. were serious, by definition, using the CDC and FDA zone definition, which was already twice what they said reported and if you applied the legal federal code definition they rated more than 24% of the cases As they review the series, which is almost four times what the metric was that was used by the FDA and the CDC. So I mean, I will let you kind of take a break here, we just see if you have any question.


Wayne Rohde  20:21

Yeah. Okay. So you, have basically now a report showing that the serious event level is not what VAERS wants to, or what our government saying it is. It's four times the level is with I listen to you carefully here. How does this compare now? We probably don't have enough data. But now you because you're just using the quadravalent for a couple years ago, there was a release of the new was it nine-valent HPV vaccine. And it's not a no longer a three part series. It's what two part. Have you looked into or started looking into that data at all?


Emily Tarsell  21:19

Well at the time that this research was done, and even though it was just published in 2021, and maybe I'll give you a little history of the obstacles to publishing. At that time, we had we had begun a study based on the Jamia report, because that was an objective reference. And so we did not expand it to include data from the, you know, Gardasil nine, once that was approved in 2009. By 2000, we wanted to maintain a stable reference point. Now there is data since then. And as I go on, in my talk, I will tell you in there's data search that includes Gardasil nine, you know what the rates are, for Gardasil compared to say to other vaccines, so I'll kind of cover that a little later.


Wayne Rohde  22:25

Okay, um, let me step to the side here a little bit. And this is where my interest really is. This is that in the NVICP or commonly known as the vaccine court, kind of where my world is where I live in. I look at all the case decisions, filed, whether they've been dismissed or compensated. And one of the things and I'm just looking at case decisions. And so, you know, it's not a scientific because you don't have the large numbers that you do in VAERS. Because as you know, when you file a petition, a lot of people will not file petitions, that just will not happen. So it's, it's a very small slice of what we have in VAERS. But one of the things I've noticed, and I was talking to a couple different attorneys, Andrew Downing and a couple others that really represent a lot of the Gardasil petitioners, one of the serious events that are filed in the NVICP, normally come from the second or the third in the series of vaccination. Yes, you have some in the first but you know, the, quadrivalent, there's, you know, a series of three shots. But it's usually in the second one, or the third one, that's where I see a lot of the series, the real, what we call the real serious reactions. And with your daughter was the third one. I'm wondering if it's because the immune system is so ramped up after the first one, so six months later, they come back and get the second one. And then it just throws them you know, throws the body and the immune system, you know, for a big loop and, and then therefore, you have body reacts in the serious reactions there. And then also, I've noticed that a lot of also another association is that when the girls at the time, get the meningitis vaccine at the same time, or another, heavy dosed vaccine. Either the flu vaccine but mainly the meningococcal type vaccine. Is that something that you've discovered along the way? Because I saw that in the filings in the NBA ICP? That's not scientific, but just an observation.


Emily Tarsell  25:17

Right? That's a good question. And it's one that early on, after my daughter died in 2008, and she was only 21. I had initially worked with the National Vaccine Information Center. And I said, you know, and I have volunteered to be what they call coordinator of network development, which meant I took phone calls of people who would call in about adverse reactions to Gardasil. And it became clear to me as I was talking to these, to these hundreds of moms, that there were symptoms in common. And so I said to NVIC, we should create a questionnaire. And the questionnaire could ask for symptoms that existed prior to, after each vaccine, to see if there was a dose response relationship. And they were excited about it. And my friend, James Garrett was helping with the statistics at the time. And so we did a study, a pilot, which is posted on my website, because it for various reasons, we didn't submit it, we didn't have a big enough sample size to submit it for paper, but it is posted on my website, which I'll give you at the end. And we did find a significant dose response relationship, where certain symptoms that did not exist prior to vaccination, increase in worse than with each shot. And I contacted the FDA. And I said, No, this pilot suggests that there is a dose response relationship. And you could do a study like this on a big scale, because unlike most vaccines, they are getting these within a short period of time, and the person can be their own baseline. Well, nothing ever came of it. I never heard from them. But, you know, it's just another indication of malfeasance. If they really wanted to know, Gardasil presented a unique situation for tracking symptoms, and cause and effect. So, yeah, and saw response to your question. Yeah, there is a dose response. The website where that's published, is Gardasil, and you have to do www.for Gardasil, HPV truths.com. And you need the whole thing, or you won't find it. And it's, it's listed on that page,


Wayne Rohde  28:42

what we'll do is we'll put a link up on the show notes for our listeners will get it right. And so all they have to do is click on it and go right to that page. 


Emily Tarsell  28:52

Great. Yeah. So I'll go back to our study now. recently published. Okay, so we found out a lot more than that, that they had not used the legal criteria, and that that made a difference in the number of serious adverse event reports in terms of rate. But, you know, one critic of the paper said, well, it isn't going to matter, because there are other systems that the CDC and the FDA have. And so even if they're not picking up all of the serious events, there'll be other ways that if there's a safety signal, it'll be tracked. Well, we looked into that. Now, what happened? so let me walk people through what happens when you file a various report? Well, first of all, The form itself. The form itself is like a little box where you write a narrative. And then next to that there are some checklists for the things that I mentioned, died, required emergency room hospitalization, prolongation of hospitalization, hospitalization, or permanent injuries, which is actually on the form itself. And they haven't even changed that. Well, that data goes to the data entry people who are subcontracted by the FDA, the CDC. Now, the first thing they do is look and see if the case is serious or non serious. We already know that serious cases are being labeled non serious. And the CDC has said, if a case is non serious, then there may not be any follow up. They don't look any further. And if it is labeled serious, they will take the individual symptoms in that case, and they're coded. They're coded according to terms that are in the medical Dictionary of regulatory activities. So, for example, you know, a Gardasil girl might say, you know, I had extreme headache, I had muscle paralysis, I was fainting, you know, my menstrual cycles stopped, whatever each of those symptoms would get a code. And the codes are entered into this database. So they take out this, they don't get a holistic picture of what happens to a person, they get these piecemeal categories. Now, if enough of a certain Scent of a certain symptom occurs with a high enough frequency and severity, it may signal further follow up. However, what we found out is that they're signal dilution, because this medical Dictionary of regulatory activities will include, for example, 50 ways to code a headache. Well, if you have multiple ways of coding the same event, diluting the ability to detect if it's a signal, right, right. And, in fact, there have been other researchers, one called scroll who did a study. And his study determined that interrater and inter liability coding of measure codes was high, it was unreliable, that there was no evidence that was reliable on bias, or reproducible. Another investigator was mentioned in our paper found that two blind coders coding the same event, coded it differently 12 to 13% of the time, and that experts determined the codes were non accurate. So this system that's supposed to be the backup for catching events that are serious is not very good. And who would have thought that? Guess who writes the codes? Guess who comes up with the codes that are going to define all the symptoms? Probably the pharmaceutical industry is the International Federation of pharmaceutical manufacturers and associates have intellectual property rights, and technical and financial control of Medra. And they keep expanding the number of codes. The rationale is they're trying to get closer to being able to travel Wait, the paragraph that somebody might write into a code, but actually what it's doing is diluting signals. So those, those are the two main things that happen once you file a bearish report. And despite that, with Gardasil, despite all that, they still came up with two things that were signals that were higher than background rates. Gardasil was pulmonary embolisms, and the other one was syncope. So, so then what they do, okay, so they'll say, well, we need to further investigate, maybe these couple of things. And so they have this, this other system that they will use, where they go to medical records, that are associated with eight HMO organizations. And so they'll go through the medical records, and they'll do like a surveillance of the frequency of certain specific symptoms, like, say, syncope, but for a very limited amount of time. And so in the case of Gardasil, there were only a handful of things that they did this follow up in this database, the large HMO database. And the longest, you know, so they were looking maybe for syncope and seizures and pulmonary embolisms, not for any long term things, not like lupus or so forth. And the symptoms they target are ones that are associated with other vaccines or whatever, kind of known like Dr. Murry, um, but not it's, and the longest period for surveillance is 42 days. For some things like syncope, two days, if it didn't happen within two days, it couldn't possibly be related to the vaccine. And if they don't get a signal, where the incidence of whatever specific symptoms they're looking for, if they didn't get a signal that it was higher than other vaccines, then surveillance stops. So does that make sense?


Wayne Rohde  37:58

I understand completely. Yeah. Okay. Let's jump to I'm reading an article reading a kind of like a press statement here, about the paper. And it talks about the troubles that you had publishing it, because originally you were going to try to publish it in the Indiana Health Law Review, back in 2018. And one of our “favorite” people intervened and basically prevented the publication. Can you describe it? Basically, I'll set it up because I want to know what your reactions were. Because the facts are that you submitted it to the Indiana Health Law Review and they accepted the article. But then, it quickly got removed. And according to some FOIA activity, by the authors, meaning you and everyone else and imagine Mary Holland on this, learn that Dorie Reese interceded in basically convinced or coax the review panel, the advisors to the law review, not to publish it. And then again, it was pulled. What was that like? Knowing that you had it going to send to the Indiana Health Law Review. They initially agreed to publish it. And then to get it only to get it retracted? Not based on the science or the conclusions of the paper but because of a well-known vaccine enthusiast is As the article states, her efforts to get it removed.


Emily Tarsell  40:07

Yeah, it was pretty dumbfounding. I mean, by this time we had attempted to publish it prior to that in medical journals. And I don't know, those who have not tried to publish may not know, you can, can take a year to review a paper, and then you get back. Well, thank you. We have other papers, and we're not going to publish yours. But you've lost that whole year. So when, they had the paper to review for a pure, you know, several months. And they were excited about it. And we were excited that was getting published. And there was in print finally, and we were so excited, because we wanted the information out there to try to improve the surveillance system. And then it was down without explanation. It was gone. And we never did get like a formal explanation. We had a contract with them. We discuss suing them for breach of contract, we thought, Well, you know, that's going to take forever. We just want the information out there. So let's try to publish it elsewhere. And Mary Holland did do a FOIA request and found that Dorit Reiss had interceded. And after that the paper was taken down. So you know, it's a, we pick up the pieces that we kept pushing. And we submitted it to another journal. And they also liked it. And at the 11th hour, they pulled it. And, and then finally, we're grateful to, you know, Dr. James Lyons Wheeler and his IPAK group who finally did publish it, because it takes some courage you, you're going to come under attack, if there's information that would rather not be shared. And I will mention something that's interesting. That paper in the Indiana Health Law Review, went online in 2018. In 2019, after that was published, the CDC changed the wording in on the various form. And they tweaked it, so that it now read, instead of just saying, permanent disability, it's a disability, permanent injury. So they, it they seem to be like trying to massage the definition, to make it appear closer to the federal reg definition, even though it's still very confusing for the person, you know, who's filling out the form. And then recently, I went to the website for CDC. They change the wording on the website, where they talk about various reports, or COVID. They now have the legal definition that includes permanent or significant disability and capacity. However, on their regular, non COVID, you can find plenty of places where they're still using the criteria of permanent disability. So it's still a mixed bag, you know, they know. And they, I think somebody should hold their feet to the fire and have them admit that they've been using the wrong criterion. And wow, what impact has that had?


Wayne Rohde  44:21

Well, trying to get CDC to admit that they're in the wrong is nearly impossible. Maybe the best way to do this is to reinvent the wheel and create a whole new system outside of the CDC, because it's all politically charged. It's all there is. There is no science anymore. regard FDA and CDC someone here in Minnesota, it's kind of it's an interesting concept said that's political science. It's not independent medical science. And that's probably true. Closer to political science, when decisions are being made, especially now that you're hearing, you know, the information regarding Fauci and all of his emails, it sounds like it's more political science being made. And unfortunately, the people that are being hurt are the families. One last point, and then I think we're gonna call it. I've noticed another medical outcome in recently, and it's concerning to me, and it's being defeated in the vaccine court. And I was just wondering if you've, you know, it's become very prominent, called POTS, you know, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, I think so it's been, I pronounced it, basically, what is it being called very lightheadedness and stuff, but I know some people who are suffering from that, and that's almost permanent. Am I off base there, or what have you noticed with when you talk to other guard, so moms or parents or organizations, how prevalent is POTS?


Emily Tarsell  46:16

Yeah. Well, POTS is one of a lot of various symptoms that have manifested with Gardasil. There is a study that came out recently about the effect of the chemical cocktail in Gardasil. And it in that paper, they identify a lot of the symptoms, I can give you a link to that paper as well if you want to post it. And they find that papers postulating that there's an ingredient called PMSF, in Gardasil and silicone, and that these are well known side effects. All of the symptoms are well known side effects of these of this particular chemical. The Japanese also found a lot of POTS diagnoses, they on like the US, when their adverse event reports of serious he gets reached a threshold of 12%. They did an investigation, which resulted in the vaccine recommendation for the vaccine being withdrawn. And what happened 60% uptake dropped to 1% in Japan.


Wayne Rohde  47:46

Well, can you hold on for a sec? You said 12%. And Japanese Government jumped in right. Okay, isn't that what your conclusions of your paper? This is that they had? 12%,


Emily Tarsell  47:58

anomoly, 12%? More? Right. And God only knows what does our government need in terms of rate to finally do something. But that question about POTS was explored in in Japan, a lawsuit, a major lawsuit pending in Japan a class action lawsuit, which you can't do here. But because of all the injuries that girls have suffered, but they pulled it, or they didn't pull it, you can still get it, but they removed recommendation and funding for it. With regard to follow up, and you were saying, you know, we need another system? Yes. And you know, they tried another system. There was a grant funded project in that ran from 12 from 2007 to 2010. It was called the a HRQ project. And, and what they wanted to do what they propose and tried was to have an electronic surveillance with algorithms for a system that would be independent of the CDC, independent of the VAERS, and the VSD. Well, the CDC, and this is what the result, this is a quote from the researchers, the CDC failed to respond to multiple requests proceed with testing and evaluation. There are attempts there have been attempts. What is it gonna take? God knows well,


Wayne Rohde  49:53

we got to get rid of we got to take it out of the hands of the CDC, FDA and HHS. Put it independently because you know that they're just extensions of the pharmaceutical industry. It's a mess. But okay, this is an intro. This is really it's a nerdy intellectual discussion in regards to this paper, and people need directly read it. Because it's, a window into the entire process of what we know about Gardasil, but also other vaccines. And I imagine, you know, within a few years, we're gonna start seeing stuff with COVID. I know there's a lot of injuries already piling up, we know, you know, Bell's palsy and blood clotting, and then heart inflamation, you know, such as heart issues, and chest pains and things like this. And then menstrual cycles for women. I think also, something that's not been talked about, because it's uncomfortable for a lot of men is, I think there's gonna be some issues with sperm counts, and fertility. That's why we should fight back hard for our children to, you know, any mandates against our children and our teenagers, young adults going to college, that this is a nightmare. We're only gonna see in in another generation, we'll see the problems. But then again, the decision makers will be long gone in another generation, and then it can be too late. Any closing comments from you, Emily, this has been a wonderful discussion.


Emily Tarsell  51:49

Thank you. Well, I just say there's a less nerdy version, it is a pack paper, you know, with lots of data. There's a less nerdy version, just to kind of description on children's health defense, right? So people who just kind of want the quick read, they could go there,


Wayne Rohde  52:13

the executive summary. Yeah.


Emily Tarsell  52:15

Yeah. And, and all I can say is my gratitude for the people who gave their time and energy to try to bring this to light. Thank you for sharing. And this is my daughter's legacy. That's why it matters to me, 


Wayne Rohde  52:37

I know it's very emotional for you. And we miss her smile, because I've seen her pictures that you shared. And then you and I've discussed your daughter's issue before is an interview for my book, the vaccine court. And I followed your case, closely, in regards to the adjudication, and you might be one of the only ones that have been able to seek compensation for the death of a loved one, a child because of Gardasil, and God bless you for your patient, and you're persistent. You stay in the fight, and you just keep doing it. And once again, just thank you very much so. Okay. 


You've been listening to the Right on Point podcast. It's a candid discussion of your civil liberties issues and your legal rights with your government. We discuss what no one else will by digging deep into the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, the PREP Act. The Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program, the legalities of the COVID epidemic and health freedom issues. 

This podcast is made possible by the generous contributions of its listeners. Please consider donation to ensure future discussions and interviews. Check out the website Right On Point.online. 

I want to thank my guests today. Emily Tarsal. And thank the many listeners of this program. 

So keep learning. Keep challenging yourself. And as I tell everyone every week, always, always question authority. Have a good day, everyone.