This transcript is taken from a Stand in the Gap Today program originally aired on Feb. 5, 2021. To listen to the program, please click HERE.

Sam Rohrer:       Since the advent of the Wuhan Virus scare, which began just about a year ago now, no one, no one could have imagined the forced masking, which appears to be going into perpetuity, or social distancing as a way of life, or increasingly mandatory COVID vaccinations as a condition of employment or schooling or travel. No one that is perhaps knew that except I would say the globalist masterminds behind the strategic policies clearly designed to increase government control, and on the other side of that, limit individual freedom. And with that, I welcome you to Stand in the Gap Today. I’m Sam Rohrer and I’m going to be joined in just a moment by a very special guest and a friend of this ministry, and I would say a friend of all of those who love freedom across this country. He’s the Founder and the Chairman of Liberty Counsel, Matt Staver. Their website is at

                              Now, the title and the theme that I’ve chosen for today’s program is this, COVID-19 and the Law: Vaccinations, Masking and Consent. Now, in three previous Stand in the Gap Today programs, I have focused specifically on the Wuhan Virus and specifically the Pfizer and the Moderna, mRNA, the messenger RNA investigative drugs, that’s the name that Pfizer gives it, investigative drugs, and I’m going to say deceptively referred to as COVID-19 vaccines. Now, we’ve talked about the matter of written consent also required of every person who decides to take the vaccination. You have to sign something if you do, and the extent of the freedoms and the legal rights that you will sign away when you have affix your signature on that consent form. We’ve raised the questions that must be asked by every person and question what’s being told to them about this improperly identified vaccine or the ever-changing policies that are foisted upon us, and to consider the real facts, the real medical science and the warnings of the front line doctors who serve the patients, not spokespeople for the big companies or the politically correct policy mandators.

                              And I’ve offered on this program, if you’ve been listening for any time, you know that we’ve encouraged all of your listeners to go to our website at, and you can download for free there a synopsis that I put together utilizing the Pfizer fact sheet, their own fact sheet, and then my analysis with other information that goes along with that. So I encourage you to go and download that. It’ll be a big help to you. But with that, let me welcome in right now to the program, Matt Staver. Matt, thank you so much for being with us today.

Mat Staver:         Oh, thank you. It’s good to be with you, Sam.

Sam Rohrer:       Matt, you’re busy. You’ve been doing a lot of work on the whole range of freedom issues. You do that. I think most of our listeners would say, “Oh yeah, Matt Staver, we’ve heard of Matt and Liberty Counsel.” And if they haven’t, they need to, because you’ve done such a tremendous job. But in that space, I want to talk with you on this matter of some of these policy implications coming out of COVID from a legal perspective. I’ve just referenced some of what I’ve done, but we have not focused a programming and that’s why it’s important to do it here. Now, I want people to know that in addition to being an attorney, a constitutional attorney, on a whole wide range of issues of the law, you’re also a senior pastor, and so you bring a unique perspective. And with that, for the benefit of our listeners, I want to let you know, we’re going to talk about four areas of COVID policy that touch on the law that you’re going to want to pay attention to. One of those are increasingly mandated vaccinations. We’ll go there first.

                              And we’re going to talk about the consent form that everybody that I referenced who will take that vaccine or that drug will have to sign, what that means. And then we’re going to talk about the implications of the forced masking and some of what’s involved in that. So Matt, let’s go here. I’d like your comments first about the underlying aspect of the lawfulness, the root lawfulness of these dictates that have come down the pike, mostly from executive branch levels of government, could be the federal, definitely the governors, lots of mayors, but have put things into place that have forced social distancing or masking, or now it’s getting into the vaccinations, but the underlying aspect of the law, is it lawful what is actually happening?

Mat Staver:         Well, it’s certainly overreach, no question about it. Unfortunately, what some of these state laws have done, including some of the local laws, is they haven’t envisioned what we went through in 2020 and in 2021. They envisioned these temporary emergencies, say a tornado or hurricane, flood, fire, whatever it may be, but something that is temporary and generally isolated within your state. It doesn’t cover the whole state, it certainly doesn’t cover the whole country. And in that situation, the governors by virtue of this legislation that has percolated through the various 50 states and territories, they’ve been given enormous power to be able to do things quickly on an emergency. Say, for example, my home state of Florida. Everyone understands that you have a hurricane that, say, hits in South Florida. The lights go out or the power goes out. You impose a very temporary curfew.

                              Typically, that state of emergency is done in a week, two weeks and it doesn’t continue to last and go on and on. And we’re back to rebuilding or reconstruction or whatever it may be, but the rest of the state doesn’t get affected and certainly the rest of the country doesn’t. But what we’ve seen is these executive orders based upon these emergency powers that these governors have been given have gone on and on and on and on. And it’s turned to the governor or the mayor, the local decision maker, into a monarch where they’re bypassing the legislature and they’re creating brand new law and they’re setting aside existing law. For example, masking in many places, you can’t wear a mask because of the fact that it would be something that would be a cover for criminals. And then they just set aside that law and say, “Well, no, we’re not going to apply that, but you actually have to wear a mask.” They actually go against the law without any legislative debate or discussion or input from the people.

                              So that’s a problem. Right now, what we’re seeing are challenges to that particular authority and some of the states have ultimately been successful because these governors have far exceeded that authority and the governor’s power have been reigned in, in a few states. The same has been happening with churches. We’ve got a case pending right now at the U.S. Supreme Court in California. The governor there has made illegal activity out of attending church and now we’re in the 323 day as of today, and that goes back all the way to March 19, 2020. And so that case is currently pending there and I believe will ultimately win. So we have to bring them to accountability under the Constitution. I think that’s one thing that has to be done, federal constitution and state constitution. And right now I know in working with legislators around the country, there’s lots of bills that are being filed in 2021 to stop this enormous power that these states have given to these governors.

Sam Rohrer:       Okay, Matt, I’m going to have to break away for the break. Ladies and gentlemen, stay with us.

Sam Rohrer:       I’m Sam Rohrer today with Matt Staver. Our theme is this COVID-19 and the Law: Vaccinations, Masking and Consent. We just dealt with the underlying aspects of that right now. We’ll be back. We’ll talk about mandatory vaccination next. Since a year ago, when the Wuhan Virus, now, it’s more accurately medically described as SARS. It’s a SARS virus, SARS-Cov-2. That’s the technical name. More often referred to as COVID-19. Since that came on the world scene, there came with it in the normal Hegelian dialectic strategy, which we’ve talked about a lot on this program, a pre-planned solution to the emerging or, some would say, a created problem.

                              Well, that solution, if you remember, to this manufactured panic, which certainly that has happened, was a yet undeveloped vaccine. It was touted way back at the very beginning if you recall. A vaccine for a coronavirus, frankly, never before approved. Never has there been a coronavirus vaccine because they all failed. They all failed. Nothing could be approved. And all of the test animals involved died. Now, that’s significant, but under this type of hyped panic, the globalist elite shut down the economies of the world. They’ve assumed emergency dictatorial powers. We just talked about that a little bit in the first segment. Forcibly altered worship, covered people’s faces, stopped education, and initiated a multi-billion dollar, yeah, trillion dollar warp speed vaccine development effort, actually literally sight unseen, untested, bought hundreds of millions of doses.

                              Now, those investigational drugs, as they are referred in law, deceptively referred to as vaccines are being offered, that’s a legal word, they’re being offered, but they’re also being promoted. And they’re even now being brought in by military and FEMA to vaccinate up to 75% of the American people. And therein is where a lot of the legal lawful concerns arise. And so Matt Staver, as the Founder and the Chairman of Liberty Counsel, you’ve been in this space of defending rights and freedoms for a long time, but you’re also a pastor so you understand the moral and the ethical aspect like few people do. But here’s where I want to go at this point. Mandated vaccines I believe, at this point you can correct me, I don’t believe they exist. They’re unlawful, they’re unconstitutional, and I would say in most cases they probably immoral as well.

                              But why or why not? And how should this fact shape any Christian or constitutionally minded citizen’s attitude toward a vaccine from a law perspective that’s increasingly coming towards us in such a way, and I don’t want to get into the coercive side, but right now, can it actually be done mandated by law and be constitutional or lawful?

Mat Staver:         Well, first of all, just before we get to that question, there are mandatory vaccine places in the country. In fact, New York is requiring that students, even those that are schooled online, have their vaccinations. Now, as it relates to COVID vaccine in particular, Los Angeles County is saying that when the young people come back to school, they’re going to have to have their vaccine in order to come back to school. And we’ve had different states have mandatory vaccines with some opt-outs. We’ve actually had to litigate this in Arkansas and New York. And most of the states until 2019 had not only the medical opt-out, obviously, but that’s very limited, all of them have that, but they also had the religious opt-out for religious reasons, whether it’s made with aborted fetal cell or some other religious objection to it in general. Or they’ve had, in addition to that, a philosophical. It doesn’t have to be based on religion.

                              But in 2019, some states began to repeal those exemptions except for the medical, and that includes California, New York, and others. And it was because some Orthodox Jews in New York got some chicken pox. I believe it was chicken pox or measles. And so about five states or so have repealed those exemptions. Now, we have an old case going way back to the United States Supreme Court 105 years old, and it’s the Jacobson case out of Massachusetts. And that was a vaccination case, but it was very, very limited. So whether it will apply today or not is to be seen, and it ultimately upheld a mandatory vaccine back then. You could opt-out of it by paying a penalty, and so consequently, it really doesn’t apply fully, but it is a case that has been relied upon for possible authority to do mandatory vaccines. So what we have, all states have the medical opt-out, but you’re not going to know whether you need a medical opt-out until it’s too late, so doesn’t really help a lot.

                              But most states still have the religious opt-out that you can opt-out for religious reasons. But fewer states, as of now, compared to 2019, have those. Some states still have the philosophical opt-out and it’s based on a state by state level. So absent a specific exemption in the statute, states have attempted to force vaccines, particularly for students going to school, and that’s been going on for a number of years. With COVID, it’s going to get increased.

Sam Rohrer:       Okay, that’s a good place to transition here right now. I’m going to add in this one piece, because I referenced it earlier, and under the definition of what is a vaccine, you would say the previous vaccines, the smallpox or the tetanus or whatever these things that would be there, they actually meet the definition of a vaccine, because they include a portion of dead or live virus or bacteria. But that brings us to the COVID. It’s an mRNA. It’s not a vaccine by definition of the medical terms. So you’ve got that piece, you can work it in if you want to, but we’re really moving now into a point where we’re seeing that through government coercion or other things, third parties are being brought to bear. Airlines, starting up with this thing. You can’t get on a plane unless you have a COVID ID or a vaccination certification or whatever.

                              If certain employees are, they’re trying to move it into hospitals and saying, “You can’t work here unless you come back,” or teachers, that’s a debate that’s going on. So how do we approach this? Is there any protection? What problems are erupting when you have third parties begin to say, “You can’t work, You can’t buy.” They haven’t said you can’t sell yet, perhaps, but you can’t go to school or you can’t travel unless you have this COVID investigational drug, which as we said, is technically not really even a vaccine.

Mat Staver:         Yeah. Well, if you’re looking at the state, first of all, you’ve got several different options. If you’re in a state that has a religious and a philosophical opt-out, you can use that. Or if you are, you can also use the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, if there’s one in the state, and if not, you have to use the federal First Amendment free exercise of religion. And that however, is with regards to the state. There have been litigation with regards to hospitals requiring people to have vaccines where the hospitals have paid a lot of money for forcing people wrongfully to get vaccinated, people that actually are employees. But that’s I think where you’re going to have the bigger threat to freedom, and that is the private sector forcing it. Whether or not it’s a CDC guideline that the airlines impose on people flying, or whether it’s a restaurant or some other kinds of public accommodation, transportation or something else, that’s where you’re going to have even a more serious problem, and that’s going to be a huge battle for freedom.

                              And you’re right, what we’re talking about, we call it a vaccine, but it’s not a vaccine. It is a new experimental. There’s never been, by the way, a full approval of an mRNA vaccine. This is a brand new creature. It’s not like your typical vaccine. And so I think if you have to litigate or push back on this, you’ve got some additional factual issues with regards to the nature of this COVID-19 “vaccine” that we call it. But frankly, it’s not your typical vaccine.

Sam Rohrer:       That complicates it somewhat. So let’s go into another aspect of the law. Now, I used to be in the legislature, as you know, years ago, and if I were looking at laws, we’re putting things together, I would have said, “We got a real problem.” If somebody, a constituent, would have brought this to me, I would have said, “You know what? If somebody is out there promoting something,” in this case, calling something a vaccine, “but in reality, it is not, they are offering you a product that has been deceptively described, potentially harmful.” At that point, I would say, under most laws, that would be at least false advertising.

Mat Staver:         Yeah, consumer protection.

Sam Rohrer:       It could actually be a whole lot more. How do you look at something like that?

Mat Staver:         No, I think it’s, you’ve got consumer protection issues, you’ve got unfair trade practices. You can’t have some company label something or mislabel something and fool the people into purchasing it when it’s not exactly what it’s purported to be. And it really, although it’s called a vaccine, it is not a vaccine. As you mentioned, you pointed out, there’s a very critical difference between this COVID vaccine, whether it’s Moderna or Pfizer or any of the other versions and the typical flu vaccine, which is made from either live or dead aspects of the actual virus that they’re trying to inoculate you from. This one has the mRNA, which is a very serious issue in many respects with a lot of serious and even deadly consequences.

Sam Rohrer:       Any suits being filed on this from a legal perspective? What can be done? What are you doing perhaps?

Mat Staver:         There’s a lawsuit that’s being filed right now and it’s litigated in New York, and this is because New York is requiring the students to be vaccinated, and this includes the people that are going to private, public, or parochial school, even if they’re online only, which is absolutely absurd. But they’re requiring them. They said, “Well, even though they’re not coming to school, they’re interacting with the general community.” So that litigation is ongoing right now. I expect we’ll be involved in some litigation in the near future because this is going to be a huge threat to our freedom.

Sam Rohrer:       Yes, it is. Matt, I’ve got to break away again. Ladies and gentlemen, stay with us. We’re going to continue this discussion after we come back. After the break, we’re going to shift from this aspect of the mandatory part of the vaccination. We’re going to talk a bit more about the informed consent or maybe the uninformed consent when you have to sign.

Sam Rohrer:       Well, welcome back to Stand in the Gap Today. I’m Sam Rohrer, and this is a continuation today of, really, this is probably the fourth in a series specifically focused on COVID related either policies or the underpinnings of what’s actually involved in that virus, in the vaccination, and so forth. Now, December 8th of last year, January 10th of this year, and then January 20th, we’ve done programs, which you can find on our website,, and there you can download or you can access those archived programs.

                              Epidemiologists and microbiologists are part of who I’ve talked with. You can get the real truth on what we’re talking about. In this case, we’re talking about the vaccine primarily right now, but the legal aspects underneath of it. But all of those are on that program. You can get transcripts available online. And there is an analysis that I did based off of the Pfizer vaccine fact sheet, their own fact sheet, which they make available, you can find online, but we have a part of it there. You can download it for free off the website, And then read that, it’s an analysis. We put a lot of information together. Some of the things we’re covering are included in that. Now, my special guest today is Matt Staver. He is the Founder and the Chairman of Liberty Counsel. Most of you, I am sure have heard of Liberty Counsel. Maybe some of you have even benefited directly because of his participation perhaps.

                              But they have a website,, and the reason I respect Matt highly is that he’s not only a good attorney, but he’s fearless when it comes to standing in those issues of principle. But he’s also a pastor and he understands biblically these component pieces putting together, and it really provides for a very, very good perspective. So I’m very, very glad to have Matt on the program today here with me. Our theme is COVID-19 and the law. We’re looking at vaccinations, we just did that. Masking and consent are two we’ll deal with in the balance of this program. Now, one of the very first things that was shoved on the American people at the outset of the Wuhan Virus, that’s what I’m calling it, and I call it specifically just like Hong Kong virus was called because it came from Hong Kong, and this came from Wuhan. So the Wuhan virus, it was the dictate if you remember, it was the dictate to start wearing masks.

                              But actually, if we recall, that actually the very first comments from the Dr. Faucis and the CDC and the World Health Organization, if you recall, was to reject wearing of masks because they would do nothing. That’s what they said. And then almost like on cue, there was a 180 degree turn from no one should wear a mask to everyone must wear a mask. Dr. Fauci, just a few days ago on the Today Show urging Americans to actually wear two masks from now on, because he said, “If one is good, then two has got to be better.” How ridiculous. But herein is the deception, why masks when even according to scientific studies wearing a mask is as ineffective and limiting the spread of a virus as it is to a chain link fence keeping out mosquitoes? And when the mask manufacturers themselves pre-Wuhan Virus printed warnings on their medical masks, that they were not made to limit the transmission of viruses.

                              But then there’s one more thing, wearing of masks, medically, it is provable that it actually diminishes your access to oxygen, frankly, which we need that to live. So Matt, a number of places we could go, but how is it a matter of civil law that a governor or mayor can unconstitutionally make law, and we’ve talked about that, and force someone to wear a mask or force a business to enforce the wearing of masks when in fact there’s no scientific proof underneath of it, in some cases, frankly, it creates harm by wearing them? What’s happening here?

Mat Staver:         Well, I think this issue with COVID and the control of people has been in existence long before what we now know as COVID-19 or the Wuhan Virus. There had been efforts worldwide to do a global reset and to vaccinate people worldwide. That’s been Bill Gates’ vision and his work for many, many years. And so this was just something that was now convenient to be able to use to put people in fear. And when you put people in fear, that gives the opportunity to take away your liberty. We’re going to restrict your liberty so we’re going to keep you safe. And that always happens in Communist repressive regimes, and unfortunately we saw it through the United States of America, and we still see it happening in some places around the country more so than others. In these situations, what happened is you had so-called experts like Fauci, who’s changed his mind so many times, and frankly, he’s admitted over a period of time that he lied.

                              He lied about the number of percent that you would need to have herd immunity. He continued to increased that percentage from 50 to 60 to 70 to 82 to now he’s at the 90% or so. And he said the reason why he did that is because he knew, based upon polling, people wouldn’t be able to accept the 90%. And so as polling began to change, he began to move the percentages up. Knowing that his statements were categorically false, he did it anyway. And I think what we’ve seen is categorically false statements in order to achieve a specific objective without the scientific research, using fear as a driving force, and then these governors have just done this as a template across the country. And then the more they got power that was unchecked, the more they liked it and the more they begin to do more and more of these liberty intrusive, frankly, harmful kinds of executive orders.

Sam Rohrer:       Matt, in the area of masking, now most states have what they call Child Protection Services laws in place. We had it in Pennsylvania and I’ve pulled out ours, I’ve looked at ours, I’ve had discussions with some of our own legislators that are still an office here right now about this part of it. And that is this, there are provisions in law that are there to protect children from abuse. Some of them are abused themselves. We know that, but nonetheless, and with it are certain, very specific things that are called out. If these certain things happen, it qualifies as child abuse, and therefore there are people called mandatory reporters that have to report these things, and then the law gets involved and so forth. Now, one of those that’s interesting though is that you cannot, according to law, do any restriction of a child’s airflow.

                              Very specifically, it’s a very detailed, specific piece of the law, at least in Pennsylvania law. And yet the masking of children in schools does exactly that. And we’ve had some of the best expert docs out there that have been saying that what’s actually happening to our children is great harm because they’re developing brains, young child, all that kind of thing, they’re being deprived of oxygen. Therefore, we’re creating harm by this thing. You’ve all already referred to a little bit of that before, but speak to that and what can be done? How can you violate a law under something that’s not even a law and everybody just embraces it? What can be done?

Mat Staver:         That goes back to the core issue, and that is, these governors are literally making these executive orders on the fly, setting aside and or ignoring state law or administrative rules, and even the United States Constitution. And we have to bring action against them to bring them back into line, but we also need legislation to make sure that they never have the opportunity to exercise this unchecked power again. And I think that’s what we need to do on the state level prospectively. But in the meantime, I think legal challenges are critically important to stop this government overreach, because it not only intrudes on our freedom, it’s dangerous. And as you mentioned, especially for young people, for all ages frankly, I mean, we’ve seen people in involved in car wrecks because of oxygen deprivation while they’re wearing a mask driving a car.

                              Children passing out on the playing field or children passing out whether at school because of oxygen deprivation. Lung infection, because you’re breathing the same germs over and over again. There’s even now new information that wearing masks could cause lung cancers as well. So it’s not only intrusion on freedom, it’s an overreach of their authority as a governor or a local official, but it also is damaging to your health. So we have to push back both legally and legislatively.

Sam Rohrer:       Okay, and here’s my question in the last minute we have in this segment. Parents, first of all, should not permit their young children to be masked up, based on what we’re talking about. But what about teachers in schools, administration schools? There are many, many other schools, everybody’s basically falling in line, because they say, “We can’t really say no to this mandate.” But on the other hand, how can we participate in doing something that harms our children? What should be done in cases like that?

Mat Staver:         Well, I think particularly for Christian schools and churches, this is a real serious issue. Obviously, many of them are complying, but I think it really presents a serious problem because they’re setting a terrible example of what’s necessary. I think not only the physical harm, but I think the psychological harm. You imagine the young kids a first, second grade, always wearing a mask, then they see mom and dad not wearing a mask when go out someplace. And they’re always getting this propaganda that you’re going to harm somebody, somebody is going to die if you don’t wear a mask. I mean, the psychological trauma that’s going to happen, is happening from this, is incalculable.

Sam Rohrer:       I hope, ladies and gentlemen, you’re listening to what Matt’s saying, what we’re saying. There are consequences to our actions, both by commission and by omission. We’ve got to understand what is going on, and as parental authority, teachers, pastors, we’ve got to step in and say, “There’s more here than what meets the eye,” and do something about it. When we come back, we’re going to conclude the program talking about consent and actually what is involved when you sign, if you’re going to take the vaccine, what you’re actually giving away.

Sam Rohrer:       As we move into our final segment here now, our theme again, if you just happened perhaps to tune it, COVID-19 and the Law. We’re talking about vaccinations, we’ve talked about that earlier. Masking, we just did that. And another area that runs up against the law that we want you to consider is the matter of consent. Now, you may not know this, ladies and gentlemen, but if you choose to take the vaccination, and I personally urge you do not, because we’ve said it already, it’s not a vaccine by definition.

                              It’s a cell changing investigational drug. It’s a big deal. So there’s no rush. 99.9% of all people who get this virus survive without treatment. 95% of those over 60 survive without treatment. With treatment, the numbers are almost non-existent. It’s that incredible. Now, if you decide to take it, you will be asked to sign a consent form. Now, I’ve read the consent form. There are a number of them out there, one from CVS Pharmacy. They’re a national one. They give the shot. They say on here this, and I’ll just read it, this is what you will sign, you’re having to verify that, “I have been provided with the vaccine information sheet or sheets or patient fact sheet corresponding to the vaccines that I am receiving. I have read the information provided about the vaccine I am to receive. I have had the chance to ask questions that were answered to my satisfaction. I understand the benefits and the risks of vaccination and I voluntarily assume full responsibility for any reactions that may result.”

                              From the state of Tennessee, here’s one, a recommended version they’ve put out there, “I hereby release the vaccinating organization,” that could be the pharmacy or whoever, “their affiliates, employees, directors, and officers from any and all liability arising from any accident, act of omission or commission, which arises during vaccination.” All right, Matt, I want to come back and ask you on that, because when I looked at those and I read down through it, I said, “You know what? I think it’s absolutely physically impossible under the law for anybody to say, ‘I have read the materials,’ because in most cases they don’t read.” Certainly, when you say, “I understand them,” how do you understand them when there are so many lies and deceptions taking place?

                              And then, thirdly, it’s referred to as a vaccine, but this mRNA is not even a vaccine. And then you give away all rights to sue, I would say, because you’re basically saying, “I am going to hold everybody that’s a part of the process harmless.” This to me is almost like an illegal consent form. It’s certainly not right, but what do you think about it?

Mat Staver:         Well, it’s not right. The pharmaceutical companies already are immune from legal liability and that’s because Congress, some years ago, back in the ’80s, gave them legal liability when they said we’re not going to make any more vaccines unless we have legal liability. So they got legal liability. So you can’t sue a vaccine maker for any personal injury like you can for some other drug they make. Instead, what we’ve done is we’ve set up a federal fund to compensate people for vaccine injuries, but it’s so bureaucratic. And we’ve paid out about $4 billion in vaccine injury dollars for people who have been injured. But the number is actually much, much higher than that if you were able to sue a real vaccine maker. But the problem is, now they have some of the ones that are administering the vaccine, since the vaccine maker is already legally immune, they are requiring for others to get the vaccine to sign this waiver of liability so that those that are injecting it are also immune from lawsuits.

                              And here’s the problem. In the United States, as of January 20, we already had 329 deaths. We had nearly 10,000 adverse injuries, and some of these are very, very serious. In terms of injuries, obviously, all the deaths are serious. We had a 56 year old medical doctor in Miami, very pro-vaccine, wanted to get the vaccine within 72 hours. Very, very ill. Otherwise, he was very healthy. He went to the Mount Sinai Medical Center in the ER and was transferred to the ICU. They found out 72 hours after the vaccine, he had zero platelets. When the normal is 150,000 to 450,000, the vaccine has caused his body to consume all of his platelets. They infused platelets into him, but to no avail. The body continued to destroy the platelets and he died. And there’s many stories like that of these adverse reactions, some of which end up in death.

Sam Rohrer:       And really what you’re saying, from a legal perspective, again, at this point, when a person signs this form, they really give up any ability to sue. And when they say, “We accept all responsibility,” they really are accepting all responsibility from just the standpoint of making a decision, Matt. That’s not a good decision under any circumstance.

Mat Staver:         No, it’s not. First of all, the vaccine makers, with or without a signed consent release, they’re already immune. So Pfizer, Moderna, they don’t have any legal liability. This is a gold mine for them. They can have lots of distribution with no legal liability. I mean, it’s a gold mine for Big Pharma. These others, say, for example, CVS or some other place that wants you to sign this, yeah, they are wanting themselves to be legally immune. And they know, obviously, or they fear some of these death responses and other serious adverse physical consequences. But that’s even in the short run, Sam. We know that people have died and are dying. We know that they are serious adverse reactions, some temporary, some long term. And we also know, for example, people have miscarried, even with late term babies that they’ve been carrying in their womb, miscarried after getting this vaccine.

                              What we don’t know is what the result will be six months down the road, a year down the road. What happens if you get coronavirus or a different version of this or some other condition? We just don’t know, because this is an experimental phase, and frankly, all of the people taking it are the Guinea pigs.

Sam Rohrer:       And that is the bottom line. Ladies and gentlemen, be aware. We’re not raising this to be sensational. We’re raising it like a watchman on the wall. There are many, many people out there trying their very best, our frontline doctors, and so many are trying to raise the issues, but the media is suppressing so much of this. And Matt, we have about a minute left, just give one challenge to those who are in positions of authority. I mean, I’ve been trying to communicate to pastors and others saying, “This is not something that’s neutral territory. This is not like choosing to buy Skippy peanut butter compared to Jiff.” This is making permanent changes to a person’s body. A challenge to those who are listening right now, from your perspective.

Mat Staver:         Well, first of all, for pastors, as an example, I would not recommend this. I think you’re in a real difficult situation to recommend it. I think instead what you ought to do is seriously research, and you’ve got some great research here, we have good research on this as well at, and your pastor’s research on this vaccine is very good, Sam, and your series. Research it. And then have some dialogue with the people in your congregation, in your staff about some of the concerns that are here. People need to be completely aware. It’s obviously individual choice at this point, for the most part, but be very aware of what this vaccine, so-called vaccine, is and the deadly consequences that can ultimately and has ultimately resulted from it.

Sam Rohrer:       Matt, thank you so much. Our time is about up here right now, but thanks for being with us today. Again, your website, it’s for your main site, and then where people can go to find information on this, give that site again, please.

Mat Staver:         Yeah, is our main website. Liberty Counsel,, and from there, you can find everything.

Sam Rohrer:       Excellent. Matt, thank you so much for Standing in the Gap. Pleasure to stand with you and thanks for the information that you shared today. God bless you, brother. Ladies and gentlemen, again, thanks for being with us today here right now. We’re on a Friday. We’ve got a weekend coming ahead of us. I do pray and ask that you Stand in the Gap for truth. Take this information, apply it to heart, and we’ll see you back, Lord willing, on Monday.