The Highwire with Del Bigtree - A NEW HOPE

Episode Date: September 3, 2022

Ivermectin Bombshell Exposes Hit; Big Win in People’s Republic of California; Zuckerberg Outs the FBI; WEF’s Digital Army; Court Wins Accumulate; A New Hope for Public HealthGuests: Amy Bohn, Joseph Ladapo, MD, PhD#Florida #Ladapo #PERK #BillMaher #MarkZuckerbergBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

Did you notice that this show doesn't have any commercials? I'm not selling you diapers or vitamins or smoothies or gasoline. That's because I don't want corporate sponsors telling us what to investigate and what to say. Instead, you're our sponsors. This is a production by our nonprofit, the Informed Consent Action Network. If you want more investigations, more hard-hitting news. If you want the truth, go to Ican Decide.org and donate now. Good morning.

Good afternoon, good evening. Wherever you are out there in our world, it's time to step out into the high wire. I want to thank all of you for joining me from around the world. And, you know, every week, you know, as a week leading up to the show, I do a lot of different podcasts and interviews with speakers and thought leaders from around the world. And yesterday I was on a podcast. And there was a sort of discussion of like democracy, republic, anarchists, all of these different things.

And I was asked, you know, well, what do you believe about? What would be the perfect government? And, you know, when I thought about it, and I thought about the fact that I've spoke at, you know, conferences like an narcocoe and trying to grasp the idea of what, you know, anarchy means and things like this. But I said, you know, ultimately I believe in the rule of law. I believe in the United States government as it was set up by our founding fathers.

Most importantly, I believe in the Constitution, the United States of America, the Bill of Rights. And I said that I believe in some ways these were almost divine documents that were I think came through flawed men, but together one of the most brilliant ideas for how a society could live. Now, when we look back, I feel like we have blown a lot of those, you know, mandates or rights that were set out. Ideas like no central reserve banking system should exist. You need to keep the money out of politics. You always need a free press. Without all these things, our founding fathers said you will find yourself where your government is taking.

control of your lives. This is a monster that will get out of your control. And they basically said to us, there is no perfect form of government. We've looked around the world. It has a way of getting corrupted as it gets more and more power and uses more of its authority, no matter how beautiful it was as an idea to begin with. In the end, it can tear a society apart. And so I think also our founding fathers said, in this nation, you are ruled by the people. The people are in charge and should you ever see your government getting out of line, taking bribes, taking too much money, starting to work for, you know, outside interest, either interest inside of industry or outside of the borders of our country, you're supposed to step in as citizens and do something about it,

to root out that evil, to always get back to the simplicity that was laid out in how this government is supposed to work. And I think we now find ourselves in a moment where in many ways our government is imploding in almost every circuit and avenue and street and behind every door, problems are arising and becoming, you know, relevant to the entire, not just our country, but as the entire world watches this. And I think that other nations, I'm sure, are having their own moments, but, of course, I live here and I'm focused on this experiment, the government of the United States of America. Today, we are going to be talking about this implosion, or, if you will, the wheels

that are coming off of this train. And I have a huge interview coming up from one of, I think, the rising stars of whether you want to call it politics or medicine or science, I got a chance to sit down with Dr. Joseph Lattapole, the Surgeon General, current Surgeon General in Florida, to discuss the brave new way that they are venturing into public policy around medicine in Florida

and how the entire world is why. watching. But before I get to that, I want to sort of lead this out with what I think is one of the biggest stories of corruption. I've said this. There's a lot wrong with the vaccines. There's a lot wrong with how they were pushed through, EUAs, and all of that. But if we're going to see people arrested, which I think needs to happen, it's going to come down to being denied products that could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives in America, but were denied to those patients for some other agenda. Probably get the vaccine out. and to pay off cronies.

And in this case, we have a brand new study on one of the most important drugs at the center of that conversation. I'm talking about Ivermectin. Ivermectin this week, this is a brand new print that's coming out. Regular use of Ivermectin as prophylaxis for COVID-19 led up to a 92% reduction in COVID-19 mortality rate

in a dose response manner, results of a prospective observational study of a strictly controlled population of 88,012 subjects. This is a gigantic test group that this, you know, this is just on top of the mountain of evidence we've had for Ivermectin all through this and we've laid a lot of it out here, but this is huge folks.

Remember, this is what Rachel Maddow was calling horse pace, the propaganda against this drug, scaring people away from it, and the politicians that made it unavailable in pharmacies, even when doctors were prescribing it. Let's just look at the, the quick details of this study, and here they are. Among 223,128 subjects from the city of Atajai, or however you say it, 159,560 were 18 years old or up, and were not infected by COVID-19 until July 7,

2020, from which 45,7, or 28.7% did not use, and 113,8,8,44 or 71.3% used, Ivermectin. Among Ivermectin users, 33,971, 29.8%, used irregularly up to 60 milligrams, and 8,325 or 7.3%, used regularly more than 180 milligrams. This is that dose-dependent part they're talking about. When you look at science, if you're a doctor, if you're science out there, dose dependence mean as the dose increases, do we see a greater and stronger effect? That is the greatest evidence that this is not an anomaly, that they're This product actually works and that's exactly what they saw in this study. And the conclusion is this.

Mortality rate was 92% lower in regular users than non-users. That's huge. Non-use of ivermectin was associated with a 12.5-fold increase in mortality rate and a seven-fold increased risk of dying from COVID-19 compared to the regular use of ivermectin. This dose response efficacy reinforces the prophylactic effects of ivermectin against COVID-19. That's gigantic, folks, and it is sitting on top of a pile of studies we've already showed you. We showed you the Tess Lori Zoom calls that revealed that there were lies taking place around the meta-analysis study that was done around the world. And so we have been covering this from the beginning, and I want you to recognize how our government, the United States, has worked.

Now, we were seeing a huge effect with this product, which, by the way, won the Nobel Prize for human medicine. before all of this took place. And so anyone calling it horse-based was out of their mind. This is an extremely effective drug that's been used for many, many years. And it's one of the safest drugs we've ever seen. We've talked about the fact that, you know, using it with other drugs, it has one of the most strongest safety profiles you could have ever described for any drugs. Far safer than Paxlovod, which is what they went through.

But now when we look at the government, now why didn't we use it? What studies came out against it? Well, we had the NIH study, right? The NIH study said funded large trials to see if COVID-19 patients could benefit from Ivermectin. They didn't early data shows. Now, what is, you know, we've got to take this into account, right? Now, think about this. You have Francis Collins at the head of the NIH.

You have Tony Fauci at NIH inside of NIAID. And so these two guys have come out strongly against Ivermectin. They were pushing the vaccine. And as we pointed out many times, you could not get the emergency. emergency use authorization to rush the vaccine out if there was a product that could protect you from this illness, which this shows propylactically it completely does. And so they needed to squash it. So now, when we look at really one of the only studies found on the planet Earth that showed that Ivermectin was not effective, it goes and is led by the two guys who literally could go to jail

if we prove that their denial of ivermectin got a half a million people killed in the united states of america got doctors fired for no reason whatsoever and then put their patients who would have been saved in peril do you realize how massive this story actually is i mean i really i've been thinking about this we keep watching these headlines go by you keep tuning into the highwire and we're really getting numb to what are horrific stories outrageous stories of government interference when it comes to living humans in the United States of America. Is it possible? Tony Fauci is responsible for over a half a million deaths

within two years in the United States of America? Do you realize where that will put him in human history amongst perhaps the dictators of the world? And then how many people around the world followed our mandates? How many millions did it use Ivermectin because of this study done at the NIH? Now, I'm not saying the study's fraudulent, but what I am saying is there's no way that we can use that as the only study, especially given the fact that we recognize the sheer bias that has to be taking place

at NIH to protect their own butts. So that against the mountain of evidence that has come up against Ivermectin, this is one of the greatest stories of our lifetime, and we're not going to let it go. Now, when we look at this story and we look at the lies around it, and we look at the studies as we've shown you, what does that lead us to? Well, it leads us to this idea of when the CDC is saying it made a mistake, what exact mistake are they saying they made, that they didn't lock us down hard enough, that they should have just taken away all of our rights like we lived in China. I think that's what they're thinking, but I'm thinking you denied us products that worked. You pushed a vaccine that absolutely has not worked, was incapable of stopping infection,

and more and more the scientists showed, and Deborah Berks has even admitted, I always knew that was going to be the case. These are outrageous statements by people that were in government. I lied, basically. I told Donald Trump that we would share the things he was concerned, but I wrote my stuff at the top, which I knew was total bull crap. I knew the vaccine wasn't going to work, but we told you it would anyway. So now in the face of that, just this week, California,

and we had a huge rally in California to defeat the mandates. Very, very successful. You know, tens of thousands of people arrived. And after that, there was like 10 different, you know, laws trying to be written to take away our rights when it came to vaccine choice and all the other issues, medical freedom. And we wiped out about six of those right up front. But one of them held strong.

A very terrifying bill has just been passed in California. Here's the headline. California approves bill to punish doctors who spread false information. Weighing in on the fierce national debate over COVID-19 prevention and treatments, the state would be the first to try a legal remedy for vaccine disinformation. I mean, think about this. Do you believe we're even reading this headline right now? In the time we now live in and what we know, the law would designate spreading false or misleading medical information

to patients as unprofessional conduct, subject to punishment by the agency that licenses doctors, the Medical Board of California. That could include suspending or revoking doctors' license to practice medicine in the state. While the legislation has raised concerns over freedom of speech, the bill's sponsors said the extensive harm caused by false information requiring holding incompetent or ill-mentioned doctors accountable. Do you realize what is happening here inside the People's Republic of California? This is literally the centralization. of thought and conduct by our doctors that are supposed to be involved in a doctor-patient relationship. When all else fails and people are dying in the hospitals and your protocols aren't working,

don't you want a guy that's looking at a study in Brazil saying, you know what? You can go with what the conventions are saying, but we are having, by their own account, the highest death rates in the world, and I personally as a doctor think they're using the wrong product. I've been looking at this product, Ivermectin. I'd like to, if you want to try it, look at the studies. I'll show them to you. I'd like you to try this product. At least this is the one I'm using inside of my own family. This is literally going to make that illegal.

No doctor is going to be allowed to say that in the face, in the exact moment where we recognize that all the doctors in California that gave that advice were the ones that were right and the other ones were getting everybody killed. And what misinformation about vaccines? How about the fact that it's ineffective and it doesn't work? That it causes blood clots in children. And it's going to cause swelling, myocarditis. and all those issues and all of these issues of sudden adult death syndrome that are getting worse

and worse by the day. All of that is in the news and at that exact same time when the CDC is admitting we totally failed, we need to rebuild the CDC and reconstruct it, which is what is being told to us right now as we speak. In the face of all that, the California government is passing a law saying if you go against the CDC who just admitted they lied and got it wrong throughout COVID, but we are going to stand with the CDC and any doctor that goes against it will lose their license? My God, folks. What a horror in California. How many doctors are going to leave California? Now, I would be upset and just totally distraught, except that I think this is the last step to the total destruction of this sewage, right? The swamp we've been talking about, of science and medicine and the takeover

of critical thinking. In California, they are staging something that I think will be the fall of the medical boards. First, it's the CDC. The FDA is falling apart. We're losing all faith in government, and now we're going to have to lose faith in the medical boards that are now mandated upon doctors to have to follow the liars and the scientists who got everything wrong the whole time. It'd be a sad state for California, but there have also been some major wins. In fact, one gigantic win. Maybe we can't protect the doctors who supposed would have to protect themselves, but it's always been about the children. And in this case, the children won yesterday. It's huge. Take a look at this. Another California jab-related bill bites the dust. A proposal front and center was not a bill

that passed, but one that never even came up for a vote. The controversial bill would have allowed minors to consent to receiving any vaccines. But it was pulled just hours before lawmakers voted on whether to advance the bill to the governor. San Francisco Senator Scott Weiner polling his bill that would have permitted teenagers 15 and older to receive a COVID-19 vaccine without permission from their parents. Weiner saying in a statement he polled to the legislation due to death threats, harassment, and a lack of votes. Several parent organizations gathered in Sacramento for a rally against the bill also on Wednesday morning.

Outside the Capitol, this group opposed to Weiner's proposal were joyed to learn it will not come up for a vote. This is symbolic that you cannot get between a parent and our children. Now, there's a lot of great crusaders in California that have been there fighting all the way back in the days of SB 277, where I was first getting involved in this and so many great organizations. But one of those that I can, our nonprofit, the Inform Consent Action Network, has teamed up with many times, is Perk. And I'm joined by Perk leader, Amy Bond right now. Bon, what an exciting moment. I mean, this is something that you were all working around the clock. I know. We're getting calls from you over the last several days, going to midnight every single day, going to the different politicians. And let me just, first of all, let me just let you say hi.

And then I'm going to jump into this. Hi. It's so good to see you. I'm so excited. I cannot wait for us to just, oh, this is just such a victory for California. It is. And nothing's better in a victory than to see your opponent just and meet. complete in total defeat. And so let's read the letter that was put out by the author of this law that was going to try and be allowed to have 15-year-old children. Started out as 12-year-old children like they tried to do in Washington, D.C., then moved to 15-year-old children. They tried to make that adjustment. But Amy Bond and others weren't having it. This is what he ended up saying about the bill just yesterday. The anti-vaxxers may have prevailed in this particular fight,

but the broader fight for science and health continues. This coalition, isn't going anywhere. Now, I don't know what you feel about being called an anti-vaxxer, but I would call that a win, and I hope there's a lot of people that are dancing in the streets over this wind that happened yesterday. Oh, I don't really care what he calls us at this point. All that matters is that there was a just massive army of parents and organizations, hundreds of organizations fighting this together.

And, you know, this is just, he's a poor loser right now because we, we're just, we're just, We defeated his bill and it was a group effort. You know, Freedom Angels were up at the Capitol till midnight almost every single day. Our group was in charge of so many aspects and pivotal moments along the way. Facts law, truth, justice. You know, this is something that, like it really doesn't matter what they call us. The stigma doesn't matter because we actually have power now. We have we have a presence at the Capitol.

We have a presence in the media and it's because of everyone. This is just, it's just, it's historic, honestly. This is a historic moment for California. And I think that Senator Wiener is just, you know, he's trying to downplay it. But the truth is he didn't have the votes. And he was short by probably a lot more than just a few based on the conversation. This is Senator Scott Wiener saying we're close, but a couple votes short on our teen vaccine bill on the assembly floor. We're thus moving the bill to inactive.

He said there the anti-baxor harassment campaign worked this time at the expense of teen health. We lost this round but aren't going. anywhere. I love that one of his fellow Democrats ended up saying essentially, believe me, it was more than a couple votes short. And what's amazing about this is, though we don't want this to be a partisan issue, it has been. And across this country, and in California, it really has been felt for many, many years. And it's just been this freight train, you know, SB 277, SB 276. I think starting out with AB2019, was that what it was, or 2109. But, you know, along the way and I really feel like you know there's been articles talking about the shift right the shift

that we are starting to see these laws not get through around the country but I think this really is the biggest win this was the next step in this sort of agenda to separate the children from the parents to basically state the government is is you know owns your child their property to the U.S. government or the government of California and they're not of the parents therefore we should be able to get them to do things and then hide those things from their own parents. And so, you know, how big do you think this is when we're watching California go through this on the front lines? Oh, this is historic right now. That's what's happening. And you were talking about the political lines, you know, Republican Democrat. The reason why we won in California right now is because

those lines didn't matter. The Democrats were unified with. the Republicans with bipartisan opposition to this bill. So that shows you that if that can happen in California, the ripple effect of that and even just the fact that we've won here together with everybody, that can happen across the entire country. So no longer just your political affiliation or political party is going to be what decides these things. The outcome was decided, you know, of course it related to the votes because of the Democrats. You know, it was everybody together and they had to oppose this bill with their colleagues in order for it to be defeated. So I think that that's part of where we made history yesterday.

Yeah, if you think about that is true, there's been other states that have achieved things like this because they had a Republican majority, you know, or a conservative majority. But this is really one of the first times that a Democrat majority ended up, you know, voting on the side of medical freedom when it comes to children and on the side of parental rights, which is really a huge deal. Now, there's been a journey to this, and I just want to point out, there's a lot of great groups out there, but I've been working with you because I love, and I've said it before, Amy, you're a winner. You've been out there bringing lawsuits that have won. It's very impressive what Perks is doing. And back when they were really, when this was a bill,

just like Washington, D.C., where we had won, I can one in the case against, the minor consent for vaccinations for 12-year-olds. It was 12-year-olds in California, and Perk and I can teamed up, and we put together a letter that we sent to all the politicians that I think really had an effect, basically laying out that you are breaking the law if you try to pass this.

If you pass this, we've already run on behalf of Informed Consent Action Network and Protection of the Education Rights of Kids Perk, we write regarding SB 866. I'm to advise you that permitting vaccination of minors without parental consent violates federal law. ICAN has directed us to challenge the bill in federal court, should it become law. We recently challenged a similar law in Washington, D.C., and prevailed in federal court.

Likewise, should SB 866 become law, we would challenge it on the same grounds. I mean, basically, we just said, don't attempt to break the law again in California. We will bring the same boomstick we brought in Washington, D.C. And so, do you feel like that had an effect? I mean, there was a real shift in this law, too. It started changing, right? 100%. There were pivotal moments over the past, I would say, five months that were literally these junctures where it made all the difference in legislators being educated about the law, for example, with the legal letter. And then also just that we took that moment, you know, you guys working together with us. And I mean, it was such a, we were so grateful for that. And the legislators, they all got the letter and they talked about it. You know, all of the assembly got the letter. The governor got it. the different committees that were coming up to vote on the bill, got the letter of the

Judiciary Committee at the time. And no question, they got it by FedEx and they were alerted and aware that this law was illegal. You know, it would fall flat. It would not, it could not move forward. So even if they had passed it in the unlikely event that they passed it, it would have been, we would have been victorious in the courts. And I think that those legislators really took that to heart.

And, you know, along with you guys, we teamed up with another. organization called Faxlaw Truth Justice who went to the Capitol with us and we literally gave these legal analysis directly to the legislators and their staff and you know these are the moments that were just absolute crossroads and that was like four months ago you know as we were all working together to hold the line so definitely the ICANN letter had a huge impact I believe well and it's amazing and you were there to sort of you know give the legwork to all of this and so many others like you. But then, you know, there was a shift, right? And this is one of the things that

I think, you know, we need to start having conversations about it because there's some inviting that happens or some disagreements, but there's always this idea that we should just amend the bill. We should work with them to amend it to make it safer for, you know, maybe raise the age, things like that. And you and I have always been aligned here where I don't believe in amendments. I believe we can kill bills. I was involved in that when I was in California. and I love the fact that you stuck with that, you know, with that program also. We should not be amending any bill that breaks our, there's no okay for some group of kids to be forcibly vaccinated or make choices or to be bludgeoned by their teachers and brainwashed

while we're not around. And so I love the fact that you said, no, I don't believe in amendments. We're going for the full kill. I did that a couple of times in California when I was there personally because it was a personal mission and it's so awesome to watch you do that. So there was this amendment to move it. from, you know, 12-year-olds to 15-year-olds, and that really got precarious.

Now were we going to hold, you know, all the votes were up against, this bill would additionally authorize a minor. Look at it, they change at 12 to 15 years of age or older to consent to vaccines that meet specified federal agency criteria. So it was a real bait and switch, and unfortunately there were some groups

that thought that was a good idea. 15 isn't good for me either. It's not good for you. We have, you know, children that age, and no, I don't want them being mentally abused by their school system. either. And what I love that you did is things were really coming down to the crunch, as you know, Perk put together this massive list of people that didn't believe in this law.

And you got that in the hands just over the last couple of days. This is the Declaration of Opposition. Look at this folks. Look at all the work that went into this by Perk and look at this list. Hundreds of agencies and groups that were all against this put in the hands of every single legislator that was going to be involved in this vote. Folks, This is how you do it. This is how you do it. This is a victory. Amy, I'm so proud of you and everybody in all the great groups in California to work together to make this happen.

I really truly feel in many ways when I was talking to you, you were jumping up and down. I could feel it on the phone. And it reminded me when I was in New Jersey, you know, where we brought down the attempt to remove the religious exemption there. And it's like winning the World Series. Is it not? I mean, it had to feel amazing. Oh, my gosh, it was amazing. I mean, the thing is, is that with the amendments, we knew that this had to protect all of California's children.

We couldn't just have a subgroup or a small group that would be protected. So it was 100%. Let's go for the kill. Let's defeat this. And that's what aligned us with so many of these other organizations. Freedom Angels had this amazing, amazing Twitter campaign they put out. You know, facts, not truth, justice. They were up at the Capitol, doing calls to action, live Instagrams,

And all, you know, the theme was it's, this is so surreal because this doesn't happen in California. This is California. You know, I mean, this is where you lose on these bills. And instead, my call to you that, you know, yesterday morning was we won this. And it was we. It was every single person who actually took action, emailed, you know, was on, you know, social media, the groups, the organizations. It was hundreds of organizations and thousands and thousands. thousands of people. And I think that's what makes me feel so excited and happy that just it was California's victory. It was the victory of the people showing up in this moment, parents saying, oh, no, you are not going to come between us and our children. We are protecting that sacred relationship. And there, you know, no, I just, it's surreal. I have to tell you, the moment I got the news, I was blow drying my hair. I was supposed to be at the press conference. I was on my way to the press conference. And I started.

I started to see my phone blowing up and I'm like, what is going? And then I saw we won. And I literally, I was jumping up and down. My hair's wet. I've got to get to the press conference, so I'm going to be late. And I just, you know, I'm calling you. I just cannot begin to put it into words.

And it's just, I think the thing is, we protected the children. That's what this is about. It's not about any one organization. You know, thank you for bringing me on today. But it's not even about Perk. It's about the children. It's about everyone who does

did something that made such an incredible difference that we had this victory together. And it sets a precedent for the entire country. It tells all of California, those legislators know our faces, our names, not just mine, like lots of people. And the engagement between everyday people and those assembly members or senators, it's there now. Things have changed in California. I'm telling you, this is the beginning of more.

more victories and I just, I kind of begin to tell you how it feels. I mean, you know how it feels. You're here with us. You're celebrating with us. I'm feeling it. I'm loving it. Amy, you know, go out. You should celebrate. It's going to be a great weekend of celebration. Give my best to all of our friends and loved ones out there in California working so hard to make this happen. Thank you for bringing it to our attention. Thanks for involving us, even though we decided to, you know, bail out of California and get here to Texas where we're going to. can run a show without worrying about being shut down. I am so glad there's people like you really changing the climate in California. So exciting. Such great news. Thank you for joining me today.

Thank you. You guys, we couldn't have done this without you either. So thank you so much, Del. We really appreciate you. Take care. All right. I love great news. I love to hear great news in the morning. It's massive, folks. It just keeps getting better and better. I hope you can feel that. You certainly feel that energy from Amy Bond for all of you in California. You should be ecstatic today. Still lots of work to do. We now have to start working and figure out how to protect our doctors, but our children are safe, at least for now. It's a great show. It's all about these politics. What's coming around the pipe? How much is being revealed? And to start us off on that journey, really, it's time for the Jackson Report. All right, Jeffrey, you know, we're all

pumped here. We're jumping up and down. What's what's happening? What is it we have to keep our eye on now as things are shifting so quickly? The floodgates are open, Dell. Let's just start it off. Going into the 2020 election, the final months of that election, we were told that be on the lookout, Russia was going to interfere with the election here in this country. Well, now, thanks to Mark Zuckerberg, we have more definitive proof, further confirmation that it wasn't Russia interfering, but our own government working to hide the one story that would have hurt Biden's chances in that election. Take a listen to this. All right.

There was a lot of attention on Twitter during the election because of the Hunter Biden laptop story. Yeah, we have that too. Yeah, so you guys censored that as well? So we took a different path than Twitter. I mean, basically the background here is the FBI, I think, basically came to us. Some folks on our team. I was like, hey, just so you know.

like you should be on high alert. There was, we thought that there was a lot of Russian propaganda in the 2016 election. We have it on notice that basically there's about to be some kind of dump of, of, that's similar to that. So just be vigilant. So our protocol is different from Twitters.

What Twitter did is they said, you can't share this at all. We didn't do that. What we do is we have, if something is reported to us as potentially, misinformation, important misinformation. We also, this third-party fact-checking program, because we don't want to be deciding what's true and false.

And for the, I think it was five or seven days when it was basically being determined whether it was false, the distribution on Facebook was decreased, but people were still allowed to share it. So you could still share it, you could still consume it. So when you say the distribution is decreased? It got shared.

How does that work? Basically, the ranking in newsfeed was a little bit less. So fewer people saw it than would have otherwise. So it definitely... By what percentage? I don't know off the top of my head. But it's meaningful. But I mean, but basically a lot of people are still able to share it.

We got a lot of complaints that that was the case. You know, obviously this is a hyper-political issue. So depending on what side of the political spectrum, you either think we didn't censor it enough or censored it way too much. But we weren't sort of as black and white. white about it as Twitter. We just kind of thought, hey, look, if the FBI, which I still view as a legitimate institution in this country, it's a very professional law enforcement, they come to us and tell us that we need to be on guard about something, then I want to take that seriously. Did they specifically say you need to be on guard about that story?

No, I don't remember if it was that specifically, but it was, it basically fit the pattern. When something like that turns out to be real, is there regret for not having it evenly distributed and for throttling the distribution of that story? What do you mean evenly distributed? I mean evenly in that it's not suppressed. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean, it sucks. This is huge, though. It really is, you know, and we talked about this, you know, when this was first came out.

And I remember, and I don't know if those in the audience have this same experience. So you just sort of go, we're so bludgeoned by so much outrageous news right now. It's like, oh, that's interesting. And then, you know, as I started letting it sink in, I just thought, it's like every day I've sat with this, the bigger and bigger I realize this revelation is. I mean, this is like a water gate. Watergate started out as this tiny little story, who would care whatsoever, some little break in in a hotel room.

And then it sort of takes on this partisan issue. But slowly but surely, you start recognizing this is the collapse of the, you know, United States of America if we look the other way. As you pointed out, we were being told Russia was gonna meddle with our election and instead it's the FBI? Our own government? I mean, that's scary time, man. That's China.

That's Russia. That's where you aren't having free elections anymore. Really, really outrageous. And I love, I mean, I really got to, hats off to Joe Rogan, how he approaches these interviews. Just like, so he's so soft about it, right? So Twitter was doing this? Was Facebook doing anything like?

that or really, you know, and the way he stays so calm and just draws it out, just brilliant, outrageous. Yeah, and so while Zuckerberg is censoring this story in, as he says, a meaningful way, it would be one thing. It's already outrageous by that statement alone. It was one of the biggest admissions of just naked censorship here by these tech platforms. It'd be one thing if the other side, the other balance of this conversation wasn't really speaking up, just kind of step back and said, okay, we'll let this story kind of wait until we see. wasn't what it looked like, though, back then. Here's Rolling Stone on Twitter at the same time this was being censored. Vile, baseless conspiracy theories are spreading about Hunter Biden,

and despite pledges to curb misinformation and the lead up to the election, social media sites aren't stopping them. Oh my gosh, please stop them. And then really the big story that chilled this whole thing out, knocked it out of the news feed, and gave fact checkers the excuse to just really censor this thing hard, was this story out of Politico, if people remember. Hunter Biden's story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intelligence of officials say. So now you have the FBI coming to Zuckerberg saying, you know, you might want to be on the lookout for this thing. But then you have the intelligence officials, the CIA, a state department, Department of Defense, all these ex-people coming together, 51 of them saying,

in our experience, this is Russian into disinformation. To push a lie. I mean, literally your government getting a whole body of ex-government and CIA agents all together to push a lie on us. Right. And forget about, you know, Project Mockingbird, where they used to embed people. from the CIA within the media. This is just straight up in your face. So now it has come out that this laptop is real. New York Times even admits that. And a lot of the information on there

is showing business dealings in Ukraine, in China, with, you know, pedaling. Only the hotbed of the world at the moment now that Biden's president. Like, if you really thought, you know, is there anything going on there? I really want the clearest, cleanest person dealing with these very tense situations in China that's threatening our own politicians

flying into Taiwan. We have a war in Ukraine now. And in this laptop, those two countries specifically are being discussed about business deals? I mean, come on. This is, it's really shocking. It's very interesting to note, too, those are the two countries that have been treated kind of nicely. Ukraine's getting billions of dollars of money. So that's an interesting point. But is there a regret? Has there been regret from these intelligence officials? Have they changed their tune? Well, this was the headline in the New York. post in March of this year. Spies who lie, 51 intelligence experts refused to apologize for discrediting true Hunter Biden's story. And one of those intelligence officials, his name is Jeremy Bash.

He's a director of the CIA, also chief of staff to the U.S. Secretary of Defense. And he has come out and actually been promoted for his work. And this is the headline here. MSNBC pundit who claimed Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation tapped for intelligence advisory board. This is under obviously the Biden administration. So he's getting, he's getting a little bit of a better job now, getting out of the ranks of the media and MSNBC, and he's going right up to the White House. So this isn't the only thing that's happening, though. On the other side of the coin, we see some big movements now within the FBI. This is one of the headlines just recently. Top agent exits FBI amid charge of political bias undermining Hunter Biden probe, sources say.

This was Timothy Thibault. He abruptly resigned after coming. under congressional scrutiny. He was a senior official in the Bureau's Washington Field Office. So there's a lot of big shakeups happening right now in the FBI. And that's obviously a whole separate story to keep a eye on. But let's bring it back to the censorship piece. Why is this important? You know, did it really make a difference? Well, according to this headline, it made a big difference. This was, I believe, the New York Post, 79% say truthful coverage of Hunter Biden's laptop would have changed 2020 election. And that's where we're at in the United States. right now. So that censorship has had that type of resonance with the consciousness of the population.

But what's interesting about this- Let's just be clear just very quickly. Like, you know, New York Post has sort of been on one side as they try to push the story so they have a bias. But let's all take it in, whether you're a Democrat or a Republican or anything right now, just take it in for a second and think about how incredibly close this election was. The largest number of voters ever recorded, Let's just take all of the concerns about how the voting went down. This was a neck and neck run. And to think that something this big, a laptop with business dealings with one of the families, and we worry about a president somehow being compromised,

we had this laptop that had images that if China had them or Ukraine had them, could that be used to manipulate a family? All of that should have been, you know, I think, in the purview of the public since it was out there and being reported on. Instead, it got shot down. I don't think you have to be a rocket sign. I don't think you need to have a partisan perspective of this. I think we all know damn well that this story would have been devastating,

given the margins that we all watch take place there. And what's interesting is as this censorship happens, even to this day, the effects of it are still not fully understood, meaning the censorship still has a far-reaching effect in some influential circles. Take a listen to this Bill Mark clip and listen to what he has to say. So he's saying it's okay to have a conspiracy, to get rid of somebody as bad as Trump. It's a little bit of a thorny question, because once you go down this road, this is sort of where we are in this country, the other side is so evil, anything is justified in preventing them from taking office.

Is it? No, no. You know what's not justified? Using armed violence to try to kill people in the capital. That's not justified. Answer this question. Is it, was it answered this question? What is the question? The question is, was it appropriate to bury the Hunter Biden's...

You're talking about the press doing that? He's saying that's what they did, and that is what they did. They buried the Hunter Biden story before the election because they were like, we can't risk having the election thrown to Trump. We'll tell them after the election. And we know for a fact that that's what they did? Of course. You don't follow this. You know for a fact that that's what they did?

I don't know what they did. I know, because you only watch MSNBC. That's not true. That's not true. Well, then you would know about this. I do know about that. Well, you're acting like you know. I do know about that, and I do watch Fox. But the point is, we're going to prove now that the press, you know, try to.

They're admitting it. The press is admitting it. Yes, that's not even an issue anymore. They're saying, yes, we basically did this because we didn't want this to throw the election. It's amazing. I just want to say to Bill Maher personally, there bro we have all been on this journey I too was a loud mouth progressive liberal I have followed you for years and I've watched how your intelligence and

your ability to critically think is leading you down a very uncomfortable path I want to thank you for the reporting you're doing and I want to predict right now I give you 365 days before you are definitely gonna come out and say just like Del Bigtree is I am no longer a liberal I do not align with progressive thought system the way I thought I did Perhaps you'll say I'm politically marooned or I'm a libertarian, but everyone out there mark my words. His days are numbered. You cannot start on this journey and watch the lies and deceit of any party, any party you're part of,

that starts getting involved at this level where he's pointing out manipulation using media against the people for important stories. Nobody with a critical mind can handle that. And then you look at Rob Reiner, a guy who I used to love, certainly as an actor and all the great work he's done. but look how clueless he is. This is the biggest story in the country, and this is the problem, right? We're all living in such a thought bubble. The censorship is working. You know, the way that Facebook and the algorithms are keeping him from Rob Reiner from knowing what the hell is going on in the world as we know it. Right. Creating low information individuals, you know, it becomes kind of dangerous because they have some levers of power that you know you may not want them to have at some point because they aren't fully informed. Right.

But, you know, I remember back in the space in 2017 reporting, and the shadow banning, the word shadow banning came up. And it was kind of just this word that was created. And people were, it was like a phantom. Is this happening? Is it not? There's no admission from social media. But now that's all changed. Just give it a little while.

It becomes fact. This is out of Vice magazine. This was the headline how shadow banning went from a conspiracy theory to a selling point. And now they're bragging about this. And this is meta. So Facebook changes. I love it when Vice does things. Like I'm sure they were the one of the ones calling us all conspiracy theories for,

talking about it, but now they're going to bravely go where no one's gone before and state what we've all been stating for a long time. Good for you, Vice. I love that you're always a day late and a dollar short. Right. Reporting the best hypocrisy, the world is known. Yes, for years news today. We have meta, which was Facebook, changed its name to meta, and this was during COVID-19, this was kind of a list of their restrictions and how they would moderate their content. It says here. Once a piece of content is rated false by fact checkers, we reduce its distribution and show warning labels with more context. So there's just the mainlining of this shadow banning. But at the same time, these factions within our governments are working to undermine the online

conversation to kill stories. We see foreign agents standing alongside of them with the same goals. Take a listen to this. This was a World Economic Forum. All roads continue to lead to the World Economic Forum. from WEF, they're making decisions involving the direction of our country. So it looks like, you know, outside our borders, there's a major influence here. Take a look at what they had to say in this podcast. Welcome to World versus Virus, a podcast from the World Economic Forum that tries to make sense of the coronavirus pandemic. This week, fake news. We look at how misinformation has gone viral in the age of coronavirus and hear from the most senior communicator at the United Nations who wants you to be an ambassador for the truth.

So far we recruited 110,000 information volunteers, kind of digital first responders. And we hear from this entrepreneur who's worked at places including Twitter about a new startup which aims to equip those of us who consume the media, which is everybody, to navigate the wild west of information. If people cannot trust information about the critical challenges in our world today, whether it's coronavirus or climate change, then we cannot make recent decisions as a democracy. You know, that was obviously all the way back in 2020, but that same agenda we're seeing. But boy, I hope, I mean, for all of you that have joined us recently,

they've just your friends have told you, you've got to check out the high wire. They've been like right on so much of this all the way along and it's not really a political show and we're not. I don't mean for any of this to be political. We're stating the facts as we see them. It should bother anyone on any political aisle. But when we keep hearing, when we watch the California law, misinformation, you know, doctors spreading misinformation, lose their license.

Here, 100,000 human beings lined up as an internet army to go after misinformation. And then you realize that we are literally in a revelation, a renaissance, if you will, understanding that all the misinformation we're talking about really was coming from our own governments, the CDC, the WHO. They're the ones that are slowly but surely having to admit that what they were providing was the misinformation. So where are we going from here? Right. And you can see that apparatus being kind of constructed and populated by people like the World Economic Forum and nations.

And so that is this apparatus that we've really been fighting against from day one of the COVID response trying to get the real information out. But Del, just before we went on air, we have a breaking story. We'll bring it right back to present day here. This was the New Civil Liberties Alliance. This was their press release. New Civil Liberties Alliance suit uncovers army of federal bureaucrats

coercing social media companies to censor speech. Now, the attorneys generals of Missouri and Louisiana joined the New Civil Liberties Alliance in this lawsuit. It says, Discovery has unveiled an army of federal censorship bureaucrats, including officials arrayed at the White House, HHS, DHS, CISA, the CDC, NIAID, the Office of the Surgeon General, the Census Bureau, the FDA, the FBI,

the state department the treasury department and the u.s election assistance commission i was looking through some of these emails right before i went on air i mean people can start looking at these now it's been released but the cdc was having weekly meetings with facebook talking about helping to debunk disinformation that was actually the title of the email so they're having weekly meetings they're talking about having monthly meetings um talking about how to how to message veres It's incredible what has just been released. So what has been released, you know, what started with Mark Zuckerberg, you know, about a week ago has now just ballooned into a gigantic story.

And remember, under the First Amendment, the federal government can't police private speech and they can't pick winners and losers in this, you know, they call it marketplace of ideas. This is highly illegal, highly unconstitutional, and it's all breaking right now. Wow. Just incredible. Really an incredible moment. And we could feel it coming. We brought our own lawsuits.

We're investigating some new information, some FOIA requests that come through, where we're seeing our name pop up at the CDC. We're not ready to deliver that to you yet because we're doing a deeper investigation. But I am sure there are groups like ours, news agencies, those of us have been telling the truth, backing our information up as we do, using the high wire protocol, which is providing you with all the evidence we have so that you can fact check us, you yourself, with the evidence, with the evidence that's out there. You know, so many groups like ours, and it's great to see these lawsuits being brought by powerful, powerful groups.

So really interesting. And I'm telling you, we definitely haven't heard the end of this. This is going to get to be, I believe, a pivotal moment. As I said, you know, when we look back at Nixon and Watergate, this feels, and it's about time. It's high time that we start seeing the level of investigation. that really shifted the culture of America at that time, it's time for another wake-up call for our government. Right. And this double speak of so many people grandstanding on this idea

of saving our democracy, defending our democracy, while at the same time simultaneously defending and pushing government censorship of speech and media coercion of the speech. Over in the UK, there's a similar story happening. Another bombshell story is unfolding in the UK right now is a senior member of parliament, Rishi Sunnick. He is actually in the running to replace Boris Johnson as Prime Minister. We'll know more about that in early September here.

But he's come forward now and become the most senior whistleblower to the blow the whistle on the COVID response. What happened behind the scenes in the UK? This is the headline here. This is where it started out. Sunnick says it was a mistake to empower scientists during COVID pandemic. He did a sit down, a long format sit down with The Spectator. It's a magazine in the UK. And he kind of spilled the beans.

This was the headline. He wants to read this story. It's an amazing tell-all. The lockdown files, Rishi Sunnick, on what we weren't told. Listen to some of these quotes he has in here. A cost-benefit calculation, a basic requirement for pretty much every public health intervention was never made. He says, I wasn't allowed to talk about the trade-offs, says Sunnick.

Ministers were briefed by number 10 on how to handle questions about the side effects of lockdown. The script was not to ever acknowledge them. The script was, oh, there's no trade-off because doing this for our health is good for our economy. And so he talks about in here, Sage, that's a scientific advisory group for emergencies. And what they are is this outside groups, kind of like the FDA's VARPAC group in a way. They're not fully transparent. You know, some people you know who's in there, some people you don't know who's in there, but they have extreme sway on the government.

They'll come to the government and they say, our scientists, our group here, this independent group has game three scenarios, and this scenario has this science behind it and this potential outcome and this one, this potential outcome. can decide what direction the government goes. So sage units and then also these things called Nudge units, these work together behind the scenes to really influence how the UK directed the lockdown response. So this is what Sunnick had to say about that, about those groups. He says, typically he said ministers would be shown sage analysis pointing to horrifying scenarios that would come to pass if Britain did not impose or extend lockdowns. But even he as chancellor could not

find out how these all-important scenarios had been calculated. So again, completely left in the dark, one of the top power people in the UK can't even get answers to why they're extending lockdowns. And listen to this final quote here. He says this, I was like, summarize for me the key assumptions on one page with a bunch of sensitivities and rationale for each one, Sunnick says, in the first year, I could never get this. The Treasury, he says, would never recommend policy based on unexplained modeling. He regarded this as a matter of basic competence. But for a year, UK government policy and the fate of millions was being decided by half-explained graphs cooked up by outside academics. This is this outside influence on the government and not even the government itself can get straightforward answers or transparency.

Unbelievable. Wow. I mean, it's, it's, it's, it was amazing is, and this is why I love being an international show. And for all of you in the UK, this may be your Watergate moment, right? you're now starting to see politicians stepping out and saying, I've basically been handcuffed and gagged inside of the government here. I wasn't allowed to get to the truth for you. Things need to change.

And, you know, hopefully we see those people that have been transparent, the Ron Johnsons and the DeSantis's and those in our government, those that have been correct and right and fighting for humanity and transparency. We need to see them rise up. And then it gets back to the government, as I said at the top of the show, that I believe in. The best should rise. The truthful should rise. Those that weren't afraid to go against the status quo when it didn't make any sense.

And for those of you watching who are wondering why we're transitioning sort of into the spaces of the climate conversation, rising energy prices, soaring food prices, things like this. We have to understand what we're laying out here, this evidence we're laying out here. This is the same apparatus. This same overlay is being used to steer the conversation, to steer the science surrounding these debates and to drive the new restrictions that we're seeing. So even in February of this year, you could see the prepositioning. This was in the hill. This was a headline.

Coming soon, climate lockdowns. Now there's a question mark there, excuse me, but that's the prepositioning. And now we have the current headlines out of the European Union. We've reported on that. They're being hit very hard with energy restrictions. EU crisis chief calls for more power to fight climate impacts. Over in France, we have this great reset. French government to recruit 3,000 green police over climate change.

And so this conversation around climate change, the science, it's been in question for quite some time. 2014, there was a study looking at kind of the information surrounding this and how it's been presented. And even back then, the researchers in this article say it appears that news media in some pro-environmental organizations have the tendency to accentuate or even exaggerate the damage caused by climate change. We find that the information manipulation has an instrumental value, meaning it can drive policy. And that was in 2014, and that was way before this apparatus has been built. Now we have a very dangerous public health and science apparatus that can steer using outside organizations, the conversation, and really the fate of millions of people in these directions. One of those in the

UK was the nudge unit and the nudge unit was used. These were basically psychologically, they psychologically manipulated the public using fear. It's basically what it sounds like, right, nudging humanity in the direction that we need them to go. I mean, it's kind of gross. Yeah. Even if they would call themselves that. It's like nudging you off a clip. I feel like I'm standing waiting for a subway and I just get nudged onto the train tracks. Oh, thank you very much. Was that my government that just did that? It's kind of a dirty, unsavory little situation. I mean, These are behavioral scientists that are brought in to find the best way to nudge people into accepting lockdowns, accepting masking, accepting things they don't really want to accept. And remember last year we reported on this.

After they saw what was done with their information, they came out and said that was a big mistake. They used too much fear. And this was the headline. We cover this several times in the show, but it's worth mentioning again. Use of fear to control behavior in COVID crisis was totalitarian, admit scientists. A woman named Laura Dodsworth. She's a writer. She's a filmmaker in the UK.

She has written a book. The whistleblowers in these nudge units came to her and spilled the beans, so to speak. She wrote a book called State of Fear, how the UK government weaponized fear during the COVID-19 pandemic. And it's interesting to look at the trajectory because obviously that was a big concern for her. She heard the stories of these scientists and she was concerned as well about this apparatus that was being built. Let's check in with her just recently. What is she concerned about now? Take a listen. I want to say something else about extending this scrutiny beyond COVID. Back in 2011, not long after the inception of the Nudge unit,

the Science and Technology Committee noted that there were serious ethical concerns with governments deploying behavioural science, because what that effectively does is change people's behaviour in ways in which they're not aware. There has been no public consultation. There is no public mandate. There is no public permission. when we were frightened in order to comply with the rules. And when nudges deployed continually from COVID to climate change,

it is without the public's consent and consultation. Do you think this will now be the start of the unraveling of lockdown and people looking into it now that Rishi has broken cover? I think absolutely. And actually, I think it's going to generate hopefully a lot, more honesty about the damages of lockdown. It's going to be pretty difficult to avoid with the inflation where it is. But like I say, it's really important to not just to not assume this only happened with COVID. It's happening right now with nudging the public towards net zero goals.

We have to be honest about this. The same tools are being deployed. You know, we're living in a world now where everything's colour coded to let us know whether on an amber warning or a red warning. There are reports jointly authored by broadcasters and the Nudge Unit about how to change people's behavior without them even being aware through TV programming. This has now become really insidious within government. And I really don't think it's any way to run a country to nudge the population and especially to frighten them into following unpopular policies. Wow. I mean, I love it when you start seeing other news agencies that sound like the high wire. This is important. We are going to move. We're stretching our wings here on the highway to go. And I've said it from the beginning, Jeffrey, and this is sort of, you know, our creed with each other,

which was we're going to go where curiosity takes us, where our questions lead us. And though we started this journey together really in the vaccine space, now, as you said, it's the same apparatus that have been built, structured, not just for this vaccine discussion and the oppression of humanity be cut through, you know, medical means. In many ways, it's going to be food and energy and all of these things. And so we are going to move our, you know, investigations where they're needed. And you are doing such a brilliant job taking us there, Jeffrey. I'm so thankful to have you on the team in amazing reporting this week as we talk about the unraveling of government corruptions around the world. Really, really powerful stuff.

Thank you, Della. And I do believe the biggest stories of our lifetimes are yet to come. So I I look forward to standing alongside you and the team with this reporting. It's going to be a hell of a ride. Here we go. All right. I'll see you next week. Look, if you like what Jeffrey Jackson is doing, and I know you all are, definitely go to our website and check out the Jackson Report.

Jeffrey started out as a writer. I dragged him and put him in front of TV because, well, let's admit it. He's so damn handsome and he's great at it. But he also keeps writing for us, and you want to check out the Jackson Report right there at the highwire.com. All right. I've got Joseph Lodapo, and I think what is going to be one of the most, I keep saying this, because we're doing so many great interviews right now, but one of the most important interviews

of a rising star that I think could sort of shift the thinking in this country around the world when it comes to medical policy. When we see all the corruption we're talking about, can you imagine if somebody that wasn't corrupt actually came from a beautiful place could make a difference. We're going to talk about it in a second. But I want to just take this moment because so many of you that had been a part of the high wire from the beginning, and those of you just joined us, there is so much we're doing through your help that I want to take this moment to lay out something we haven't talked about.

We built a tool. We actually did something in law with ICANN through Aaron, Serean and Glimstad, the law firm that we have worked hand in hand with, we devised a new legal tool that had never been used the way we used it. What I'm talking about is we, you've watched this show when we talk about FOIA request, Freedom of Information Act requests, which is essentially this ability because our government in the United States of America, as I laid out in the beginning, hopefully this won't change over the next election cycle, but we're in charge, they aren't.

We have them on a leash. They work for us. So just like the boss of a company can demand or look at all the emails taking place on the company email server, we get to do the same thing. And we get to ask what Tony Fauci and what the CDC and what, and we put in search words and we want to see everything that you've done for us. Well, one of the things that we started recognizing was we were getting a huge pushback. And remember, this total liability protection when I got involved with this started ICANN back in the end of 2016. Total liability protection for the vaccines.

You can't sue them. So you can't get to under the understanding you would get in a lawsuit like they did against talcum powder when we found out that people were dying of cancer. because asbestos was always there and they knew it or viacs always caused heart attacks and they knew it all of those things we discovered because of lawsuits but we couldn't get a lawsuit against manufacturers of vaccines so we sat with you know i can and our group and Aaron steering glimstad we kept brainstorming how can we get to the truth then especially when we're getting pushback and there seems to be a lot of either obfuscation or lies about what science has been done and what hasn't been done we were also set off to this in the meeting i had that i went to the

NIH under Donald Trump and was joined by Robert Kennedy Jr. to bring our questions. And when we started realizing when we said like, where are the double blind studies using a placebo that approved all of the vaccines for children for the vaccine program, they couldn't provide it. We started recognizing, wait a minute, is it possible that the government isn't actually doing the science or doesn't have science to back up what it's saying or promising us? And that's when we realized we're going to use FOIA in a different way. Up until that moment, FOIA had always been used to just get documents so you can read and see, you know, what, you know, details the government knew and didn't know.

And we said, what if we start putting in FOIA requests for things that we're starting to suspect they don't have? They've never, they won't admit it in public, they won't have a debate, but if we put in a request and then they have to say, we don't have that, the power of that, under a question. court of law having to sign, we don't have evidence of what we just stated as fact. We could be somewhere. And I'm saying all this because Aaron Siri of Aaron Siri in Glimstad just wrote a great paper on this because we now want to present this tool to the entire legal world. This is published this week in Bloomberg Law using FOIA to compel federal agencies to prove claims. We've been attacked for using this method by other legal groups.

And now Aaron wanted to make sure that not only... only are we find to stand those tax, he lays out brilliantly. You should all read this, especially if your lawyers, on how we have used FOIA in a way it was never used before. Here's just a couple of excerpts from this brilliant article written by Aaron Siri. Using FOIA to compel federal agencies to prove claims, basically, similarly, he points out how he did it in a more recent environment of ever-changing variants of SARS-CoV-2, which prompted renewed public health measures and updated boosters. The CDC made the following claim to the public.

COVID-19 vaccines do not create or cause variants of the virus that cause COVID-19. The vaccine isn't causing variants, even though Geert-Bannon-Bosch and other world-renowned biologists and epidemiologists were saying the opposite. But when asked through the FOIA request for all documents sufficient to support that statement, the agency responded that it has no records pertaining to the request. The agency's failures to produce records in response to these FOIAs mean either the agency's agency is acting recklessly with the public trust because it has no records that support the statements and wants the public to rely on or the agency has responsive records but for some reason

is not producing them which technically would be illegal either scenario is troubling and raises numerous questions and ethical issues folks we're revealing to you now our little secret weapon how we've been you know performing the colonoscopy of the government health agencies if you will going in where they didn't want us to go to find out the health of our government where this information was coming from. And this is a tool that, you know, we built through your help. And so now through this article and to all the lawyers in this country and anywhere around the world where this might work for you too, we want you to read it and understand everybody should be using this tool we created has been very effective and has led to a lot of revelations that our government

didn't want you to know. Here's just a couple that we've got. And I mean, this is just a couple. K and legal winners for you. CDC was unable to provide any support for its claim that COVID-19 vaccines do not change or interact with your DNA in any way. They've made that statement on CNN and MSNBC, but the government cannot back that up because they had no records. CDC unable to provide any support for its claim to the public fact COVID-19 vaccines do not create or cause variants.

I just talked about that. Number three, CDC did not have a single study showing the vaccines given during the first year of life. Do not cause autism. Though on their website, they say unequivocally all vaccines do not cause autism. all the vaccines the first year of life, they could provide no evidence of that statement. CDC concedes it lacks any proof of hepatitis B. Remember, our babies are giving that. You can't go to school without it. They had no proof of hepatitis B ever being transmitted in school,

ever. Not one time, no study, no proof, no incidents. And five, CDC concedes never conducted vaccinated versus unvaccinated study. They've never compared those two groups. That's just a smattering of the revelations that have come from this approach. I say all this because we are doing groundbreaking work here. You saw that we sent the letter with Perk to the California government to let them know you are breaking the law. We're not involved in government policy, but we are involved in the legal side of the saying, do you want to break the law as a politician? Do you see how much we're doing here at the high wire through the informed consent action network? And I want to tell you, I'm going to be honest with you. We have, you know, an exploit.

exponential growth, the amount of viewers that are watching us, but there is this tiny, microscopic percent of you that are actually, you know, supporting financially the work that we're doing. Can you imagine? You can't even imagine if just a few percent of you actually, you know, got involved here. Look what we've done so far with all of you that should be patting yourselves on the back right now and saying, man, it feels good to be involved with I can and the high wire because no one else. I've never been a part of a show that not only, brings up the problem, but brings the solution and sues their butts off for me to protect my kids. What other, you know, television show or news agency that you're paying a bundle for to watch

and your television be lied to by your pundits, by your representatives, and yet you come here every week and what? You can't afford to, like, hand us your cup of coffee once a month? This is time, folks. We, as we said, we are going in. They are starting to build and use this apparatus to take us into a whole other sick, set of ideas, trying to manipulate us through fear of, you know, food scarcity and energy and the environment and global warming. Who is going to fight that for you? Who is going to bring the truth? Who's going to make sure the government never gets away with this again?

That's right. We are. Please, please be a part of helping us. Not just because it helps us, because you're going to feel a hell of a lot better. Just go to the website at the top of every corner of all of our websites. Donate to ICANN, become a recurring donor. I don't care if it's $1. Come on, let's see more of you sign up this week than we've seen for a long time.

Certainly $1 or $2. Or if you want the $22 a month that we're asking for for 2022, be a part of change. Be able to say, I am involved in change instead of sitting in your couch and complaining that it just doesn't seem like a lot is happening. I don't know how anyone could ever think that if you're watching the high wire. Obviously, a lot is changing. We are shifting the world as we know it, but we really need your help, man. We got to bring this home.

And every one of you out there that's been watching that supports us and shares this, why don't you get involved? See what it feels like to give a dollar or $5 a month to make this possible. We're working for you. You are a part of our informed consent action network. Okay, on to this great book, Transcending Fear, is written by Dr. Joseph. of Ladoe. This is a brilliant story, not just about the politics behind the questions that we've had as we were watching what was taking place, one of the leading doctors and the frontline

doctors that stood in front of the Supreme Court, but also that now has become the surgeon general of probably the most scrutinized state in this country and around the world. This is a fantastic book, but right now I want to introduce you to a fantastic individual. I had the opportunity to go to Florida, to have a moment to sit down. You know, he took time out of his very busy schedule to really just just so beautifully and honestly help me understand what was happening in this country and specifically in Florida. This is Dr. Joseph Latipo. Dr. Joseph Latipo. It's really an honor to be here. And I want to thank you for opening up your home, this beautiful setting in Florida, looking.

out of the ocean, it's quite spectacular. I didn't tell you, but part of the objective was to promote Florida. So, come in Florida, see what we have here. You're doing a very good job. Honestly, I don't think under the circumstances it needs a lot of promotion, I think Florida has definitely established itself as a place if you believe in freedom that you want to go to. I always joke, we moved to Texas.

I know you and I, you know, we're both in California. And I joke, you know, at night, if you look, you can see the headlights coming in to Austin, Texas, where we are, and I'm sure the same is in Florida, driving out of California and New York at these places. You know, so you are Surgeon General in Florida. And I would say, given all that we've been through with this COVID pandemic, Florida is probably the most scrutinized state in the country, making it probably the most scrutinized state in the world.

Ronda Santis, one of the most scrutinized governor, there is. And as I was preparing for this interview, I thought as the representative of the medical decisions being made, the political decisions around policy and medical advice, you are probably one of the most scrutinized medical professionals in the world at the moment. Did you ever imagine you would be in a position like this? Not even for half a second. And you're completely correct. that Florida is the most scrutinized. And it's because Governor DeSantis

not only went against what, you know, the federal government here, governments around the world, and things like the WHO, he not only went against what they were pushing for, but he knew why he was doing it, and he communicated that clearly in a way that resonated with people. So he was a legitimate threat.

I mean, there are a lot of, you know, There are a number of Republican leaders who were against or voiced opposition. But the truth is that at a core level, most of them didn't strike the general public as being authentic. And part of what Governor DeSantis' advantage was, was that he actually, he read studies. I mean, he looked at the studies and he taught to people who are legitimate experts like my friend, Dr. J. Bodhicaria, other individuals, physicians, public health experts who weren't invested in a narrative, who were more invested in truth. And so he was the most threatening thing that they faced and therefore they scrutinized Florida quite closely. And, you know, something similar is happening with me.

They don't, you know, they certainly, I mean, I know what I believe. I have no doubts. I have no lack of clarity. And there's no lack of scientific expertise either. I'm very familiar with, you know, fortunately because of my training, I'm familiar with scientific research. I've spent many years conducting research myself. So let's sort of start there.

I know that the first time I became aware of you as a physician was in the front line. doctor's video that went viral. You and, you know, a dozen or so other medical professionals stood in front of the Supreme Court, I believe it was, and delivered a different narrative, a different perspective, medical perspective than we were hearing in mainstream news. And I saw you speak and several others. So, first of all, and by the way, a viral sensation. That video, I believe had 17 million views on Breitbart. It was on YouTube and all these places, but 17 million views within the first 24 hours before the censorship began,

that video was taken down. The website for the frontline doctors was taken down. But how did you end up in that position standing with this small group of medical professionals? Really by chance. I mean, it probably started with some of the editorials that I wrote. some editorials in USA Today and then in the Wall Street Journal. And some of them fortunately got a good bit of attention, which I was very happy about because of the sort of the epidemic of just lack of common sense and lack of honesty and truthfulness

about scientific findings that was happening. And sort of, you know, while that was happening in the forefront, and that's really what people were being plastered with on televisions and in newspapers. In the background, there was a small group of physicians, researchers who were communicating together who felt that things that were happening on a policy level nationally and at state levels was incorrect, was bad for public health. And just through that network, I basically got connected with Simone Gold. I'd heard a little bit about she was, she had some initiatives that she was leading.

And we, you know, we talked and, you know, certainly, you know, I appreciated her principles and her approach and her perspective. And passion, I mean, amazingly passionate individual to sort of bring those things together. At that time, were you a, you know, were you treating patients? I was at UCLA, a clinical researcher. or a clinician scientist. So I saw patients for 20% of my time, and I basically did research and some teaching

for the remainder of my time. So I worked at UCLA Ronald Reagan Hospital, West L.A., Westwood neighborhood, beautiful area. And I'd been taking care of patients there since I started at UCLA around 2016. And so I had patient care responsibilities, and I had research responsibility. What was the focus of your research?

I actually, I'm really into cardiovascular health. I played a sport in college. I like fitness. I like health. I like nutrition. My wife knows a lot more about nutrition than I do. Yeah. But, you know, I like the, you know, I like to feel good, to, you know, feel like I'm able to sort of do whatever I need to do physically.

And I want that for other people too. I want people to, you know, be physically fit and healthy. and you know and also prevent illness and it just so happens because of all of those things i've just really been into cardiovascular research so at UCLA i've run a number of clinical trials related to smoking cessation different kind of strategies to help people quit smoking some trial related to prevention of cardiovascular disease and people with HIV because HIV is actually a risk factor for having early early strokes and early cardiovascular of a cardiovascular disease.

And I think there's a new risk factor on the block, by the way. There was a weight loss trial that I led while I was at UCLA that recently completed. So mostly, again, kind of cardiovascular health is my sort of passion. And given the nature of COVID, probably a very helpful specialty. Yes, yeah. I think that training is paying off in terms of investigations now that we're doing and interpreting some of the data. So let me ask you at what point, you know, do you find yourself starting to question

the narrative? I mean, we're all, you know, as a journalist, I'm watching, you know, people falling face forward in China and wondering what is that? walking around hazmat suits. It moves to Italy. We start hearing these incredibly, it sounds like very high numbers. And even I was like, look, I don't know what that is. I was thinking, I don't know if it's a bio-weapon. I don't know. I mean, I question all narratives. So in terms of the data, the data, you know, we were probably the first reports might have been in December of 2019 or January in 2020. And it was following the articles that were coming out.

And it certainly appeared to be very threatening. And I've got to say that I would say that I was basically asleep in terms of recognizing the fact that there are entities that have very deep agendas at what role individuals and what powers individuals should have. So I was very late to awakening to that. And that's become very, very apparent now. So it appeared that a lot of people were unfortunately dying based on what was reported. Now I'd be much more skeptical about what the actual numbers are because that's not what we're getting, right?

We're just getting these images that are very striking and quite powerful. So I was taking all that in. But at the same time, something that I did not lose sight of was my relationship with liberty and freedom and how important those principles are to a functioning society. So that's got to be guarded. No matter what's happening on the other side of your fence, that's got to be guarded. But then as the, you know, as, okay, initial response, people are freaking out. I happen to be working in a hospital, took care of some patients with COVID in March.

Is that about when the wave, and we're all waiting, when's this going to, You know, it was like a tidal wave out there. It's going to hit land here in America. So it was right around March you started seeing this thing coming to the hospital that you were working at. Right. This was the first cases. Okay.

And I was working in the hospital the week that Governor Newsom actually shut down the state. So my wife and I were scrambling to figure out what we do with the kids. Okay. And, you know, and people were freaking out in the hospital. There was just this profound degree. It was just an environment, almost a blanket of, panic that had just covered the hospital. Was it panic for personal health?

Like, were they afraid of what was going to happen to them being in the middle of that? There was a lot of that, for sure. And there was a lot of fear about leadership. So leaders felt that they would be incompetent. This was a challenge. This was a threat to the hospital. And essentially, there was a lot of performance anxiety. So there was a lot of fear.

but leadership also felt, you know, that they would be considered inadequate. They wouldn't do the right things or make the right decisions. If you're coming from a place of fear, then you're just reactionary. Like you cannot make, you know, coherent decisions. You're not willing to take the risks necessary to be successful. You're going to just make decisions based on protecting, which forces you go with the status quo, right? Whatever everyone else is doing, I'm going to hide in that mob so that no one can call me out. That's exactly right.

And that's also exactly what happened through most of the country. Okay. So what made you start writing articles that obviously kind of get you into some hot water? Like you sort of break free of the mainstream narrative. What was it that sort of triggered that for you? I think, I mean, I feel like many people feel that if things are wrong, you know, it's important to be vocal. And in this particular case, things just were seemed incredibly wrong, incredibly on the wrong path, the whole shutdown thing. I remember we would, we never stop.

And we have three boys and they have a lot of energy. I mean, and we had a condo in Los Angeles. That was tantamount to suicide and maybe homicide, right, to put everyone and make them stay inside. I remember, I'd take the boys. We'd take the double stroller and my third, my oldest would be on a scooter and we'd take them to the smoothie place. I remember one of these days. It was very early. We got our smoothies and I wanted and they have their tables out.

So we sat down and the guy, the owner came out and said, oh, you guys can't sit down because of the lockdown that we're in. You know, you're not allowed to sit down. Well, I mean, the moment at which you start saying this is going to where you break free of the next. narrative is that like right it's crazy yeah it's completely insane but of course when you when you create an environment of fear and you really you do a good job with it you can almost say anything and people will will not think twice about going along with it let's just talk about your pedigree just for a second you know for NIH grants that's rare I mean that's a big that's a really big deal for research physician to be able to state what is your educational background where

did you study medicine and sort of what was your path to to the place you found yourself in well I went to Wake Forest for undergrad in North Carolina and then I went to Harvard I was lucky enough to get into Harvard Medical School while I was there I also pursued a PhD and first I started in a master's program at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government of Public Policy and then I went into a PhD program and I completed the PhD in health policy. So and after that I completed residency at the Beth Israel DeKness Medical Center in Boston, Harvard's affiliated program, and then went on to my first faculty job at NYU in New York City. So public policy was it was a focus of yours. That's right.

Back now to the frontline doctors. You stood there. Now a lot of those doctors, we're standing there talking about the use of, you know, available treatments, hydroxychloroquine, things like that. They were saying, look, we should be allowed to use these tools. That was a part of it. There was also doctors discussing how lockdowns really, we kept sort of hearing this idea that, you know, the cure can't be worse than the disease or the issue itself. What part of, you know, what perspective were you supposed to bring

to that front-line doctor's symposium. You know, I brought my perspective, really. And Simone is, one of the cool things about Simone is she doesn't try and sort of, she kind of tries to pick the right people and she's very good at that in fact. And so my perspective was, and again, this was kind of part of my awakening, if you will. So from my perspective, I actually, I didn't know much about hydroxychloroquine as a potential treatment for COVID-19 in the outpatient setting. But what I did know was that people were just defiantly against it. I mean, really, really, really against it and against doctors using it.

And that didn't make sense. because first of all, you know, there, it was not, it wasn't sort of factually established. This was new, right? And, you know, early research can often point in different directions. And there were doctors who were saying that, well, I use this drug in my patients and they do well. They seem to be doing a lot better than these other patients that, you know, that, that are getting COVID. in other areas. And so, like, that means something. I mean, how can you dismiss the doctors? You might not agree with it. But to dismiss it, that doesn't make any sense.

Well, I mean, it's anecdotal from my perspective, but what I wasn't hearing is I tried hydroxychloroquine that killed my patient. Like, I've yet to see that statement made by any physician in the news. But I would think if you had a truly a product that was really bad or shouldn't be used, someone would come on the television and say, look, I tried hydroxychloroquine and just started killing my patients. Never saw that side of it. We only just heard, you know, this statement that it wasn't, you know, a good product. But we didn't see the sort of proof of that. All we heard was the opposite. At least that's all I was hearing was I'm having a lot of success. So but I'll add that it. It was irrational. Yeah. The opposition wasn't rational. So, because, you know, see, their doctors disagree about

medications all the time. But doctors, when they disagree what they normally do, they don't normally go out and try and take other doctors licenses and call them bad doctors and try to get them to get fired when they use a different treatment than them. So that was very weird for me to see the response and that was not rational. What was rational was some doctors are reporting a positive experience. Let's find out more and heaven help us. Don't stop them from doing what they're they think is working, that totally doesn't make sense, but that's actually what was happening. And that was the perspective that I brought. It had a massive response, both went viral almost immediately, but the attack upon the ideas

shared there by the mainstream and shutting it down and censorship. Did you expect that that would be the response? No, no. I actually remember, I think it was, I got back from D.C. and then the next morning, Brianna said, oh, my friends are contacting me on Facebook and asking if we're okay. Why are they doing that? And then we found out that it was like on the news. And one of the people in there was Joseph Lattapo, a physician at UCLA. And so I was like, oh. So that was a surprise. And things changed after that. How did they change? And we're going back to work, you know,

It is. I think it's got to be shocking the moment you become a part of a headline or part of a story. It was from many of my colleagues, oh, you've stepped out of line and, you know, I need to distance myself from you. I was scheduled to give a talk to some residents, some UCLA medical residents. I was canceled from the talk. I was, you know, I was scheduled to teach in a class and I was removed from the class and I'm sure. It had to do with my opinions, my perspective. I did get called. I did have meetings with my boss, my division chief, and where she expressed concerns from, say, the dean and other leadership

and donors that had called UCLA to ask what was happening at UCLA. And that sort of continued. But it also made it even more, even clearer, that what I was doing was the right thing. Because it's no one saying, well, you know, Joe, that was a good point about doctors having experience on how do you dismiss that. Or Joe, no, I disagree with, you know,

this trial showed this. It was very little of that. It was almost, almost all of it was you stepped out of line. And then you know you're doing the right thing because they don't care about the substance. I mean, I certainly would have preferred to have friendly relationships with coffee. colleagues. But in all of this, UCLA never fired you. Like you were still continuing. I mean,

tensions around the workplace, but there are people that lost their jobs through this. Sadly. But you were able to sort of maintain and keep doing work that you cared about. Honestly, it's truly only because I was doing as well as I was doing. Because my clinical trials, I had multiple grants. My clinical trials were going well. They had no substantive. basis upon which to fire me. I mean, they did try and make life more difficult and sort of ostracize me and isolate me. And I even, there were colleagues, I mean, there were colleagues that decided that they couldn't work with me anymore who were on my research team and decided that because I, you know,

wrote so-and-so in an article that they couldn't work. work with me anymore, which made things more complicated sometimes to complete the research. How did you make this contact with Governor DeSantis? Did he reach out to you or did you reach out to him? You're a policy person. Was it something that you instigated? I guess you could say I instigated it with my writing and my refusal to shut up, you know. So we had just moved because, you know, so many people had to change their lines. because of the lockdowns. As you know, many people left California.

You guys left California because just with the way things were, we needed the backyard for the boys. And we moved in and we were like unpacking. I got an email from the Ron DeSantis' chief of staff, Adrian Lucas. And just saying, hey, you know, we want to talk. And so I had no idea what it was. about. So here I am. I'm wearing shorts, no shirt at home. I'm walking outside. I get the call from Adrian checking the mailbox, you know, and he's like, Joe, well, we're looking for a new Surgeon General.

And I know that Scott Rifties was like his term was ending. And I, you know, I know you're in California. And, you know, I know you're, you're, you're, you're doing well at UCLA. And, you know, you're not going to, you're not going to want to leave this. there, but we thought we tried, just give you a call and see. And I'm like, no, no, let me just check with my wife, you know, and I'll give back to you. So, you know, Brianna shows up later and she walks in the kitchen and I was like, oh, honey, I got this call today from Ron DeSantis's office and I still see her. She's standing in the kitchen like, she's got her back to me, she's putting something away. And she just snaps around and she's like, really?

And I was like, yeah, yeah, honey. And I was like, and they want me to be their new surgeon general. And she just, she says, you should do it. And I was like, oh, I didn't think you would say that. And it's just started from there. Fascinating. So it sounds like she's probably then watching Ronda Santis, as many of us are, through this thing. I mean, I would say the same thing would have happened in my household, too.

Ron DeSantis called. It would be like, what? Oh, my God, about what? You know, so, and what an amazing, I mean, did it, how did that sink in? I mean, to be, you know, doing the work that you're doing and then get offered this role in, as I sort of started out saying, in a state that has absolutely become really the science experiment of the world. Ron DeSantis is running an experiment against literally the public policy of the entire world, except for maybe on accident some African nations that just can't afford to run the policy, or maybe Sweden that sort of is pushing back a little bit in its own ways.

But Ron DeSantis had put Florida on the map, was under attack by our own government, the federal government saying you're going to get people killed, you're going to get, you know. So when that call comes to you, what is the first thought on your mind? Like, why me? Or did it make sense? It was surreal.

I mean, it was like, it was beyond anything I could imagine. I'm totally beyond anything I can imagine. And I think I was mostly in a state of sort of astonishment about the whole thing. At the same time, I felt, I think that there was sort of the breeze of providence, if you will. Like I think, and it grew stronger as kind of the pieces that needed to fall into place

came together for us to commit to the decision and make the move. And what I mean by that, it almost was sort of a magical time where things were changing, but change felt like the right direction to go. And so we went because that's what felt like, that's what felt like should be happening. And at that point, Ron DeSantis, you know, I would say April 2020 is beginning to get out of the lockdowns. I mean, he sort of makes news by saying,

we obviously got to be thinking about what the next steps are for the state of Florida. I know the president has been talking about, you know, the, quote, reopening of the country, some other governors in the Northeast out west. It's prudent to start thinking about and planning for people getting back to work and getting society functioning in a more healthy way. And it was amazing because Donald Trump was saying he wanted to do that, right? You know, you had a president saying he wanted to do that.

I would love to have the country opened up and just raring to go by Easter. But Ron, it's like, I'm not going to wait for. Fauci, I'm not going to, I'm doing this thing. And so he moves. By September, he's fully open. He starts passing, you know, laws basically saying you can't take people's way, jobs away in Florida. I was really making, going against everything the federal government is doing, in a, where jobs are taken away by the federal government, government employees, they're now putting pressures on airlines, all these things. And he say, not in this state. And then even goes as far as to say, um, in his state, you're not.

even allowed to fine. Even though there's counties that are going against the state, I'm even allowed you to put fines on people that are breaking your mask rules or whatever it is. All outstanding fines and penalties that have been applied against individuals are suspended. I think we need to get away from trying to penalize people for social distancing. I mean, really, really outrageous decisions. So you get in there, what is it that how is Ron DeSantis wired that I mean first of all you say your predecessor was he was he driving that to did he have a similar perspective no no Dr. Riftke's I didn't have the pleasure of meeting him in person I mean he's obviously very intelligent guy

he's a pediatric endocrinologist I believe is his specialty and he had just kind of the mainstream from everything I've seen he had the mainstream perspective for on everything related to the pandemic, which is incorrect and not database. So Ron has been moving outside of the perspective of his own Surgeon General at this time. That's incredible, really. I mean, because, you know, I just recently interviewed Senator Ron Johnson, who's found himself in the millis. And I had a lot of questions about what he saw in Donald Trump.

I think in Donald Trump, we saw someone that seems. like a Ron DeSantis that wants to open up, yet he's being held back by the, you know, the Debra Birx and Tony Fauci and Redfield. There just seem to be this conflict inside of the White House that kept him from moving the directions he was telling the public. Ron doesn't care. Ron doesn't seem to care that his own staff is against him. He's moving anyway.

It's hard to imagine how a person has confidence to do that. a doctor, the medical establishment is telling you people are going to get killed. Is it, because I mean, is he understands science more than we realize? Well, yes, that's part of it. If you don't feel you have a good handle of the science, it can be hard for people to be able to move in a different direction with confidence. So I think that that is part of it. And I wasn't here during that early time, but, you know, people have told me that they'd find

the Santas in the office to midnight reading papers, you know, reading science, reading preprints. So, and he's a smart guy. So I think that helped him a lot, like being comfortable with the, with the science. He's not a politician that's just reading like the front page or just like just speed reading. He is actually absorbing and able to absorb. Oh yeah. Yeah, you can never do what he did with if you, if you didn't read the papers. Because, you know, for one of the One thing he would cite, he would, you know, make statements that basically were a reflection of the scientific literature. He's not taking weak positions.

And you can't do that if you haven't. You can't pull that out of thin air. I mean, you have to have that. That has to be grounded in something. And for him, it was part of the grounding was actually the data. The other part was his close connection with the importance of liberty. And the appreciation that some people have a completely different agenda. I mean, he is very clear on that.

So, and he sees that for what it is because so often it hides, right? Yeah. It's hiding behind QR codes for vaccine status that are made to make your life more convenient. You know, it hides behind protecting the vulnerable. So, you know, your, you know, three-year-old needs to wear a, stupid mask all day, you know, during preschool. It's so important for you to take these vaccines that even if losing your job and not being able to feed your family or having to relocate, completely turn your life upside down,

it's more important that you, you know, if it's a duty for all, it hides behind, behind things like that. But the truth is that people that push that, they don't care about hurting people. people. It's not their, they care about their agenda. And DeSantis is, I mean, he has very clear, he's able to tease that out very easily. Did he have an insider? Was there a Scott Atlas or a someone since it wasn't you at that time? Did he have someone that was filtering information tumor? Was he doing that research himself? I mean, I don't know exactly in terms of filtering, but he did work closely with Dr. J. Baddakaria and Dr. Martin Koldorf.

So I know he certainly discussed ideas with them. You know, what was discussed as part of his where he wanted to go and what he wanted from you? Believe it or not, very little. It just so happens that we are pretty much like totally, we're just, we're totally in line with COVID stuff. You know, we were all, we just happened to be completely on the same page. But he's, I mean, we talk about ideas. there's never been anything prescriptive. So then what's the first policy decision that you were really directly involved in?

Stopping the silly masks in schools as a health order for the for children in actually the first one was ending the healthy quarantines. That was the first one. Okay. So people quarantining that were not sick? Oh, this nonsense. Yeah. I mean, sending kids that are healthy home. Why is that a stupid policy? I think this is a trick question, right? So, I mean, it's just so absurd, right?

You know, sending people who are healthy and are children and need school home because they were close to someone or might have been in the same room with someone for 15 minutes who had a condition that basically is close to harmless to that individual and close to harmless to his or her contacts. It's just, and is profoundly disruptive to families. And in fact, that's what studies showed. And, you know, and the kids, you know, they even are positive half the time, they don't have any symptoms. I'm just staying at home and life at home. It's just so profoundly stupid.

So it was good to be able to X that out. And now, I mean, when you see these CDC guidelines just got changed, there really hasn't been an apology, not like our bad, because nothing's changed. We still have, I'm still see the CDC saying 80-something percent of us are living in a medium to high transmission, you know, space for whatever that means. So it's not like the virus has disappeared. They basically are going back to what you were writing about from the very beginning, yet people like yourself and other scientists haven't been exonerated,

haven't said, sorry to all of you we censored, sorry that we attacked you at your positions and your jobs, threaten your jobs, sorry we got it wrong. As it turns out, those folks were right, we were wrong. There's none of that going on, just a policy change to what you were trying to get to happen from the beginning. Yeah, they're spin doctors. They, yes, that's absolutely, that's the case.

They are not taking responsibility. They are really, frankly, more of a political institution in terms of their communication rather than an institution that cares about integrity. And frankly, it's not over, I don't think, because I think with these COVID-19 shots, there's going to be, you know, the evidence for, problems with safety is increasing. I mean, there are multiple issues. I mean, there have been

studies that have been published about sperm counts, about sperm motility, about, you know, menstrual cycles changes. There have been studies that have shown that exposure to the vaccines is associated with increased risk, for example, of shingles, which is a reactivation, essentially of the virus that causes chickenpox and a number of other conditions. So, you know, the bad news is sort of, it just keeps kind of getting ignored. But I believe that the bad news will get to a point where it can't be ignored, particularly, for example, with myocarditis, both clinical and subclinical, in adolescent boys. And they're going to try and do the same thing.

They're like, there's no question. They're going to not take any responsibility. you know they'll make up some some BS storyline for why what they did before was right when it wasn't and many of us said that and I hope that that people don't don't fall for it so you and governor desantis get together and decide to have a policy where you are going to basically stand against the recommendation of childhood COVID vaccines in Florida. So our Department of Health has been very clear. The risks outweigh the benefits and we recommend against.

That's not the same as banning it. I mean, people can access it if they want to. The state of Florida has had the recommendation from five and up for a while. We are the first state to do that. And now from the six month to five, the state's recommendation holds. It's a recommendation against doing it. That's different than saying you can't.

You are free to choose. That's not an issue. Up until that point, it seemed to me that Governor DeSantis had made decisions like, you know, no business here is going to be allowed to force you to get that vaccine. I believe in free choice. That makes a lot of sense. This may be one of, probably, I would say, the strongest statement against a vaccine ever made by government officials to say,

We are officially not recommending this. And how did you come to that decision? I mean, it was uncomfortable to come to that decision. Those who sort of choose to kind of look at the environment and the intellectual environment from a physician of neutrality, there's a, and I myself was part of this problem. There's a, there's a insidious indoctrination related to vaccines. And I can say that completely truthfully because, I was part of that indoctrination.

I received my training in how they were only good. And, you know, basically side effects are pretty much always rare. And they're something that doctors should always be behind. I got that training in medical school. And, you know, sort of reinforced in residency and in, you know, teaching seminars. And that creates, you know, there's a belief system that is, is, that is an entity. Sure, there's data for some vaccines about kind of risk and benefits that is, you know,

looks like good data. But that, that belief system is actually, it's a very separate thing from scientific data. It is, it is a belief system. It is clearly kind of crazy, if not sinister, to be recommending a new product to children when the data are completely unclear in terms of benefits versus risk. It's pretty routine to learn something years later about some off-target effect of Medicaid. That's just how it is.

We don't know everything. So you take an extraordinarily low-risk group and you recommend something that is new, that is not well understood and is unclear whether they'll benefit from. And Wayne's in terms of any efficacy it has on this particular advice, that's just insane. So on the merits, it was actually an easy decision to come to. And it felt good. Yeah. It felt good. And, you know, it's, it's, is Norway or Denmark issued a recommendation where, you know,

basically they, they're ending the first shot for kids like this month or last month. And in like September, they're going to end the second shot for kids. They're done with it. You know, so now, you know, some other people are making the same decision. It is the rational decision. It's definitely the right decision to make in this uncertainty that we're in. And when people make statements like what we've made, what he's made, it actually creates space, almost space for dialogue, space and room for other people who might not have felt like they could quite, you know, be more outspoken to be more outspoken. So that's the other really good thing about decisions, you know, about what we did in making that announcement.

You are somebody that, you know, believed in the vaccine program. But after going through COVID, how has it shifted your perspective? And do you think it's fair for medicine and science to sort of be forced to revisit the safety and efficacy around other vaccines, given what we've just seen how this one was produced and managed? Yeah, I mean, you know, the pharmaceutical companies, you know, they, I had no idea how corrupt these companies were before the pandemic. I mean, you'd heard stuff, I think, Vioxx and other controversies where these companies basically didn't disclose findings.

But this whole pandemic has prompted me to just look more closely. And basically, you know, there's a string, a history. of these pharmaceutical companies clearly, I mean, it is so clear to me now that they have one God that God is money and profit and it is not health. Absolutely, it's not health. And they make their decisions from the most base and disgusting place that any entity could make its decisions. So how can you trust organizations like that? But you can't trust them. You can't trust them. You got to regulate them. You need to double check, triple check, quadruple check what they're doing, and you need to have boundaries around them. So I have less confidence in really sort of really

everything that they're involved in now. I mean, even just strictly speaking about data, there's a good paper that was published in the New England Journal of Medicine that showed, that looked at antidepressants, and it looked at the studies that had been published related to the effectiveness of antidepressants versus all of the studies that had been done. So all of the studies are at the FDA, but only a fraction of them make it out into the public.

And you look, and this study that was published in New England Journal of Medicine, I mean, it clearly shows that, you know, if this is how good the drugs were, that were based on the published data, obviously how good they are is based on all the data. This is actually how good they are. And that's what this study in the New England Journal of Medicine shows. So, you know, why didn't these other studies that, say, didn't show a benefit or show to harm get published?

So you're saying we're only seeing through the FDA the best, brightest shining, few studies that looked like it had a benefit. But there's a whole mass of studies that were showing negative effects or no effect whatsoever. And that's a fact. And the public never sees that. The public never sees it. So if a company can do that, there are two things you should immediately recognize. One of them is that their objective is not helped.

Their objective is so clearly profit, right? You're only going to publish the studies that show something favorable with your drug and the rest of the data stays in the drawer of your desk. That's the first one. The second thing is you should ask yourself, well, what else are they capable of doing? I'm new to this. I mean, obviously, this has been going on for a long time. But I'm just sort of newly recognizing it thanks to the pandemic.

I think their similar phenomenon, frankly, has happened with, you know, this ridiculous and, again, evil in terms of its intent. What do you even call it? Critical race theory, right? You know, just stuff that, frankly, may call it a different name, whatever, but in terms of the message and what's trying to, what has the curriculum is trying to communicate to children, I mean, it's the same load of complete trash, you know, complete poison for their minds. So these things were happening and parents only kind of got wind of it more because of the pandemic. First of all, I think no questions should be off the table. if there are questions, they should be explored and they should be answered. Who doesn't want those questions answered?

Well, folks who are indoctrinated and believing that there should only be one answer or there can only be one answer and therefore there should only be one answer, and people who want to make money. And that's the drug company. And the former group is doing the bending of the latter group, and some of them don't even know it. But that's what happens when you get indoctrinated with beliefs, And you're doing stuff that ultimately, if you looked at it from a place of neutrality,

it's not even consistent with your beliefs. How much thought have you had about what would need to be changed at the CDC, the NIH, Health and Human Services? Are those thoughts that are going on in your mind? They do. They do. I do think you need a purge of some of the, and maybe a lot, of the individual, individuals, particularly in leadership positions, who think that it's more important to have

a specific message than to be aligned with data. And even at lower levels, I think it's, I think, you know, I would even sort of pitch it as, you know, we can leave on friendly terms. You know, this is the new mission. If you're not on board with this mission, then, you know, we'll find a way, you know, it's You ought not to be part of our organization. And we've got nothing against you, but this is what we're doing now. And I think that's important, and I hope that happens, and I hope it happens soon.

But it does seem that a president that came in and said, new head of Health and Human Services, new, you know, whether it's, you know, Joseph Lattapo, or, you know, head of NIH, let's put in Dr. Robert Malone or Peter McCullough or Paul Merrick, you know, like all of these different great voices published, like top of the line, published scientists like yourself, what would happen? I mean, talk about a renaissance. I mean, am I, do you think it's crazy to think we could see putting the right people in positions that we could change the stranglehold by pharma on the medical decisions in our government

that the right players and certainly the right president making those choices could have a giant effect totally it's definitely possible and you know and you're right but you have to pick the right people to do it and i think you know it is actually one of the things that i talk about in my book is how people become the right people. You really know when you have the right people, when there's a crisis and they perform in a way that has integrity and, you know, reason and, you know, is also emotionally intelligent. It's not just intelligence up here, right? It's heart intelligence, emotional intelligence, intelligence about people and how people feel

and react and respond. And then you've got leaders that, you know, that have the best chance of guiding through tremendous forces in opposition. We need healthier people in government. Yeah. Speaking of when all this started, we had Donald Trump as president of the United States, who did not seem to be attached to status quo in any way. I mean, at least from the outside perspective, I call him the rogue gunslinger, you know what I mean, like calls it like he sees it.

You know, did you ever have the opportunity to meet him? I did. Yeah, actually. Scott Atlas, Dr. Scott Atlas invited me and, you know, Dr. J. Bataichariot, Martin Koldorf, and Cody Meisner, who's an infectious disease doctor, he was at Tufts. And now I think he's working with federal government. Scott Atlas was sort of instrumental in putting together many of those names that led to the Great Barrington Declaration, which was this sort of declaration that the lockdowns were not the right approach. We should be using a more controlled approach, which is let's protect those that are in the high-risk categories

while allowing freedom for the others and allow this thing to run its course. So Scott Atlas reaches out to you. Is there anything that in that meeting that you wanted to achieve with Donald Trump? We did tell him basically that he had the right idea. You know, lockdown's harmful. Kids need to be in school. Yes, you are correct. The treatment is worse than the disease, particularly for children.

And the media was not, you know, they clearly were, you know, had a goal that differed from his and was a dishonest goal. So we communicated those things. Was there anyone in there to sort of represent the opposition that were really the voices of his team like Tony Fauci was Fauci in that meeting? No. And in fact, I think in Dr. Scott Atlas's book, he describes how I think Deborah Verk's tried to torpedo the meeting. And then I think maybe she intentionally was not even in town or some things when her efforts to torpedo the meeting. meeting failed. It was essentially almost canceled. I think it might have actually been canceled at the last minute. And, you know, so they weren't, they weren't there. And, you know, they both. I mean,

Dr. Fouch, people don't even realize that guy, he's got no training to the best mine knowledge in epidemiology. He has, like, no training at all. I'm not saying, you know, you don't have to be one, but you don't have to be an epidemiologist, but he has no training in that. He has no training and health policy. Dr. Berks, I'm not sure how much training she has in any of these topics. Public policy, health policy, epidemiology. I don't know that she has any.

You know, you read Dr. Atlas's book. They don't even, they weren't even keeping up with scientific literature. You know, he would introduce studies and talk about findings, and they looked like they were hearing, you know, Greek for the first time. Right.

So these are the individuals that were the trusted individuals. I mean, that's a shame. I mean, Townie Fauci, you know, I'm still shocked. He is, you know, cover of Time magazine that, you know, always found it shocking that he would say America got hit harder than every other nation in the world. And I'm thinking, while you were in charge, we have the best hospitals in the world, best doctors in the world.

And you were running the policies. If we failed, it's because of your policies, not because of the talent. we had, you know, sort of implementing those policies. When you look at Fauci, one of the things that headlines are saying is that Dr. Latipo is the, you know, anti-Toni Fauci, like, you know, the other face of the coin or something. What do you think about that? Moniker. I have found it amusing. I think it's good.

I'm glad that people are making a distinction that they do. You don't have to adhere to the Fauci model of pandemic living. So I found it entertaining. If you found yourself king for a day, you find yourself in a position in the federal government. Maybe you've been made head of NIH or you're the next Tony Fauci. You're literally the anti-Fouci. No, I'm never the next Tony Fauci, man. Well, my question is this.

There should have been deeper conversations. Scott Atlas points to it. Senator Ron Johnson said the same thing. And he asked Tony Fauci, are you taking the account the effects and the damages that these policies are going to have on lives, on alcoholism, on drug use, on suicides, all going through the Atlas in his book, really one of the more powerful parts of his book is the pain he feels as he's getting these emails of suicide because the lockdowns are affecting people's children so much.

And he's trying to bring it forward. Berks doesn't want to hear it. Fauci doesn't want to hear it. the government, should the government, I always said, why is Donald Trump not putting Fauci and Atlas both in front of the camera saying, you guys have it out and let the public hear what I'm hearing from the two of you, because you could be more diametrically opposed, but the people need to hear that there's two signs to this. Could a government be that transparent? Could it work to have brought in the Great Barrington Declaration writers? You know, you're a part of that

Martin Koldorf and, you know, J. Badacharya, Sinatra Gupta, and... Deborah Birx and Tony Fauci and have it out in front of the public. Would that work? I think a government can do that if it's fearless. I think it is a good idea. I mean, I think that it also would engender trust because you're not afraid of people disagreeing. You're not afraid of letting people think for themselves

and make their own decisions. But I think that's a great idea. We've actually discussed potentially doing something like that at different times. Florida and having people with different different perspectives share them. But no, I think, you know, I think that's, that's, it's a, it would have been great to see that. And I haven't figured it all out, but government tends not to work like that.

So we have to figure out a way to make it work like that. We could, yeah, right, change the leaders. Do you ever get concerned about what you're doing, the pressure? of what is really taking place? I mean, the whole world really is watching. You know, I talk about it a bit in the book, but, you know, I've described a couple of times how just, for example, both trauma

and just even the daily experience of stress and of life has effects on all of us, every single one of us walking on this earth, and I had the advantage of working with someone that helped me get rid of all of that and be able to, to, on terms of daily stress, be able to, for example, I do some, like, isometric, concentric exercises every day that are specifically for the purpose of increasing the flow of chi and getting rid of daily stress that we all accumulate every day. So I'm even stronger now

than I was when I first started this position and clearer now and able to stay within myself now even more despite criticism and what people throw at me. And so that's my experience. This is your new book. It's just coming out, Transcend Fear. Now, when I heard, you know, Dr. Joseph Lattapo is writing a book. I'm assuming it's like how to stop the COVID crisis or down with masks. I was, you know, sort of birth of all, right?

Children first. But it isn't. You decided to call it trans. send fear. It's more of an emotional study, I would say, or something. And, you know, though there's so many interesting anecdotal stories about your experience and your run, why did you decide to make them more about what you're talking about, which is sort of, can I say, inner self-confidence, inner guidance, getting away from fear? Why did that become the focus of this book? I think because that's how I came to be.

in the position I am now as Florida Surgeon General. And that, you know, the opposite side of that is why people were so wrapped up in their bull fill in the blank that they either denied data, went along with ideas that their intuitive self knew or wrong, especially with the things that we did with kids, or decided that it was too hard to stand up or to say something different. those are the pieces that are the most important for our ability to respond in a healthy way to the next crisis. We already have monkeypox here. People are already sort of kind of behaving in ways that are irrational in terms of policymaking. For example, I appreciate the

ingenuity of the development of this vaccine by geneal. or genius or however it's pronounced, but people should also recognize at the same time that there's actually very little known about this particular vaccine in terms of both its effectiveness for monkeypox. I mean, there's like one study from the 1980s and it's not even a randomized clinical trial and about its safety. I mean, there's very little known. So it's sort of irrational to be pushing it in a way that doesn't acknowledge.

that and isn't better primed to collect data on those things. When you're not self-aware, you know, you're ready to take a ride, you know, whether it's the fear lockdown train from COVID or, you know, whatever is going to happen next. And but when people have more, you know, emotional intelligence and, you know, and sort of intellectual clarity and are carrying around less baggage and less generational stuff, which we actually carry around. It's part of our beings. When you're carrying around less that, you have more clarity, you are more able to see things to what they are. When you do have that, you have more intelligence. You're able to appreciate more things. And you're definitely able to lead better

and make better decisions. And my hope is that I can help people who are interested, make that kind of personal transition. On that note, personal strength, clearing baggage, all these things that you're talking about, there's probably one of the most controversial topics outside of vaccinations. I didn't think there would be one that could sort of equal where that is at, which you found yourself in the middle of. We were in a very interesting time now discussing human sexuality, gender identification issues. You and, you know, Governor DeSantis have really sort of been at the forefront of policies that are being attacked with this conversation about transgender surgeries, giving children educations on the idea of transgender potentials, even giving drugs to children to stop, you know, to halt their puberty.

We are talking about school systems saying gender doesn't exist anymore. Just because of the physical body you have doesn't mean that's how you need to identify. How does that play into? What do you think about the psychology of that and the health of our children? Well, you know, right. So as you said, that period of time is confusing. What is disappointing is how grown-ups are. are not being more grown up in terms of clarity about that period of time and in terms of,

you know, what it means to be a human being. So the notion that during an extremely confusing period of time for everyone and the fact that individuals who have expressed sentiments of gender dysphoria are often have a, have a, you know, know, a history of trauma, often sexual trauma, or they're just gay, big deal, right? And it turns out they're gay. The notion that the answer to that is to block their hormonal function when, you know, those hormones in puberty interact with brain development in ways we don't understand and other systems in the body, or provide surgeries that remove their time.

testicles and penis or remove their, you know, their uterus. The notion that that's where you go is, I mean, you're just completely disconnected from reality, from being a being, from what sort of matters for happiness. So that part has been really the most disappointing. These organizations like the American Academy of Pediatrics claims that it's beneficial. Actually, none of the data say that conclusively at all. Like there's not been a single randomized controlled trial. There's almost been no prospective work.

I mean, none of the data show that. And why would it? When individuals are in that stage of life and so many of them have undelt trauma and the effects of that trauma sitting there with them, like as they're making these decisions, you're not going to fix. I mean, you can change all the organs you want. You'll never address these other problems unless you address these other problems. unless you address these other problems. Right. I mean, it's quite shocking how quickly this train is getting ahead of steam

in the influence of our children. But I saw a meme that was showing a young girl and saying, you know, you're beautiful just as you are, honey, unless you're transgender. In that case, you need plastic surgery. And just thinking, are we living in a time now where we no longer say you are beautiful, beautiful just as you are.

People often think that the gender dysphoria position is like complicated in heart. It's actually very easy. It's easy because it's kids. I mean, it's essentially research right now. It's experimental right now. It just kills me again that people walk around, doctors even, saying that, oh, we know this is beneficial.

That's a lie. Like maybe we'll find out that's the case. I doubt it because of the this other stuff that is not addressed by surgeries and is not addressed by hormone therapy. And results are showing that suicide rates are not dropping out this community after transitioning into things. So if it was such a great fix,

where's the happy, shiny people afterwards? Yeah, that's not the case. And if it's not, if it's not the case, well, does that meet professional standards to provide that therapy to an individual who is not old enough to provide informed consent? And that's an easy one. I mean, the answer is very obviously no.

Even in Sweden that was providing these surgeries and, you know, hormone blockers, they earlier this year released their sort of equivalent of NIH, released a new guidance that explicitly states the hormone therapy, the puberty blockers are no longer going to prove provided to adolescence as a part of care. They can only be provided as part of a research protocol. And if you're going to do it, which is even questionable, that's the way to do it. But it is not standard of care. It's just a total lie.

And that's what they do, unfortunately. You find yourself in a leadership position right now in a world that is as confusing as, I think, anything we could have ever imagined. Many people think we're slipping into some dystopian science fiction space, tracking systems, vaccine passports. children with no gender identity, being told they shouldn't have an identity yet. All of this does, you could be reading out of an Orwellian novel or Brave New World, or you can see it as biblical, biblical, you know, you know. End of times. End of times scenarios.

Are you concerned? Or are you hopeful? I'm definitely concerned. I am not so hopeful as I am confident. I feel that this story has a happy ending. And if it's the end of times, it will be the end of bad times in terms of the crazies trying to, you know, like ruin people's lives and stuff. So concerned, yes, but confident that the outcome is going to be a good one.

Well, you certainly radiate that message. It's really beautiful to watch the work that you're doing in many ways around the the country and around the nation. We look to Florida as a mecca as in some ways it appears to those of us that see things this way, the liberty aspects, the freedom, the confidence. You're radiating that. And I want to thank you for taking the time to sort of share your thoughts on that with us. Oh, Adela, the pleasure is mine. I was so wonderful to meet you in person. I can thank you, of course, for all the work that you do and your, you know, your consistency with pursuing truth. So thank you for that.

I think we're all here for a reason. I look forward to seeing how your journey continues. I think so. All right. Thank you. Okay. Well, I definitely want to, again, thank Dr. Joseph Latipo for that incredibly open and honest interview, all of the team, all of your team in Florida that helped put that together.

And I really want to just say, this book is not going to. be the experience you think it is. This is not just about the politics. It really is a revealing look into someone who I believe may very well be one of our leaders as we move into that new hope, a new hope for science and medicine. There's others like him, but he's the one moving on this policy direction. Can you imagine that thoughtfulness in charge of our public health decisions in the United States of America? Perhaps it's a prayer or a dream, but if we want to understand this man a little bit more. This is about him growing up in Nigeria and then the personal childhood traumas that he had to overcome to develop the confidence that you now see. This is more than just a

story about his politics. It's really a personal journey. I love stories like this because it helps us understand to see ourselves in how we're approaching our own lives. It's a really brilliant read. You can find it at Amazon. I'll go to Amazon or Barnes & Noble, all those places. You find a book. I just, I hope you feel it. I mean, I'm filled with such hope right now with all of the changes that we're seeing. It's, you know, at the same time, it's what we've been saying, right? It's very scary. There's a lot of darkness on the horizon.

And even those things we trust, our government, like the fractures and it feels like it's crumbling. But we have to remember that this is all a part of moving in a new direction. We've got to shed that old skin and get to what's true. true and what's right. Truth is so important and recognizing the fallibility. We've got what is so scary of the things that are going wrong in California. Victory is there, of course, but in these places where they are trying to make the government, the arbiter of truth, the government, the arbiter of medical decisions for your body, the arbiter of, you know, conversations between doctors, you know, to centralize thought and conduct as though we are living in the brave new world or in 19,

1984 and this idea that the government is best and knows everything, that has never been the truth. Our founding fathers told us that is never going to be the truth. If you start hearing that, that should be the red flag. If the news you are listening to is telling you that the government is our answer, then that actually defies the very founding fathers of this government, at least in the United States of America. To end this, I want to point to a court case. This was a court case that happened up in Ontario, Canada recently. And it was your typical divorce case, you know, one of the parents wanted the child vaccinated.

The other one was like, no, I'm not down with it. I think it's dangerous. And a lot of times this rarely goes in the favor of the parent that just wants to avoid, you know, a bad COVID vaccine or whatever it is. But I want to sort of to look back at this show that we've done today about the politics that are shifting, politics that are unraveling, the truth that is coming out, the idea that the FBI is interfering with our own elections, and, you know, Florida, this beacon of light and hope, and a grand look at our government and our responsibility, our judicial systems. It's so wrapped up beautifully in this decision by this judge up in Ontario, Canada. Let me read to you. This is Alex Pazerat,

the Ontario Superior Court Justice. Look at what he says in his final decision in this case between these two parents. He says, why should we be so reluctant to take judicial notice that the government is always right? B, for decades,

the government assured us that taking indigenous children away and being willfully blind to their abuse was the right thing to do. We're still finding children's bodies. C. How about sterilizing Eskimo women?

Of course, during Canada these are issues that they've had. The same thing. The government knew best. D. Japanese and Chinese internment camps during World War II, The government told us it was an emergency and had to be done. Emergencies can be used by governments to justify a lot of things that later turn out to be wrong.

Gee, the list of grievous government mistakes and miscalculations is both endless and notorious. Catching and correcting those mistakes is one of the most important functions of an independent judiciary. And throughout history, the people who held government to account have always been regarded as heroes, not subversives. When our government severely pays out billions of dollars to apologize for unthinkable historic violations of human rights and security, how can we possibly presume that today's government experts are infallible?

And nobody who controls other people's lives, children's lives should be beyond scrutiny or impervious to review. Incredible statements, and this is how he finished that case. The mother has consistently made excellent decisions throughout the children's lives. Her current concerns about the vaccine are entirely understandable, given the credible warnings and commentary provided by reputable sources who are specifically acquainted with this issue. The father's motion is dismissed. The mothers shall have sole decision-making authority with respect to the issue of administering

COVID vaccines for the children, L.E.G and MDG. It's changing inside the courtrooms. It's changing inside the legislator inside of one of the most impressive states in our union in California. It's changing inside of our own government as we're recognizing that our own government agencies may be trying to affect our elections. We have good people rising up. I believe in government. I believe we can get back to a truthful and honest government. It's going to take a lot of work. And it's going to take a lot of work on us to do.

stay attentive to what is really going on, to truly start asking the hard questions of those that we're going to be electing in the future. And yes, we should scrutinize every voting machine and an approach towards voting that we have. We have got to get involved as a people. No longer can we trust that the government's going to just do it for us. No longer can we trust that because it was written in the New York Times or the Washington Post that it was true. No longer can we trust that on CNN or MSNBC that they're fact-checking their own work when they're making statements about Russia trying to take over our country. We aren't allowed that level of complacency any longer. We're not just the United States of America all around the world.

We have fallen prey to just a lackadaisical belief system that made our lives convenient. Instead, we now have to wake up every single day. We have to read every single label. We have to scrutinize everything we see in here. It may seem exhausting, but what else do you have to do? Do you want to be enslaved? Do you want to have your children controlled? Do you not care what they're being taught?

Do you think you have no say in the matter? Of course you do. That's why you're watching the high wire. And that's why we are fearlessly going out. to get the most important interviews of our time so that we know the truth, we know where to find it, and who we should be watching as they rise to help us change the world around us.

This is the high wire. I look forward to seeing you next week.