The Highwire with Del Bigtree - A SECOND OPINION

Episode Date: September 30, 2022

UK Doc: Stop Covid Shots; New Vaccine/Aluminum Asthma Link?; Ex-Sky News Chief’s New Film; Presenting ‘Safe & Effective: A Second Opinion’Guests: Aseem Malhotra, M.D., Mark Sharman#SafeandEffective #OracleFilms #NewsUncut #AseemMalhotraMDBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

Good morning, good afternoon, good evening, wherever you are out there in the world. It's time to step out onto the high wire. Man, have we been having a good time here on the high wire? I have to say our last few weeks have been some of the biggest shows we've done yet. A lot of you were freaked out about Alex Jones, but as it turns out, a brand new set of eyeballs started watching the highwire. And then I think last week with Dr. Paul Merrick is literally the biggest show of the year as he laid out the frauds and his, you know, he's a whistleblower, both on the, on the pandemic issue, but also vitamin C and the, the obstruction of a life-saving cure that could be stopping sepsis around the world.

And this week is, we're not even, we're just going to keep great training along because as you're recognizing, if you're new to watching the high wire, this is the place where the whistleblowers come to be able to tell their entire story. And we're going to do that today. We're also going to be featuring a brand. new documentary that I want you to help us help the world see. Censorship is real. They're trying to shut down truly great films when they're made. This film that we're going to present to you today is one of those. A brilliant film made by a brilliant television producer. I'm going to be talking to Mark Sharman later in the show that put the whole thing together. And then, you know, we've got the Jackson Record report coming up.

So much to report on. But first, I want to talk about, I would say this week. whistleblower. It's fairly new to the scene. Obviously, a prominent heart doctor in the UK. We saw him speaking out on GBN news back in October. Well, now he's written maybe two of the most important papers to be written about the COVID-19 vaccine, especially the mRNA vaccines. It's getting a lot of press. It's getting a lot of attention. In many ways, you could say he's going viral. He's on the news. He's doing conferences and talking about this. So this is just a taste of really the new star on the block when it comes to transparency and a passion for the scientific

method. I'm talking about Dr. Ashim Mulhatra. Take a look at this. I was one of the first people to have the COVID-19 vaccine. I helped out in a vaccine center. I was in Good Morning Britain, helping tackle vaccine hesitancy. I did not conceive of the possibility that a vaccine could cause any real harm at all. It wasn't even part of, it wasn't even anywhere in my brain. Over a few months, conversations with various people started to make me think a little bit differently. Somebody from a very prestigious British institution, cardiology department researcher, a whistleblower, if you like, contacted me to say that the researchers in this department had found inflammation from imaging studies around the coronary arteries.

And they had a meeting, and these researchers at the moment have decided they're not going to publish their findings because they are concerned about losing research money. from the drug industry. Knowing this information, which is very concerning, Stephen Gundry's paper in circulation, and also anecdotal evidence. I mean, I have a lot of interaction with the cardiology community across the UK.

And anecdotally, I've been getting told by colleagues that they are seeing younger and younger people coming in with heart attacks. We have 14,000 extra unexplained out of hospital cardiac arrests in this country alone. Israel data. No one wants to talk about. Israel data, 16 to 39 year olds,

they didn't have a very nine year olds, They did a very rigorous analysis, 25% increase in heart attacks and out of hospital cardiac arrests in 16 to 39 year olds, specifically associated with the vaccine, not associated with COVID. I was under the impression that the vaccine would prevent transmission. We obviously now know that's completely false. That isn't true. We don't even know if it was true at the beginning. We had data on hospitalizations and death, actually, per 100,000 vaccinated versus unvaccinated.

So we're able to separate it by age group. So you have to vaccinate 200. 30 people over the age of 80 to prevent one COVID death. 520 if you're 70 to 79, 1,300 if you're 60 to 69, 2,600 if you're 50 to 59. This was a number of very eminent scientists associated with the BMJ. And what they found in the original trials where everything is corrected is supposed to be the gold standard, the risk of serious adverse events that were reported in people in the vaccine group was significantly higher than the risk of people being hospitalized with COVID.

This was the original, this is Pfizer and Moderna trials combined. Now think about this for a second. It was these trials alone before we had any of the data that led to the approval and roll out of the vaccine, not just a rollout. Coercion, mandates, people being threatened with their jobs. Why, when we've got a serious adverse event rate, which is probably in the range of at least 1 in 800 to 1 in 1,000, from good quality data, why is it not being pulled when other vaccines, swine flu vaccine, 1976, was pulled, because it caused Guillain Barry syndrome in one in 100,000.

Rotavirus vaccine was pulled in 1999 because it caused a form of bowel obstruction in 10,000. We're talking of serious adverse events of 1 in 800. I think now it's high time that policymakers around the world put an end to the mandates. History will not be on their side and the public will not forgive them for it.

What we're dealing with now, with hindsight, is perhaps the greatest miscarriage of medical science we will witness in our lifetime. That was a brilliant discussion at an event held by the World Council for Health. I want to say that if you want to watch the entirety of that, obviously that link will be available with our show, but you can also go to the World Council for Health.org and check it out there. It is my honor and pleasure, though, to be joined now by Dr. Asim Malhotra.

Dr. Mahatra, thank you for taking the time. I know you're traveling, so appreciate you joining us today. I appreciate. I'm glad to speak to you today, Dale. All right. I want to just sort of set up. I don't want to put words in your mouth or anything, but if you were asked right now, are you a person that's pro-vaccine or anti-vaccine in general, how would you respond to that question? Very pro-vaccine, traditional vaccines. Dell, it's really important to understand. That was probably the main reason, certainly at the very beginning.

You know, I was one of the first to have the vaccine in January 2021. I was used, well, I wouldn't say used. I was asked to go in Good Morning Britain to help tackle vaccine hesitancy in February 2021 because I convinced a friend of mine who's a famous film director because she was getting information and wasn't sure that actually, you know, and this is still true in the history of medicine. And I think that there's an important context here. In the last decade, I've probably been one of the biggest critics,

certainly mainstream media in the UK, if not the world, on pharmaceutical industry, manipulations and deception. I even spoke in the European Parliament 2018, and I said that because of the system failures, which we'll talk about in a second, existing in terms of how research is disseminated through regulators to doctors and patients, honest doctors could no longer practice honest medicine. So that's my background, even before I went on Good Morning Britain, to understand rational concerns about why people would be potentially afraid of a new vaccine. And the reason I did that, Dell, which I mentioned in my talk, I did not conceive of the possibility at all that a vaccine can cause this sort of damage, this sort of, in many cases, horrific damage to people

and such a high prevalence. It wasn't even conceivable. And the reason I'm saying that and why that's important, even now, I know there are cardiologists, there are doctors, because a lot of patients come to me for a second opinion, who are not even acknowledging the possibility that a vaccine can cause harm to the heart. So in a way, that's where I started. But of course, over time, things changed. And one of the, I think, the turning points for me, not at the time, but in reflection a few months later,

is my father, who was a very prominent doctor in the UK. He was the Honorary Vice President of the British Medical Association, a retired general practitioner. He suffered a very shocking, unexplained sudden cardiac death in July of last year, 2021. And he was very fit guy,

healthy diet. I'd actually done some routine heart scans on him a few years earlier. I know that blood flow through his arteries were good. I know his lifestyle inside out. I'm also somebody that has been a pioneer, if you like, in changing the understanding about heart disease develops through my research and even working on research to show how we can potentially reverse heart. know this subject very, very well.

But his post-mortem findings did not make sense to me at all. He had two critical stenosis in his arteries. In other words, severe blockages in two of his arteries. And I couldn't explain it at the time. And then a few months later, and you played that clip from GB News I did last October, a couple of bits of the jigsaw started to now paint a picture which was looking more and more concerning and essentially suggesting at that time that the MRNA vaccines could be accelerating heart disease.

leading to potential heart attacks and sudden cardiac death. Now, since that time, when all of that emerged, I decided that I was going to critically now look at the data properly. I spent probably a total of nine months before I published these papers, you know, looking at the data, speaking to people, I don't just rely on my own critical analysis. I go to other independent experts, and I spoke to a very eminent scientists in Stanford and Oxford and Harvard, people who are involved in vaccine development, people who are immunologists, to investigative journalists,

to Pfizer whistleblowers contacted me, and I spoke to them. And when you put it all together, right now, as it stands, Dell, and I'm, you know, it's unequivocal. The evidence is overwhelming that the risk of serious harm is unprecedented, and it needs to be pulled. It needs to be suspended.

And one of the reasons I say we can do that now more safely without causing any excess potential harm from people not having the vaccine is what's circulating now, in terms of the current variant of COVID, the Omicron variant, is no more lethal than the flu. It's a bad cold or it's the flu. And that's good news. We should be happy.

We should be reassured about that. But what happens with the vaccine, these risk of harms, which are probably in the order of at least 1 in 800 of serious adverse events within the first couple of months. I suspect it's probably much higher than that. But in terms of definitive data we have, but 1 in 800.

That harm with the MRNA technology remains constant, but the risk of COVID is going down. So what that does is it flips the harm to benefit ratio more in terms of harm. So one of the things I had to do, which wasn't in, hadn't been part of the discussion so far, and I had to put that in the paper, is could we figure out from real world data what the absolute benefit of the vaccine is in preventing COVID death?

And we looked at UK data, and you've played that clip from my talk at the World Council for Health Press conference, is that during the Delta wave, which by the way, is much more lethal than the current strain. Last year, during the four-month hold wave, we looked at national data of vaccinated versus unvaccinated, look at COVID deaths per 100,000 population. And we were able to give an estimate, essentially,

which I still think is an exaggeration, because it's not corrected for what we call confounding factors, something called healthy user bias. Vaccinated people tend to be healthier. People who are more hesitant come from low socioeconomic backgrounds, therefore their risk is higher. But even when you don't correct to that, you'll have people in the unvaccinated category

that were so sick that they felt like they were in that immune suppressed group that probably shouldn't get the vaccine so you're taking unhealthy people and tracking their health records. But even under those circumstances. Yes, we've got DeltaWave over 80 you have to vaccinate 230 people to prevent one COVID death

70 to 80, 80, 80, 20. Now, what about Omicron? Now, I didn't put this in the paper because we only really had three months of data, but I thought, actually, let's be conservative here. If you look at Omicron data from the UK, and the population in the UK in many ways is quite similar to US population. So if you look at Omicron data for the first three months of this year, the heart group in the UK

did these calculations. And I put this in my talk. If you're over 80, you have to vaccinate 7,300 people over the age of 80 in the highest risk group to event one COVID death. Now, if the harm is in the range of about 1 in 800 at least to 1 in 1,000, and it has been replicated, Norway has been very good and transparent and robust looking at pharmacovigilance data. So doctors actually documenting where they felt the vaccine had caused a serious adverse event. That means a disability, hospitalization. So just because you use the term, pharmacovigilance, is that like the VARA data, the yellow card data in England where doctors are reporting when they believe they've seen an incident

or they're supposed to report that data? Yeah, they're not just supposed to support it, report on it. or regulators like the FDA, the MHRA in the UK, are supposed to be looking closely at this data. Right. And even before we got this, you know, I think the smoking gun for me was a paper published in vaccine, which is like one of the number one leading journals for vaccines in the world. And it was peer reviewed. And the authors were people like Robert Kaplan from Stanford as Peter Doshi, associate editor for the BMJ.

I spoke to the lead, the lead author at length, Joseph Freeman. They were able to access some of the original trial data that led to the approval. of the drug using FDA's website and Health Canada's website. This is where you have very robust data because it corrects for confounders. In the vaccine group, you were more likely to suffer a serious adverse event than you were to be hospitalized with COVID. Now, that's extraordinary. This is during the Wuhan strain, by the way,

a more lethal strain of the virus that was circulating. But it's replicated. And then, of course, since my interview in G.B. News, a couple of other things came up, which are really important bits of data. In the UK, have 14,000 out of hospital cardiac arrests that occurred in 2021 versus 2020. Israel meticulously, a publication published in Nature Reports, which is a very high-impact journal, their scientists looked at 16 to 39-year-olds in Israel and found a 25% increase

in cardiac arrests and heart attacks. And they said it's specifically associated with the vaccine, MRNA vaccines, but not associated with COVID. And that leads me to something else, Dell, that we need to discuss. Because, you know, when you look at the roots of all of this, why is there a bit of confusion? And the driving factor behind a lot of this is the legal entity

that is big powerful corporations, in this case, big farmer. They are profit-making businesses. They have a legal obligation to produce profit for their shareholders. They do not have any legal obligation to give you the best treatment. And historically, as you know, without naming any company, most of the top 10 pharmaceutical companies over the last couple of decades have been found guilty of committing serious fraud. You know, hiding data on harms on drugs, illegal marketing of drugs. You know, this is exactly what they've been doing for a long time and getting away with it because they end up making more profit than they do.

You know, they make more profit from the drug than they end up paying in terms of fines. So it's a cost of business for them. And, you know, and I don't think that say this lightly, it's a really important concept for people to understand. Because I've thought about this in a lot of depth over a long time. to understand what's going on in terms of the culture and their effect on institutions, on the regulator where they have a lot of financial control. Dr. Robert Hare is one of the leading experts in the world on psychopathy, forensic psychologist. Many years ago in a documentary called The Corporation in the book,

he actually says that the way that the corporation operates, and not by individuals, I'm not blaming individuals within them. I debated the CEO of Astrogenica in the Cambridge University Union a few years ago. Very nice guy. We had dinner together. But of course, he's acting in his role for the corporation, right? That's his job. The corporation as an entity is described as being psychopathic by Dr. Robert Hare. And there's lots of evidence that suggests this is how they function.

So if we take a step back for a second, we think, hold on a minute. We have increasing unchecked power of big powerful corporations over the last three decades, certainly since probably with the best intentions, neoliberal economic policies from Ronald Reagan, the U.S., in the UK. They've had increased unchecked power. and if that entity that has funds most of university research now drug industry research the FDA and the regulators of most of the world are funded by them if they are in the way that they approach their business in the way that they exert their power psychopathic it doesn't take a rocket

scientist to figure out what effect that's going to have on the rest of society right it's moving us away from being what it means to be human and concentrating for example for me as a cardiologist as a clinician. I have an interest in improving people's health, relief suffering, improving population health, mental and physical health. But if we're, what we are doing is we are battling an entity that is very much taking us away from what it means to be human. And that's going to have effect on our culture. And actually, that's the root in my view. That's the root of many of the problems in the world today. Certainly I want to look at from a health perspective. I totally agree. And obviously, a lot of what you're talking about is all contained in two brilliant papers you put out

called curing the pandemic of misinformation on COVID-19, MRNA vaccines through real evidence. There's part one and part two. Part one, you really cover sort of the science behind looking at the trials and some of the metadata around the world that we're looking at when it comes to heart issues and on all that we actually know. And then the part two is really the corruption you've discussed, the funding of pharma, both in government entities here in America,

our media, your media is. is also affected but not in is a direct I think a route as we have in America and then of course when you know one of the things I've talked about is you take an industry that you could call psychopathic or however you want to describe it and you take away all liability on one of their products which is how it works here in America I'm not sure if you have the exact same liability protections in England but but it's it's quite terrifying because you know and I'll just tell you where I'm coming from and I've been on this investigation for several years. I was a producer at the CBS Talks to the Doctors before I dove into much of this discussion,

corruption inside of regulatory agencies and then you start seeing that pharma and our regulatory agencies are really you know scratching each other's back is probably at the very least and in many ways our regulatory agencies in america is where I'm most focused have become almost advertising agencies for pharmaceutical products where we really have conflicts of interest that are getting to be virtually insurmountable. I mean, when we look at pharma now, it's the number one most powerful lobby in America. It is, I think, going to be one of the most powerful lobbies all around the world in getting politicians elected. And so, and then entering into the health departments, many of our health departments are now being run by people who work for pharma. And so we just

have this revolving door problem. And then, as you pointed out, you know, there's so much you've talked about in these papers and everyone should read these papers. It's so well laid out, Dr. Mahalda. I just wanna thank you for the clarity. I felt like the work that we've done over the last five years on our show

is contained in just a few pages really clearly explaining what's going on here. But when we look at the science now, when we really start to look at this term science, and I think one of the biggest concerns I've had, I want to ask you about this, is this is such a blatant, blatant disregard for reason and scientific method when we look at the COVID-19 vaccine. And when we see those things happen, it really has the ability to destroy our confidence in our health agency, CDC, the NHS. But it

is starting to erode confidence in science in general. And you're talking about how we've seen some precursors to that. These different peer-reviewed journals saying, look, we can't repeat the science, you know, 75% of the study's done here, we can't seem to be able to repeat what they found. Or other journals say 50% of this looks to be untrue, you can't trust it any longer. Are you concerned now? And as a doctor and a practitioner, who, as you said, you start your paper out very much talking about your confidence in the original vaccines and their level of safety. But this is clearly around the world hurting competence in the entire vaccine program. It's hurting confidence in our regulatory agencies, the NHS, and ultimately that is going to

hurt competence in doctors in general. So when you decided to be as strong as you are, and now, to be clear, you're saying stop this vaccine immediately until we can really assess all of the data. concern that making a statement as strong as that, that it is going to have repercussions that could affect our competence in other spaces of science and medicine? Dale, it's a great question. And some of what's going to happen next is a bit unpredictable. But the best way to tackle this is to face the facts head on and not talking about it.

It means the damage continues and the problem becomes bigger and bigger. So we have to accept there will be some, you know, there will be some backlash. there will be some fallout, but ultimately we need to reform and transform the system. And I didn't just point out the problems with what's happened with the vaccine. I've offered solutions as well. There are very clear policy solutions that need to be implemented as well. So, for example, moving forward, how do we make things better? How do we stop this situation from occurring again?

And for me, it's not just about the vaccine. If you look at the last sort of two decades around the world, in the US, you know, in Europe, the overall effect of the pharmaceutical industry has been a next. negative one on society because most of the drugs they produce are copies of old ones. Often the drugs they produce are more harmful than beneficial and the therapeutic interventions are clinical benefit above previous drugs probably in the region of only about 10. You add in the waste when they're changing molecules here and there, patencing new drugs, making money off and moving on. The waste itself is a huge negative impact on society. So what do we

do moving forward? Well, one of the things for sure is that pharmaceutical companies, of course, should be able to develop drugs. But they fail so badly on society in the last few decades. It should no longer be allowed to test them. Absolutely not. And they certainly shouldn't be allowed to hold on to the raw data. Politicians in the US, I know this is a big problem. Why are political parties taking money from pharma?

The role of government, primarily, you know, two of the biggest important roles of government, protect its citizens from external aggressors and protect their citizens from disease and serve their communities, work in the interests, of their communities. Government is failing. We are talking about, I'm not saying about the U.S. even the UK, other parts of the world. We are heading towards failed states when governments can't act in the interest of their population. Big farmer in the way that it's conducted itself,

like many big corporations, as far as I'm concerned, I said this in the US at a metabolic health summit, which I spoke a couple of years ago. I said that big farmer is an enemy of democracy because they are suppressing free speech. They are giving us misinformation. People need to talk about them in these terms. We are dealing with an enemy of democracy and they need to be completely transformed and reformed. Medical education shouldn't be sponsored by the drug industry. And we need independent people to synthesize the evidence. The regulator, they should not be taking any money from industry. Money, clouds judgment. There are people who are good, but the problem is the system makes good people do bad things. And the evidence is overwhelming going many years.

You know, Dell, I was very much aware of this over about 10-year period. On three occasions, actually through mainstream media with some very eminent doctors, including the former personal physician to Her Majesty of the Queen of England, Sir Richard Thompson, who was present in World College of Physicians, has been a great ally in this movement. You know, on three occasions, I called, and it made main news in different newspapers, The Guardian, the Daily Mail, I called for a public inquiry into excess drug deaths, you know, prescribed medications and now the third most common cause of death after heart disease and cancer, and an inquiry into the pharmaceutical industry on a scale that was similar to something we had here,

the Chilkot inquiry into the Iraq war around the whole weapons of mass destruction. The problem is so deep and ingrained, it needs that kind of big public inquiry. I think this now, unfortunately, we didn't want, I didn't want this to happen. It's really sad that we've got to this point. But I think this unchecked power, this is where the bubble bursts. And I think the way that the vaccine rollout has been dealt with, the way it's continuing to be dealt with, is the opportunity that we need to use to burst that bubble, reform the system and create a healthcare system that works for people's health, mentally and physically,

not against them. Well, on that measure, we are totally aligned. I want to point out that our legal team is headed by Aaron Siri, who you quote in your papers, who's been really brilliant at getting, you know, as you said, the drug company is not only doing their own testing, they're locking away their data so that no independent research can be done, which would be the only truly, you know, that's the only way to have science-based medicines. You know, the scientific method demands that those that are not completely committed to making the money from the product should be allowed to look at the data and assess it from that perspective.

So I'm sure you're aware, not only as pharma was pharma and Pfizer holding up the data, Aaron Siri had to sue the FDA because the FDA was holding the data, the Pfizer data from the trials from the public and wanted to spend 75 years waiting to distribute it. Aaron Siri won in that case and all of that data is now coming forward will be out before the end of the year. And I also, I'm not sure if you're aware of this, I can, our nonprofit sued for all the V-Safe data, which is going to be far more accurate than the VERS data and those things. The V-safe data is the system built for COVID. they wanted to hold that up, and we have sued and won, and that will be released. Hopefully within the next week, we're going to see all the millions of people's information,

their identity, you know, obviously taken away so that we can start doing investigations, and I'm sure you'll be interested in looking at that. You know, just to wrap this up, because my audience has watched us really investigate this vaccine program over the last several years, even before COVID. And so I just want to ask you, you know, in your paper, you talk about the safety of the original vaccine program. But there seems to be, and this happens with, you know, many of the people I've interviewed, Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. Robert Malone. Many of these doctors all start out in this exact same space saying, I'm pro-vaccine, this COVID vaccine, you know, really is this anomaly. But I will tell you, and I think that you have begun on a rabbit hole, clearly you understand pharma, you are going to find that there are a lot of issues with the entire vaccine program that are difficult.

So when you say that, you know, the childhood vaccine program is safe, would you at least, would you have to concede there that you're making assumptions based on all of that sort of education you had as a doctor? or did you do the same dive into those childhood vaccines that you've done with COVID, looking at the trials, did they have placebo groups? Were they long-term studies in safety over the course of two years? We talk about measles, mumps, rebella, chickenpox vaccines, this and that. Have you done that same vigilance? Would be my question with every vaccine we're giving the way you have with COVID. So, Dale, the first thing is I think certainly one of the things that's worth mentioning is, you know,

No drug is completely safe. The question is, you know, those questions about other vaccines, certainly as far as I'm concerned, from what I know so far, I've not had the opportunity because I had to focus on the COVID vaccine, is to look at those in detail in terms of what are the absolute true harms, where are the concerns coming from, are there better, is there better data? And of course, those questions need to be asked. Yeah.

But even with that, you know, if you look at the, all the drugs we prescribe, you see a lot of the, my work has been involved in too much medicine, looking at drugs like statin drugs. I've been one of the biggest proponents challenging that statins are the one drug we believe them to be. And of course, people do have a lot of significant quality of limiting side effects from statins, life limiting. So when you look at all the other drugs we prescribe, even if there is an issue to some degree

with traditional vaccines at the moment, and I'm very open to changing my mind and it's not something I've looked at yet, even despite that, I still think that traditional vaccines, in terms of their prevalence of harms are far, far safer. That doesn't mean they're completely safe, but far safer than all the other drugs that we're prescribing to patients. But to answer your question, no, I've not gone into that detail. And for me, certainly, the point of obviously the paper was, you know, looking at what we did with the COVID vaccine,

because we've all been affected by it. And of course, I've never seen anything. And certainly in terms of the reports, you know, I didn't mention, for example, that one of the traditional vaccines, I think the measles of rebella prevalence of replacements, of reporting is something like in the order of probably one in four thousand of something at least mild in terms of a reaction. But, you know, you look at this here with what we're experiencing with this with this COVID-19 vaccine. I've never seen anything like it in terms of reporting.

And the scale of reporting certainly compared to other vaccines even in the states is through the roof. So that's why I think that, you know, that's why I focused on this. Yeah, no. And you can only focus on one thing at a time. And obviously what we're seeing in our VAERS data, the vaccine adverse events reporting system data, these numbers outweigh every single vaccine report since the history of VAERS starting with our beginning of liability protections in 1986. We have never had this many injuries reported from all vaccines, all put together in all those years, and this is just two years into this vaccine. So there's no doubt, and I think I think there's probably a lot of reasons for that.

We've never given a product to this many people all at once at one time. So a lot of this confounding issues to look at, but it clearly is a massive problem. I'm glad you're on it. I want to ask you this. There are still people all around the world. Here in America, they've sort of homogenized the recommendations saying that, you know, kids over the age of five, everybody should get a booster if it's available to

to you. Get caught up on your shots. There are people that they're being, you know, sold on this brand new Omicron variant booster that that's going to be more effective. You're not alone in speaking out. Dr. Paul Offutt, a huge proponent of vaccines has spoken out against this current Omicron booster. But what is your, what is your official statement? If you were to clearly state to anyone that came to you and says, I'm thinking to get a booster or I haven't vaccinated my child yet, I'm looking, maybe it's, time. What do you want to say to those people?

Yeah. So, I mean, I'm somebody that's been a big proponent of, you know, I'm an expert to some degree with my work in what we call evidence-based medical practice, ethical evidence-based medical practice, shared decision-making. So in those conversations with patients, which I have actually, I always start by, okay, let's try and help you understand what your risk, first of all, or your child's risk of COVID or Omicron is. And of course, I tell them now it's extremely low risk, right? So that's a good way to reassure them first and foremost. We have to allay people's fears. That's what one of the things we do is doctors. We reassure people because people go around with lots of fears around their health. So I start there. And then, of course,

I know that I've got this paper. I can say, well, the absolute benefit for you from this vaccine is extremely small and the harms are unprecedented. And I will help them make a decision first and foremost. Now, often the patients themselves, when I present data in that way, will say, actually, doctor, thank you very much, I'd rather not. But if a situation arises where the patient says to me, what do you think for me, then of course I'll tailor it to the individual. But to be honest, Del, I've been very clear now, and I'm not going to backtrack on this.

You know, for me, the evidence is overwhelming that it needs to stop for everybody until this is fully investigated, because there are too many signals, too many bits of data, some very good high-quality data showing the prevalence of harms are, again, unprecedented. For me, no, it's, you know, I've made it public and I think this is a time to stop. As far as I'm concerned, it's unequivocal in terms of the harms.

And we know the benefits are very, very small now. What's going on with, you know, it's quite interesting to try and, you know, people can look at it from different ways. A lot of people understandably are very angry. You know, I lost the last surviving member of my family who was my best friend, almost certainly to this vaccine. I'm effectively orphaned. I lost my brother when I was young. So I understand their emotions and their anger. But dealing with this in an angry way,

I don't think it's going to help solve the problem. So what's going on with, say, the FDA or other authorities or doctors? I think three things probably. One is ignorance in terms of not understanding the data properly or the fact there are harms. Worse in ignorance is the illusion of knowledge. And then, of course, there's willful blindness. Willful blindness is people turning a blind eye because it makes them very uncomfortable to think of something like this causing this sort of problem, right? So they do it in order to feel safe, to reduce anxiety, avoid conflict, and to protect prestige.

And we're all capable of that. You know, I was willfully blind to some degree until I wasn't. So I think approaching the conversation in this way, being open saying, listen, I want to help my patients as best I can if I'm speaking to a doctor. You know, this is where I was. this has changed. I want you just to think about this. That's the way we approach this. We need to do this in a more consulatory way. One thing I noticed, you know, I have a lot of relatives and friends in the United States. And when I was over there at the end of last year, having conversations with friends or my cousins or even doctors, I noticed that the conversation,

even with doctors around COVID and the vaccine became politicized. So instead of discussing the truth and the evidence, it was something like, you can't say that, you know, there's a problem with a vaccine because that will sound like you're a Trump supporter, you're Republican. I was like, this is intellectual bankruptcy. When you start, you know, trying to change the narrative on a scientific discussion to a political one, there's clearly something very, very strange going on. And for me, that is willful blindness at the heart of it. And we've seen this throughout history.

You know, we've seen it in the UK with a BBC very famous figure who was ultimately, after he died, found, you know, to be guilty for pedophilia called Jimmy Saville. We've seen a long history of the, you know, the Me Too movement came out in terms of Harvey Weinstein and how, sorry, Harvey Weinstein and how that also, you know, was ignored for a long time. Even understanding the whole situation around the Holocaust, I'm sure for a period of time, there were people who were crying out and saying this is what's going on in the concentration camps. And people ignored it, even though the evidence was clear, that we're all potentially capable of this willful blindness, Dell.

And I think approaching maybe the conversation in that way to try and get people on side, I think is definitely more productive and more constructive and more likely to change people's minds than pointing fingers and getting angry. I think we've got to be very careful about how we deal with this now. But at the end of the day, the facts are the facts.

The best way to combat this and overcome willful blindness is to face these facts head on. And I think you've laid those facts out as well as they could possibly be laid out in the two papers that you've just put out, which I know are circulating and in many ways going viral themselves. For all of you watching the Highwire right now, if you want those papers in your inbox like everything else, we are totally transparent news agency. We delivered to you all the evidence that we present on our show.

All you have to do is go when you're on thehighwire.com, just scroll down and be a part of our newsletter. On Monday after our Thursday show, we always put all the science, all the peer-reviewed studies, and in this case, Dr. Mahaltra's studies will be in your hand so they can read them yourselves. I don't want you going out there and say, well, Del Bigtree said, or Dr. Mahaltra said, here's the evidence, here's the science, his paper references the other studies that we've been talking about on this show, and now you've laid it all out in a very concise, brilliant set of papers. I want to thank you for making that effort. I know you're putting here a career at risk for doing that.

I want to thank you for your bravery, but you didn't stop there. You are part of a film that is breaking right now that has been avoided by all of mainstream television in the UK, even though it's been produced and put together by one of England's great producers in Mark Sharman. The film is safe and effective a second opinion. We're going to be screening that just a little bit later on in the show so that we can get it out to the entire world. But what made you decide to be a part of a documentary that is going to be labeled as an anti-vax documentary, which is why I'm sure it's not on being presented by the BBC or even GBN or anyone else. It's going to show some of the vaccine injuries that are happening. A lot of the science, you're discussing that.

What is it about media and being a part of a film like that that you think is important? Yeah, Dale, thank you. Well, first of all, Mark, you know, I got it. Mark, I think we first made contact with each other. After I did that DB News interview, different WhatsApp groups and different connections of people. So it's interesting, you know, I find that when you put your head above the parapet and speak out and stuff that you know, for me, I've always acted from a position of always thinking about my patients first and from integrity, people will come to you. You know, don't underestimate the power of speaking the truth. People will come to you and other people started coming out of the woodwork and other doctors and said, yeah, I think there's a problem here.

So we had to strategize how do we combat this? How do we get this out? And one of the strategies, of course, was Mark thought it was a good idea to make a documentary. And I said, I'm very happy to support you in that. And, of course, I had, you know, patients coming to me. There were lots of people through social media who were talking about their vaccine injuries. So, you know, I put something out and asked them to contact Mark if they'd been vaccine injured, you know, many, many months ago. So we worked together on that.

And, of course, by that stage, I decided I was going to try and, I was the best way for me to get the information out in the most credible fashion is to go through a peer-reviewed medical journal. And I chose a journal of instant resistance. And I told, I didn't tell Mark or other people what journal it was. I wanted to keep that close to my chest. But I chose a journal that one wasn't funded by industry. And also it allowed me to write 10,000 words because I thought this is such a big problem. It couldn't just be dealt with just by top going into the science of the vaccine. I needed to go into the root cause of how we got this wrong, why we got it wrong, what we need to do to move forward. So I shared that information with Mark over the last few months of what was coming and what was the content of it.

And then, you know, he waited for me very patiently. I said, Mark, you know, I'm pretty sure, almost certain that my dad died because of the vaccine. Very happy to talk about that with you and what's going on. And essentially the conclusions of the paper I put in that, you know, pre-record several weeks ago, actually, well before my paper was published. And then putting the documentary out, Mark was very gracious and he timed it with me getting that once the paper was finally accepted. and the publication date was agreed, then we all decide to coordinate this together.

So it's kind of we're helping each other. We're just trying to amplify the message. And of course, those personal stories in the documentaries you've seen, Del, are very, very powerful. You know, it's very important that we are trying to, you know, we are emotional beings. It's not just about anecdotes, you know. So in some ways we're combining, you know, our hearts and our minds to really get the message across to people. So we have the personal stories, but then, of course, I come in there with the evidence. and combining it together, I think, produces something really, really strong and really powerful.

Well, I certainly, it's an honor to speak to people that are able to, even in the indoctrination, obviously this isn't where you started. You've been looking at pharmaceutical products. You've been looking at some of the dangers in how trials and studies are being done by the very, you know, institutions that are going to make the profits off of them. That's a terrible model. It's destined for disaster. and I think we're staring that in the face.

I want to thank you, though, for being brave enough because as you said in that original GBN news piece that you did, you have friends that have even written papers that show that there's a problem, and they won't publish it because they're afraid they will lose funding. It is people like that, though, you know, we want to honor them for at least giving us the inside scoop. It's why we're in this problem now.

How many doctors and scientists throughout all the years had information that could have saved 10,000, hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions of lives, but look the other way because of how this funding system works. You're one of those that's stepping out against it, and I want to thank you for doing that. We're going to do everything we can get your paper out there and also this film, and I want to thank you for taking the time

in the middle of your travels to join us today. Thank you, Dale. It's been an absolute pleasure. All right, you take care. The documentary is called Safe and Effective, a Second Opinion. It's a part of, as you just heard, in tandem with the release of these papers. We're going to be screening it here in just a little bit.

I'm going to talk to the producer, but here is what you can expect from safe and effective. A second opinion. Your safety will always come first. And a COVID-19 vaccine will only be approved by us, the UK's medicines and healthcare products regulatory agency, once it has met robust standards on safety, quality and effective. and effectiveness.

I was vaccinated because I'm a carer. I've had all three and I have the blue one as well. As far as the government's concern, I believe they're doing the best thing for the nation. I got an eight-year-old and I just didn't want to catch it where I didn't have to, to be further. This was going to prevent me from having it. Then it was all good for me.

I wanted to go on holiday. I just thought it was better than I get it done. I wanted to protect other people. The COVID vaccine has been hailed as a medical and logistical success. It's claimed that millions of lives have been saved, but there's growing evidence that the jab can have devastating consequences. They actually told my wife and two children that they had no hope and if I did survive it would be from the waystock. I thought I was going to die. I would go to bed at night not thinking I was going to wake up. Those injured by the vaccine

feel unrecognised and abandoned by the NHS and a government they trusted. You take one for the team, So I took the vaccine, but now the team's running the opposite direction. Just let people know that when it goes wrong, there's like no help at all. The doctors don't know what to do with us. We're literally keeping each other alive. Safety is our watchword. And we are globally recognised for requiring the highest standards of safety, quality and effectiveness for any vaccine.

Having been double jammed and being one of the first to take, the Pfizer vaccine. I have, after several months, critically appraising the data, speaking to eminent scientists in Oxford, Stanford and Harvard, speaking to two investigative medical journalists and being contacted by two Pfizer whistleblowers,

reluctantly concluded that this vaccine is not completely safe and has unprecedented harms, which, leads me to conclude that it needs to be suspended until all the raw data has been released for independent analysis. All right, well, we're going to be screened this film just in a little bit because I think

it's really important. This is one of those tools that we're all going to be able to use together to get the word out. This time, it's really from the perspective of what happened in the UK, but it's a really brilliant, you know, 55-minute documentary that we can use as a tool to all of those that are slowly waking up. the high wire is all about now. We need to wake up as many people as possible to make sure that this travesty never happens again and to begin the investigation deeper, getting people like

Mahaltra and those to take a deeper dive into many of the issues that we've been sharing on the high wire over the last several years long before COVID was even a problem. So that's coming up in just a minute. But first, it's time for it, the Jackson Report. Hey, Jeffrey, how's it going today? How are you feeling? That was a wonderful, wonderful interview, Del. I love to watch that from the sidelines here. You know, we keep having these interviews, right? We've gotten used to the high wire being this place where in many ways these whistleblowers come forward. They're recognizing this is a place where I'm going to get to tell my whole story. I'm also not going to get sideline and forced into some anti-vaccine discussion, which they're all very careful about. But it's, you know,

as I've watched, you know, and now we're keen to it, we're sensitive to it, as Mahalta is saying, you know, the childhood vaccine program is so much safer. And, you know, we're watching. And we've even said looking at VERS, that, you know, when you show those graphs, that, you know, COVID is just off the charts and the amount of injuries being reported to VERS. But, you know, as I sat and watched it this time, I thought, what would Vairs be if the 72 vaccines were given to our kids or the 26 vaccines we pump into our kids over the first, like, two to three years of their lives? What if you started pumping, you know, adults with, you know, 26 vaccines over the next two or three years of their lives? adults that aren't just screaming and crying when their head is swelling, aren't just having difficulty walking, but they've only been walking for a week.

They've been walking for 40 years of their lives, and now they're falling down. Would Vairs look like it does? Would it look low? I mean, what we are really seeing is two things. We're seeing a vaccine that was given to, you know, literally over a billion people all at one time, but also to adults.

Adults that can say, hey, yo, I was healthy yesterday, or my dad was a top, you know, surgeon cardiologist, I had checked his heart two years ago. None of that existed until now, right? And so we really have to be careful. And it makes me wonder, you know, what are we learning here? We learning that COVID vaccine is really worse? Or are we learning the difference between injuring adults that can speak for themselves and children that, you know, the parents were just said, you're crazy. You're crazy that that happened to your child, you know? Right, right. I know we're a lot of tangent here. But the closest thing we saw to that was the HPV vaccine program given to teenagers. And they

could speak and we saw a lot of that we're covering that before the COVID era but you know just switching gears here for a second it's it's the end of September we have the last couple days here in this month 2022 and we're seeing we're seeing the final restrictions being ticked off being the lights are turned off in these countries and we're sitting from America watching this and something is being presented that's kind of uncomfortable let's look at the latest countries so we have the Netherlands they've joined the pack now Netherlands removes all COVID travel restrictions and then get this even Canada Canada to remove all COVID border travel measures from October 1st remember the whole reason for the freedom convoy the truckers convoy was to get

these restrictions removed because the truckers couldn't do their job by crossing the border because they weren't vaccinated or fully vaccinated and remember Trudeau called them a small fringe minority with unacceptable views well now that small fringe minorities the entire country and the views are fully acceptable So that was an interesting change that happened pretty much in the span of several months. But now, what's happening in the U.S. that's so interesting and really different? Let's go to the CDC's own website here. In order to enter our country by air, this is the requirement for proof of COVID-19 vaccination for air passengers. And it says here, if you are a non-U.S. citizen who is a non-immigrant, meaning not a U.S. citizen,

U.S. national, lawful permanent resident or traveling to the United States on an immigrant visa, you will need to show proof of being fully vaccinated against COVID-19 before you travel by air to the United States from a foreign country. What kind of fully vaccination are talking about? The two-dose series. You need two doses. Where's the science with this? Remember the two doses we've shown week after week. It doesn't stop transmission. It doesn't stop infection. And in many studies that we're looking at, it's showing negative efficacy, meaning it's actually increasing infection in case rates. And it's questionable if it's stopping hospitalization at this point, too. So they're not even talking about boosters here.

They're just talking about the two-dose series. So what does that mean for people trying to get into this country? Let's go to kayak.com. This is a popular travel website. And this is what it looks like. Now, you see North America there on the left. In red is Canada, but they won't be red for very long. They're going to turn green October 1st.

So you'll have the United States in red. And what other big country there are we now aligned with? China, China. Wow. So we have the COVID wave, the restrictions that washed over us for the last two years. And as this wave is receding, Americans are left with an uncomfortable bedfellow in Chinese restrictions to get into our country. How did this happen on unscientific data from the CDC from a two-dose series? Yeah, it's amazing.

Our founding fathers truly are rolling over in their graves right now as we look to be aligned with one of the most authoritarian nations in the world. Absolutely. And while we're talking about Canada, we talked about their travel restrictions being released, but something else was just set free in Canada. Actually in 2015, but it has now slid down the slippery slope to something that I think everyone really needs to understand here. So how this started in 2015, there was a Supreme Court case in Canada, Carter v. Canada. This was a woman with a fatal neurodegenerative disease, and she wanted to have physicians assisted suicide. And at that time, If a doctor were to offer that, that would be homicides. The doctor would be charged with homicide under that current Canadian law. So in the court documents, it says this. The trial judge found that the prohibition against physician-assisted dying violates the S-7 rights of competent adults who are suffering intolerably as a result of a grievous and irremediable medical condition

and concluded that this infringement is not justified under S-1 of the charter. This goes on to say, an absolute prohibition on physicians assisted dying is rationally connected to the goal of protecting the vulnerable from taking their life in times of weakness because prohibiting an activity that poses certain risks is a rational method of curtailing the risk. However, as the trial judge found, the evidence does not support the contention that a blanket prohibition is necessary in order to substantially meet the government's objective. So they're basically saying, we don't have to have this blanket prohibition anymore. So they instructed the government to go back and figure out a way to

have this blanket prohibition. So the Trudeau government went back and this was the headline just a year later out of the New York Times. Canadian Prime Minister seeks to legalize assisted suicide in Canada. This is called Bill C-14. And the parameters of that bill were a person had to have a serious and incurable illness. They also had to have a natural death to be reasonably foreseeable in the near future. Well, that all changed in 2021. A new law, in addition to that bill, in the name of Bill C7 came about. And this is what it did here. Let's go to Canada's website.

This was on March of 2021. Canada changed the, it's called Maid legislation and became law in a new form. And it says here, the law no longer requires a person's natural death to be reasonably foreseeable as an eligible criteria for made. So now we're expanding this. boundary now it does now it's not just the terminal patients now it's it's this enter the slippery slope right and so right before this bill this C7 bill came into effect an interesting thing happened Canada's parliamentary budget office put forth this report it was a cost estimate for bill C7 medical assistance and dying and it gave this table here it's table 3-2 and it says here

if you look under subtotal incremental net reduction in costs under bill c7 they're estimating 62 million will be saved so they have a gross reduction in health care costs of 66.5 million minus the cost of administering made which is negative 4.4 million so government's saying hey look we can save 62 million dollars so that is interesting when you look at that moment though I mean that is a serious turning point you're going from this being an ethical discussion should we or should we not allow people to use, you know, this assisted suicide, then all of a sudden the government, as it's starting to open up to that, says, hey, by the way, there's a great cost benefit to allowing this. All of a sudden now the entire conversation and the motivations

behind it need to be questioned, I think. Right. And so for the first time, we have the government looking at human life through the lens of their pocketbook. And we have a lot of examples of the undesirable ways throughout history that that really turns out. So moving forward, we're starting to get headlines now that look like this. This is out of the spectator. Why is Canada euthanizing the poor? And this is one of the headlines they use. It says, woman with chemical sensitivities choose medical assisted death after failed

bid to get better housing. This is an Ontario woman with chemical sensitivities. That was a chronic condition. She couldn't find affordable housing. And she had back and forth letters for two years with the government, with the housing department and the Canadian government in Ontario trying to get into better housing and she wasn't able to afford it. She wasn't able to get it through government subsidies. And so that was the first, I believe the first woman in the world to, or first person

in the world to have this happen. But now let's fast forward to this year in July. We have published by Health Canada. We have the annual report for this medical assisted death, basically in Canada. And it says here in this report, in 2021, there were 10,064 men. made provisions reported in Canada, accounting for 3.3% of all deaths in Canada. And you see this chart here. This isn't a chart that accompanied that report. In 2016 is when it was activated after that Supreme Court decision. And you can see this step process going up and up and up.

And in 2021, you have over 10,000 people that have chosen to do this. And you notice there's a little sliver there in red. What that represents is for the first time, we have non-reasonable, foreseeable natural death. So in that category, in this actual report, some of the reasoning is loneliness, isolation, poor. The word poor is actually a choice, loss of quality of life. And remember, this is directly in the middle or coming off COVID restrictions in a country with some of the most strict COVID restrictions in the world. So again, the slippery slope continues.

And now one of the big reasons we're reporting on this is this is an issue we saw with the vaccination conversation was mature minors being able to make their own decisions. And you're going to say, well, not for this decision. Oh, yeah, there's an interim report for this, and the government is studying it. And this is what it looks like right here, medical assistance in dying and mental disorders as the sole underlying condition. So it's, it's, mental disorders are set to become legal in Canada in March of 2023 as a condition for to get on this pathway. But looking further in this report, what else are they studying? It says here, the committee, the committee that was assembled for this, was recreated in March of 2022 and

tasked with reviewing the provisions of the criminal code relating to medical assistance and dying and their application, including, but not limited to issues relating to mature minors, advance requests, and mental illnesses. So we have now kids being able to make their own decision at this point. Now, this report is due for the mature minors on October 17th. So it's very important for anybody in Canada that wants to voice an opinion on this to really watch for this because so far we're two for two. What these reports suggest the government implements. So if they suggest mature minors, given the green light, the AOK on October 17th, it's reasonably foreseeable that they will green light this for mature minors. So this is what we're looking at in Canada right now.

You can't help but think about eugenics here. Like you see that slippery slope how it began. I've been one of those, I mean, through the years, I mean, and looking at the story, when we started discussing it, I thought, well, I've always been for, you know, humane euthanasia for people. If that's what they desire, I mean, you can throw yourself off a building, I suppose, but why not make it a peaceful, beautiful space if you're dying? But the idea that I'm having a bad week or I'm depressed or I'm broke right now or I can't get in the housing I want or, you know, looking at younger, you know, like what they call

mature youth, whatever that means. And then you see all the do not resuscitate orders that we we're seeing throughout COVID in Canada, in America, and you start seeing a much different picture. And all the headlines, so many different headlines. Check out this one we saw in Canada. Vancouver woman with disabilities living in pain, forcing the debt, seeks medically assisted dying. So now she doesn't want to die, but her monthly income, even with temporary COVID-19 error increases, is not enough to keep her in a pain threshold that's bearable. When her credit runs out, she will have to stop taking supplements, receiving physiotherapy and intravenous naturopathetic. treatments, she says they're finally helping her find balance. So are we at a place now where we talk

about the thing that bankrupt people more than anything else in America is, you know, health conditions. Can you imagine, well, you know, we're not going to help you, you know, get out of your problem with the debt you or the hospital, you're going to be in debt, but there is a solution we can offer you. We could euthanize you. We will play some really nice music and just end your life right here. How many people under those very stressful, dramatic, depressing moments would take that option? I mean, wouldn't be forced on you, but you could see how it could be utilized to just start removing giant swaths of the population that, frankly, maybe were overbilled for stuff that didn't help them get healthy. I mean, this whole thing really, really is, again, we keep

talking about that globalist agenda. And how can you not be afraid of where this is going in Canada? Absolutely, absolutely. And now we have Dr. Mahaltra. He has come out and he's he's spoken out and put his career on the line to talk about the COVID vaccine and the dangers with the COVID vaccine. And this was because it was rushed into the public, despite what the transparency that we said, we were, the FDA said and the regulatory agencies told us we were going to get. We did not get that. And the safety trials simply weren't done. But one of the issues that we've been reporting on on this show is this distrust in the public health. arena has now bled into the childhood safety schedule and something that just blew us all off our seats at the high wire, something we've been asking for for a very long time and even serve legal legal documents to our government agencies through the informed consent action network, was studies showing the safety of the childhood immunization schedule here in the United States, especially with regard to vaccinated, unvaccinated people. And so we have this study, we have this headline on NBC News. Here's how we were greeted. Study tries to see whether

child vaccines and asthma are linked. And it says here, the study released Tuesday suggests that young children who were vaccinated with most or all of the recommended aluminum-containing vaccines had at least a 36% higher risk of being diagnosed with persistent asthma than kids who got fewer vaccines. Wow. And that's a big one. Notice it doesn't say anything about unvaccinated kids in there. Now, it goes on to say the researchers found that for each milligram of aluminum received through vaccines, the risk of persistent asthma rose 26% in the eczema kids and 19% in kids who did not have eczema. Now, what's interesting about this study is it goes on to say this. In 2013, the Institute of Medicine, now known as the National Academy of Medicine, called for more federal research

into the safety of childhood vaccines, including their use of aluminum. The new study is part of the government response to that call, Daly said. Daly is the lead author here. So let's do a little bit of math. The Institute of Medicine in 2013 called for more studies on the safety of the childhood vaccinations. And it's almost 10 years now and we're just getting down to it. That's interesting. But, you know, the bigger story here from my point of view is not what the study included, but it's what the study did not include.

So let's go to that study and see what we're talking about here. So this is the study. If anybody wants to look this up, association between aluminum exposure from vaccines before age 24 months and persistent asthma at age 24 to 59 months. Notice they're just looking at asthma. Before we go any further, I just want everyone that's been watching the high wear for longer than COVID to just bring that back up. And I want you to look at the last name on this paper, Frank DeStefano.

This is what puts me behind this desk right now, a major player in the documentary I made called Vaxed, looking at the MMR vaccine and the cover-up of the autism connection in a study headed by Dr. Franks de Stefano. This has been a guy that's been covering up problems with the vaccine program for a very long time. He's been, you know, fairly, I guess you could say good at it since, you know, we have worked so hard to reveal the problems in COVID's now helped us with that. But so this guy is an author on a paper showing what we have said for a very long time that vaccines do permanently injure children. They cause autoimmune issues and people might be saying, well, it's just asthma. Folks, this is the beginning of the end, man.

This is the piece of yarn now. But how did it get out? I mean, you're about to say what didn't get into the study. So let me let you get on with that. But everyone, remember, now this is a Frank de Stefano paper. This is crazy that this is happening right now. Yeah. And that's one of the things that alerted us to this is this, the CDC, Frank, as well,

they really have not done these studies. And all of the sudden, he comes out of nowhere and produces this study. So let's see what's excluded. Who were not included in this study? It says from the actual study, children were excluded if they were not using a VSD, it's vaccine safety data link site for preventative care, defined as having less than two well-child visits between birth through age 11 months or zero well-child visits between age 12 to 23 months.

Now, it's known that parents often alter the vaccine schedules of a child who experiences the harm as a result of a vaccine. So you have that. So if you're going to a VSD site for a well baby visit, obviously you're involved in the vaccine program. And then if they're not even allowing people that just didn't go inside the VSD site, went to an outside doctor or something to do that, they're excluded. So you're excluding a huge, huge group of children right there. And by the way, you basically have to be being vaccinated, right? Isn't that what that's saying?

Absolutely. Well, child visits are a visit with a pediatrician where immunization is a major reason for. that visit. Each well-child visit at markers throughout their birth through, you know, their early childhood has vaccinations associated with it. So if you're unvaccinated, a lot of times people aren't going to those well-child visits. So, you know, essentially they're excluded. Now, let's continue. What else did they exclude? Let me let me just, I want to put it out there because we're in the weeds here a little bit, Jeffrey. But to be clear, we have analyzed with Aaron C. or E our legal team, when we get data back and we're looking at trials in the same,

Well, this trial proves what, this is a very common technique they use. It's one of the scams they use, which is they exclude anyone that didn't have at least too well baby checkup business. See how they, we've been asking, remember folks, we're asking for a vaccinated versus partially and completely vaccinated study to be done. We want to see if the vaccines are making you healthier, you should be able to compare to the unvaccinated. So when they finally do it, the times they do it, this is one of the scams they use.

Okay. Well, we'll look at all the unvaccinated kids. but only the ones that went to a doctor twice during, you know, for a well baby visit, which usually means you were getting vaccinated. So you're getting rid of all of those kids that never had to go to a doctor. Literally all those healthy, unvaccinated kids you want to be comparing to, they're immediately removed from every trial using this exact trick, okay? Just making that clear.

Right. Yes, absolutely. And then furthermore, this is what the study says. Children were excluded if they received a diagnosis of asthma. Remember, they're studying for asthma of asthma in any setting prior to age 24 months. So basically if the child develop asthma after the first, I don't know, 26 vaccine doses they receive between zero to 24 months, they don't want to know about it. The researchers want nothing to do with you. And oftentimes that's the more serious asthma.

So it appears that the study was designed to eliminate as many healthy unvaccinated kids as possible. But in the fact that they still found this high of percentage of kids with asthma that were vaccinated is really telling. But now, let's go on to a next part of this. They're looking at aluminum. We've covered aluminum a lot, but let's just bring it up. So in the study, they go ahead and say it without us having to say it. A recent report concluded that, quote, little to none of ingested aluminum appears to be absorbed through the gastrointestinal tract.

And we are unaware of any studies demonstrating an immunologic response to ingested aluminum in humans. Clearly, more research is needed on the health effects of aluminum, including immunologic effects of injecting. and ingested aluminum. So they just threw that right in there. Let me insert again here, Jeffrey. We have a giant audience that is just brand new to all this. So here's what we do at the highway. I'm going to try and make this make sense.

For those of you've been watching for five years, you know this. What they're talking about is, and our legal team has inquired, and I think Jeffrey is going to get into some of that to health and human services, to the CDC, demanding information on how you determined injecting human beings with aluminum was safe. Well, what they come back with is really one. study and it was not a study of injecting aluminum, it was eating aluminum. And it wasn't done on human beings, it was done on rats. Essentially the entire safety of aluminum being injected

into our bodies and the bodies of our children end with the hepatitis B vaccine, usually an infant in the first 24 hours of their life was based on a rat study where they fed them aluminum. And they came away from that study with the conclusion that 25 micrograms of aluminum was really about the maximum load to be safe in one daily dose for a small child. This is out of a rat study feeding them aluminum. Now, I've said on the show many times and in many discussions around the world. Now, we have to assume, you don't have to be a scientist, you're going to be a rocket scientist, you don't need to have to be a biologist to imagine that injecting something directly into the bloodstream

is probably going to be more toxic than eating it, allowing a digestive system, where obviously it has a way to leave your body. In this case, it's stuck in your body. I don't think it'd be a rocket sign to say that 25 micrograms would probably be much more toxic if it was injected. They never, ever did that study, and they've admitted that multiple times to us in our inquiries. But get this, that one hepatitis B vaccine, right? Now imagine if you found out that the hepatitis B vaccine given to your six pound infant, or maybe there are a premium at three or four pounds, maybe they're 10 pounds.

Same shot doesn't matter. Can you imagine if you found out that they took the load that they said was the maximum dose to be eaten and they gave that same dose to your baby injected? You'd be like, wow, that is crazy. Well, guess what? Don't worry about it. That's not what happened. They don't inject your baby with 25 micrograms, which would be the toxic level if they ate it. No, it's more than that. It's not double. It's not 50. It's not 100. It's not 200. It's 250 micrograms of aluminum injected into your day one old baby, the hepatitis B vaccine, 10 times the amount of aluminum that was approved in an eating study. And so when they're saying here, well, we kind of used an assumption based on eating, and as it turns out, it might actually be, you know, more dangerous injecting it. Really? You need to be a scientist? We needed 20 years to hear you finally say that. All right, I've interjected. That's how the science works, folks. This is why Dr. Mahaltra and those that start out was saying, well, I really believe in the childhood vaccine program. Trust me, they're on a long,

hard, deep, very fast, slippery slope going down a rabbit hole that you can't stop once you start looking at this stuff. And by about a year and a half, a child that's had all their vaccines is looking at anywhere between 3,000 and almost 5,000 micrograms of aluminum injected, which the FDA has not set an injection limit, a maximum limit there. And as you rightly said, we actually asked, I can decide the lawyers for informed consent action network, actually asked NIH show us all of your studies for assessing the safety of injecting aluminum. And they came back and they could find no studies showing that. And that was in 2019.

And here is the headline for that. So what happened before that? ICANN in 2017 asked HHS, Health and Human Service. This was the agency directly responsible for virtually every aspect of vaccine safety. And we asked them to do this, among other things. please advise whether HHS intends, because up to that point, and now it still hasn't been done, to forthwith conduct adequately powered and controlled perspective, as well as retrospective studies comparing total health outcomes of fully, partially vaccinated with completely unvaccinated children.

They still have not done this. We're getting these milk toast studies. They're whitewashing the studies. They're excluding kids less than two well child visits. But as it turns out, other people have independent doctors independent scientists pediatricians are doing the studies and this is what we found that same year 2017 we have anthony mosen has done this study it was a pilot comparative study of the health of unvaccinated and unvaccinated six to 12 year old children so these were about over 600 homeschool kids they asked their parents to complete an anonymous questionnaire and they looked at the questions respect pregnancy related factors birth history vaccination uh vaccination schedule, physician diagnosis of illnesses and so on and so forth.

And this is what they found. This is their results. Vaccinated children were significantly more likely than the unvaccinated to have been diagnosed with the following. Allergic rhinitis, 10.4 percent, other allergies, 22.2 percent, eczema, atopic dermatitis, 9.5 percent, a learning disability, 5.7 percent, ADHD, 4.7 percent. ASD Autism Spectrum Disorder, 4.7%, any neurodevelopmental disorder, meaning learning disability, ADHD, or ASD, 10.5%. And finally, any chronic illness, 44% compared to 25% in the unvaccinated.

These are shocking numbers. That, of course, that study was attacked. But we do have pediatrician Paul Thomas from Oregon. Now, he went out in 2020. He did a study in-house at his own. at his own practice with his own patients that were born into his practice. And we have this clip in our vaccinated series. Take a look at this.

In 2008, Dell, I left my group practice and started Integrative Pediatrics. And about a thousand patients joined me. We grew that practice to over 15,000 active patients over a matter of just a few years. And it was in around the time, oh, 2016, I wrote the vaccine friendly plan. That's when I created the data set that became the publication published in a peer review journal, this Vaxed Unvax study that's based on real world data of over 3,000 patients, all every single patient born into my practice from the day I opened my door to the day we closed this data set was included. No exclusions like you see done by the pharma studies that really cherry pick who they're going to look at.

This is every single patient born into the practice. I was a pro vaccine doctor trained mainstream. And when I started hearing patients telling me and I started seeing it for myself, all these medical chronic conditions that are clearly more prevalent in the highly vaccinated, I thought, wow, how do we ever get the world to see what I'm seeing? And what we did to really make sure we were comparing apples to apples was there were 500 and some unvaccinated, no vaccines at all. We age matched those 500 to 500 vaccinated kids. Now, realize these are variably vaccinated. They're not CDC scheduled vaccinated kids. Actually, some wise person, it might have been you.

I forget who said, why don't you do a quality assurance analysis of your data? I thought, yeah, why don't I? I mean, in medicine, if you do an intervention, like any change to what's normally being done, a really ethical thing to do is to look at the outcome of that intervention. So that's what we did. On November 23rd, 2020, we published this study in a peer-reviewed journal in Dell. It was rigorously peer-reviewed. It took months to get it through that process.

But the data that you shared, it's there. It's powerful. Even in the lighter vaccine schedule, you see this dramatic difference in all of these illnesses in just those that had this lighter vaccine schedule compared to those that didn't get the vaccines at all. For eye infections, way up in the vaccinated, ear infections, throat infections, allergies, and then you go on down for lung infections, take it to the whole body, ADD, ADHD, anemia, all significantly. I mean, the curves are just astounding.

You'll see on the summary, the orange curve for those with vaccines just goes up and up and up over the years, and it's almost flatline for the unvaxed. My unvaxed were never ill, but to see it in a peer-reviewed, rigorously reviewed journal article, the data which was blinded and then reviewed and brought to the public speaks for itself. I'm really glad you, you know, decided to show that video again because look what we're talking about talking about. Dr. Paul Thomas has his medical license under review for having done this study. Of course, we're talking about asthma, just one of the issues in that study, but it's what we've seen. I've looked at many of these studies, some that are in development right now that we're

hoping will be released. And every time asthma is one of these, it's sort of like you can pin the whole problem there, but it exists in all these other, you know, autoimmune and neurological disorders we've talked about. So how is it? Is it possible that he got it exactly right asthma but not on the rest of his study? No. What DeStefano and I don't know how this paper, I mean, do we have any idea how this got out? It doesn't seem like something they would normally put out. I wonder if he was working on it and somebody just leaked it out and he's stuck, you know, DiStefano being the he I'm talking about, stuck having to deal with it. But what it's showing us is even when you whitewashed the hell out of a study, which is what DeStefano

tried to do, kick off every healthy unvaccinated kid you can, even when you compare a lightly vaccinated to more and more vaccinated, they see a direct correlation, and almost moving towards causation of this effect of aluminum vaccines and your health in asthma and, you know, eczema. What happens if they do the same study looking at neurological disorders and autism?

I truly think, however, whatever this came out, maybe DiStefano has found Jesus and has decided to come clean, but it certainly is a spectacular moment and it's coming from the CDC saying exactly What we've been being accused of as being misinformation on the high wire now is coming from the CDC itself. Absolutely, absolutely. And during that video, Del, I was contacted by the attorneys at the Informant Action Network,

and it was brought to my attention that ICANN has sent an official cease and desist letter, just backing up to the top when we were talking about the travel restrictions coming into the United States to Rochelle Walensky and to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner to end presidential proclamation 10294, which is keeping unvaccinated people or not fully vaccinated people out of our country. So this is now in the mail, and it's directly directed at those two officials. So we're hoping to get some movement there. It just goes to show you how live we actually are when our lawyers are contacting our lead reporter here, Jeffrey Jackson, in the middle of a piece, saying, hey, make sure you let everyone know we're going after this travel restriction here in America.

Jeffrey, great reporting, brilliant. Man, oh, how. A couple years, the times have changed. Years are totally different discussions than we were having five, six years ago. And I think you have a great part to doing that. Thank you so much for your work. Thank you, Del. All right.

Look, folks, I just want to sort of point out here because the high wire is not just a news agency. I've said this before. The informed consent action network, which is the nonprofit that makes all of this, possible. We say the high wire is the educational program presented by I can. I started the high wire because we had a legal team that was bringing lawsuits against government

agencies, National Institute of Health, Health and Human Services, FDA, CDC. We won all of those. We have broken this thing wide open. The FDA and the CDC hate us because we keep winning against them. We keep driving information at them and we are changing the court of public opinion all around them. So when you watch, Dr. Mahatra in his paper say, look, I have this great data I'm looking at from this guy named Aaron Siri in America.

Guess what? Guess who funded that? He doesn't even know that. That's okay. This is my point. We are not stamping I can on the current V-Safe data that will be coming out this week. We're not stamping I-Can on because we have a different perspective. What we have always thought is that if we put our name on it, somebody might be offended

by that or someone might want to represent it as their material and not have to bring in what we do. So we don't put our name all over it. We are literally doing this. We are spending millions of dollars suing government agencies, winning lawsuits to put in the hands of the public and doctors like Mahaltra and Pierre Corey and McCullough and Malone. They have access to these things without being bogged down with where it came from, totally free and clear. And it is literally changing the conversation in our world today. Look at DeStefano. Is he doing this study? If we're not all over him, we've been beating on this aluminum issue. I have an interview I just did the other day that we're working on to get all the ideas from Chris Exley literally called Mr. Aluminum in the

world. This is our beat. This is what we've been on. But what I'm trying to say is how much of the world that you are watching, as you're watching it wake up, how much was affected because of your donation that went to the high wire. You may not realize it because of the we're not laying claim to all of the, you know, dozens and dozens of lawsuits we currently have going or all the FOIA requests or all the demands and citizen demands we're making upon the FDA and the CDC to provide evidence for things they're saying, making them take things down on the website. We are non-stop here. There is a 24-hour-a-day effort to break the back of the lies that are coming out of our government agencies. And I just am saying,

you make that possible when you donate to us. But here you're going to you. Here's the deal. Look at how many things we've talked about today with a doctor that didn't even know some of his information was coming from things that we have created. Yet, you know, there are about a dozen really important lawsuits that could break this thing wide open. We are on the cusp of breaking this entire system wide open so that there's not just one Malhaltra. There's, you know, hundreds and thousands of them investigating this information, but we can't

get to that information because I'll be honest with you right now. We are spending a fortune on legal. We are. But we need more. We need more help. Do you want to just sit back? You ever watch an MMA fight? Yeah, just hit the guy.

Oh, he looks like he's about to fall down. I'll just wait, wait for it. Okay, let's see how he's doing in five minutes. Now let's go back in the fight. That's not how we win this. We need you now. And so I'm saying, look, I get it. There's a lot of pressure on you.

You're like, Del, we're the only ones giving. Is it just the audience of the high wire that's supposed to save the entire world? Well, I know. I get it. It's unfair. I wish more people, you know, were involved in helping us out here. But maybe this time, instead of just saying I'm going to donate more, even though I'm already lifting this all by myself,

how about bringing in your friends, get your friends, get them to start watching the high wire, get them in here, and then get them to start donating. And when you're talking to your friends, oh yeah, I love that episode too. By the way, you know, are you a recurring donor? Start checking in on each other. We need help here, man. We can win this right now. We are moving the needle in ways that no one ever dreamed, that no nonprofit ever thought was possible until we hear. But it's not us. We're just a small team. We got a great legal team, but we need you. You can vote with your dollars right now and make a difference.

So please take this opportunity, if you haven't already, to go to the highway on the top corner, go to donate to ICAN, click on there, become a recurring donor. This helps us know what our yearly budget is and how many badass lawsuits we can bring against those that are oppressing us. So $22 per month for 2022, but honestly, it's $5, if you're not. not even giving $5. Is that a coffee a month? You can't afford it? Here it is. Donate.

Just text right now, 72022 and just type in donate. I want to make a difference in this world. And I'm watching that through the high wire I can do that. We are just vessels for you to change the world. Okay. Well, I want to continue changing the world in every way possible. Sure, we have the legal side. But media is really, I think obviously because I'm a media person,

the most important thing that we can do. And I said it time and time again. I was working at CBS on a medical talk show the doctors. I was a bit of a Trojan horse in there. I wasn't always buying the system. In fact, most of the stories I was doing was challenging the medical establishment because I had a hunch based on the way I was raised

that some of this was bull crap. Well, I'm telling you, I'm not the only one that's out there. And sometimes it's like a mahalcha. We talk about the whistleblowers in pharma and the whistleblowers that are doctors. How many whistleblowers are there that are journalists, that recognize that we are being paid to propagandize our nations.

That is what is happening. Well, there are plenty out there, I know it, that want to stand up and rise up. They don't always do it, but that's why we want to not just celebrate the doctors that do it, but the journalists and the producers and the filmmakers that do also. I had a brilliant gentleman in England on the show fairly recently named Mark Shorman, one of the top television producers in the UK. He was used to doing great. investigative reporting for ITV and Sky News, but then he ran into the same problem I did at the doctors.

God forbid you have a question about a vaccine program, especially one that doesn't appear to be testing things enough. Then what happens if you decide to use your connections and your ability to make good television and good media, what happens when you decide to focus on the issue that no one wants you to talk about? This was Mark Sharman just recently when we spoke with him. I know this is quite a big deal for you to come out from behind the camera where you've been an executive in the industry for so long. But I know you want to do it because you have been so disturbed by the coverage of many of your former colleagues, the organisations that you used to work for over the course of the pandemic. It was a warning to basically say do not question the official government line.

Now, to be fair to them, they said you can have opposition voices on, but you must presenters must intervene if there's any danger of harmful or misinformation. It's created an environment which will lead to the biggest assault on freedom of speech and democracy. I've known in my lifetime. I've never seen the broadcasters toe the line. And rather than question the government, they became cheerleaders for the government. We have lost the free press and it goes against every principle I've ever been taught and grown up with. You know, we were always taught to be fair and balanced and show both sides of a story and let the viewers decide. And that has just completely gone out of the window.

It is not what journalism is about, it never has been and it's a very, very dangerous precedent. who are these people that are deciding what's information and what's misinformation? You know, who are they to dismiss scientists, eminent scientists and doctors who question the official narrative and say it's misinformation? I mean, since when did science stop? Since when did people stop reviewing it and asking questions and debating it? And we are losing the ability to debate. It's one of my favorite interviews of the year with Mark Sharman.

It's my honor and pleasure to be joined by him now. Mark, good to see you. Hello, Dale. Good to be here again. I love your passion for the truth. Thank you. Well, I love yours as well. And, you know, we had a very deep conversation that we both believed the last time you were here

that we're watching the death of journalism as we speak. In America, we reference journalism. as the fourth branch of government or the fourth of state without a free press that's able to challenge the government and challenge the institutions in our nations, then we will not be a free people. COVID really put that to the test and I think we watched sadly as our news agencies became clear propaganda machines for an untested product. You started doing interviews back then, but you made a serious shift, you've gotten involved, so tell me what did you do after those interviews?

You know, what did you decide to do? Well, I mean, first of all, you know, I'm not being brave because I'm retired, so, you know, I can put my head above the parapet without fear of losing my income. But I decided that we had to make a film of our own because nobody else was really asking the questions. I got involved really, as I said,

before because it was quite clear that the media were only telling one side of the story. And so that's how I first got involved. But I then met some of the vaccine injured. And it's a bit like the video clip you shared with the doctor a few minutes ago. You know, he says, he says, how do we tell the world what we are seeing? And I think that's still the case. You know, how do we tell the world what we're seeing? and vaccine injured are suffering really, first of all, from the injury themselves. And in some cases, you know, we're talking about fatalities or we're talking about limbs being lost. But a lot of the people that have just got constant pain and constant disability,

which isn't actually always visible. If that wasn't bad enough, they're being ignored by the NHS over here, by doctors, And I think Dr. Mahatra has said, you know, they're turning a willful blind eye, probably to protect their own prestige. And I got more and more involved talking to the vaccine injured. And I then hooked up with a terrific young filmmaker, Phil, at Oracle Films and his partner, Liam. And it was an interesting marriage of a sort of crotty old executive and a young team. But we came together and it's not television as I remember it.

You know, it was virtually made on a kitchen table. But it looked very professional, I think. And we're hoping to get the message out there. I mean, the film is built around the stories of six or seven vaccine injured with different levels of troubles. Deliberately so. So, you know, when you were making this, I mean, obviously, and we're about to break this out to the world

because I think you've done a brilliant job with this documentary. But, you know, obviously you knew there was pressures on this conversation, but when I watched your documentary just the other day to prepare for this, I thought this is ready to go on television. You can even hear where your commercial breaks are set up. You've done it totally professionally.

And I watched it thinking, this is 60 minutes. This is what we grew up watching. In fact, just a few short years ago, This documentary would have been exactly how they would have talked about the swine flu vaccine and the news that was reported then. Yet we, you know, live in a different time now. So when you finish this, what was the response? I mean, you're still a television executive. You know, I'm sure some of those places have changed, but you have sources.

You have places you could go. I know I'm asking you a rhetorical question because I went through this journey with Vax. When I went to all of my producer spaces, you know, how do we get this out there? What did they say to you? I think in general, people I've talked to don't really believe you. That's the first problem. But I mean, I think the difficulty is that there's no debate. There is no other side of the story.

Now, really, it doesn't matter to me whether, well, it doesn't matter. But if Dr. Mahalter and the like are wrong, actually that's not the point. They should be heard and the debate should be had. And, you know, in my time in full-time broadcasting, we always looked at both sides of the story and left it to the viewer, really, to make the mind up. There was none of the preaching that now goes on. You know, it's very difficult for me to see that. And we approach two or three companies and individuals.

And actually, in one case, somebody that had done a terrific expose. of the Tami flu and the swine flu. But in this case, they think the vaccine works. They're believing the science. But as we all know, the science is not being questioned. So in the film, it's based around six or seven of the vaccine injured, and we tell their stories. And you feel the frustrations for them.

They just cannot get listened to and cannot get treatment. And of course, there is no particular any. in sight for them, which makes it even worse. And they're trying all kinds of self-help to try and alleviate the pain and get back some to some form of normal life. But we go on to look at the medical profession, the regulators, the drug companies themselves, the trials and how accurate were they, how we arrived at an efficacy of 95% when in truth it was nothing like that.

Right. But we also look at how our government, the UK government, were influenced by behavioural scientists, a type of process which has been described as unethical. And we look at the media. And I think one of the most disappointing things for me is the BBC, you'll see in the film, actually say on air, they say on air, we do not debate with anti-vaxxers. It's not our editorial policy, whether they are right or right. Now, that's the BBC who, you know, like to think they've got this reputation for impartiality

and fair and balanced report. We asked them about that, what happened to fair and balanced reporting, and they weren't prepared to comment. Wonderful. So it's really quite worrying. I mean, I just think, you know, as I'm sure you do, this is just the tip of a control iceberg. The BBC are partners in the Trusted News Initiative, which involves more. which involves Microsoft and Facebook and Twitter and YouTube and they're basically censoring any doctors, scientists, journalists and the public who try to

speak out. Worse of all, the self-help groups, almost the Good Samaritans if you like that have been set up to help each other because they can't get any advice from the medical profession. Even those groups have been silenced on Facebook. And here's the worst which happened last week. The BBC actually boasted in public that they'd had one of the had these groups shut down. They alerted their partners in big tech that some of the self-help groups were using carrots and other emojis instead of the syringes. So again it was shut down. That's that. And this is the BBC. They're not just blocking the other side of the story, or not reporting

the other side of story. They're actually blocking events happening, which is a world I don't recognize, Del, and I'm sure you don't. It's a very dangerous thing when big tech and social media and traditional media are all playing the same tune, and they're blocking out any dissenting or questioning voices. Well, look, you've done the only thing a decent, a decent human, being and a great journalist and producer could do, you decided to tell that story. I know a lot of your own funding went into this and you say you're not brave or you're not a hero. You are because of what we're about to do right now. The TV, mainstream media may not be airing this or you may not get a filmic release, but we're going to do everything we can right now

to help get this documentary out to everyone in the world. I love that it is so clean and tight, tight and short and simple. It's not overly emotional. It is very clearly and brilliantly done. And I think we can shift even more hearts and minds than we have in the work that we're doing. So I want to thank you for this effort. So without further ado, let me just take it to my audience here

and say we're going to screen this documentary right now. The next 55 minutes, you're gonna watch a completely, totally professionally made TV documentary that should have been on the BBC. or Sky News or CNN or MSNBC, but it will not for the reasons that we know. But that is what we are here to do. That's what you're here to do. This is how we make a difference in the world.

So not only do I want you to watch this, and remember, no one's going to get paid for this. Mark Sharman is going to make no money now because we're handing this to you for free. It is this important that the people are dedicating their lives and their careers to get the stories of the injured out there, to get the stories of Mahatra and the paper that he's just written out there. They said this is a concerted effort to hit the world with both of these things, the paper that Mahalaj has just done, and then this documentary, safe and effective, a second opinion. Think what we can do if great people keep handing us tools like this. All we have to do is know about them and use them.

This is safe and effective, a second opinion. I hope you enjoy it. always come first. And a COVID-19 vaccine will only be approved by us, the UK's Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, once it has met robust standards on safety, quality and effectiveness. I was vaccinated because I'm a carer. I've had all three and I have the flu one as well.

As far as the government is concerned, I believe they are doing the best thing for the nation. I got an eight-year-old and I just didn't want to catch it where I didn't have to to be further. This is going to prevent me from having it. Then it was all good for me. I wanted to go on holiday. I just thought it was better than I get it done.

I wanted to protect other people. The COVID vaccine has been hailed as a medical and logistical success. It's claimed that millions of lives have been saved. But there's growing evidence that the jab can have devastating consequences. They actually told my wife and two children that they had no hope. And if I did survive, it would be from the waist up. I thought I was going to die. I would go to bed and I not thinking I was going to wake up.

Those injured by the vaccine feel unrecognised and abandoned by the NHS and the government they trusted. You take one for the team, so I took the vaccine, but now the team's running the opposite direction. Just let people know that when it goes wrong, it's like no help at all. The doctors don't know what to do with us. We're literally keeping each other alive. Safety is our watchword, and we are globally recognized for requiring the highest standards of safety, quality and effectiveness for any vaccine. Having being double-jabbed and being one of the first to take the Pfizer vaccine,

I have, after several months, critically appraising the data, speaking to eminent scientists in Oxford, Stanford and Harvard, speaking to two investigative medical journalists and being contacted by two Pfizer whistleblowers reluctantly concluded that this vaccine is not completely safe and has unprecedented harms which leads me to conclude that it needs to be suspended

until all the raw data has been released for independent analysis. Dr Malhotra is a respected and influential figure in medicine. And he's not alone in calling for the suspension of COVID vaccines. Many more international scientists are alarmed at what's developing into a global issue. I'm John Boe, and I'm going to shine a light on an issue that cannot be ignored. Millions of COVID vaccine injuries and thousands of deaths are being reported through official channels all across the world. Our government has been accused of covering up the emerging data and the media of telling only one side of the story.

We'll look at how and why. But first and foremost, we give the vaccine injured a voice. My mum was standing on the drive. She'd been looking after the dogs while we'd been away. And she was talking to the neighbour. And I remember getting out of the car. And I burst into tears and I said, please don't be alarmed. I'm walking. And it was then I really realized I think after the tremors on the

Sunday that there was something seriously wrong. And I'd been fine up until like I'd been healthy, perfectly fine up until the point of me having my second vaccine. No one. Breathe, breathe, breathe, please, please, please. Okay, come on. No one. It's really funny because I look at these videos, and I watch them and I either get really emotional watching them or I just go, wow, look at how far I've come.

And look at where I was. I was on a Zimmerframe. I was in a wheelchair. I kind of feel like I'm looking at somebody else sometimes and not me. I still suffer now. I suffer with a lot of fainting. I suffer with my legs giving way. As a result of the damage that the vaccine has done to me,

I've ended up registered, disabled. Before I took the vaccine, I was a 57 or 56-year-old scaffolder. Absolutely non-underline health conditions. I worked hard, five tonne of steel a day, never been ill. I had a very active private life. I was in a band. I left the band about a year ago, but I still went to about four or five gigs a week. Nothing now.

I don't do any of that anymore. Trying to get into places is not easy, either on a wheelchair or on crutches. The prosthetic leg is great when it works. I'm still very early, so it's not working the way it should, to a certain extent. The doctors actually said that the clots that were in my system were enough that should have been fatal. I've lost my left leg. I'm lucky that I've lost my left leg. I should have been both legs.

I'm now going blinding my right eye. Thanks, AstraZeneca. So you have to keep something given. That's the honest answer. My husband was 32. He was due to start a job at Great Ormond Street Hospital as a senior clinical psychologist. I remember him coming home and saying that he'd been offered AstraZeneca and he was really really excited, really proud that it was the British one. He was funny, he was kind, he was generous, he did everything. You know, he worked two jobs and still came home and helped with the children. Even that day he helped put the kids to bed, you know, when he was having a stroke.

He's just my best friend. The last time I saw him was walking towards the ambulance. I must have known on some level that that might have been the last time that I was going to see him. For months, this doctor's witness was going to see him. this doctor's widow was forced to use the local food bank because she was living on benefits. She's finally received government compensation and she accepts it as some vindication.

But she says, it's not enough. It will never be enough. Charlotte is still awaiting an inquest, but across the UK, coroners have confirmed deaths from the vaccine. They are usually framed as very rare. But how rare? Adverse reactions should be reported to the Yellow Card Scheme operated by the MHRA, the UK's Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Agency.

Their figures to August the 24th show over 430,000 reported reactions, of which 2,240 were fatal. America's VARE system has almost one and a half million reports with over 30,000 deaths. and deaths. Not all these reports will be confirmed as vaccine induced, but then again, not all reactions are reported. The figures surely demand investigation. Absolutely. I don't think anybody can deny that there has been harm. You can argue about how much, but you can't deny that there has been harm. It's just a scandal of such epic proportions that I think people don't know where to begin with it. It's frightening to even approach it.

The government is in denial on vaccine injuries, according to one of its own MPs. Other jurisdictions have taken the view that the government fully compensating those who do the right thing for public health reasons by having a vaccine should be looked after by the state if the consequences of having that vaccine result in disability or injury. This approach is taken in order to promote vaccine confidence amongst those who might otherwise be hesitant about having a vaccine. This government's approach, however, seems to be to try and promote vaccine confidence by covering up the adverse consequences for some of having been vaccinated.

Sir Christopher is pursuing a private member's bill, trying to speed up compensation and increase the maximum amount from £120,000. But for the vaccine injured, recognition and a return to good health are paramount. Take Caroline Pover. She runs a pickling business, writes books, and is a public speaker.

For 10 years, she supported a village in Japan, which was devastated by the tsunami. And to make her annual visit, she took the jab. My life has completely changed now. It's not, it's, it's unrecognisable compared to how it was. Sorry. For about five months, I did hardly anything. I couldn't function at all.

I was exhausted constantly. I was in constant pain. Head and eye pain was relentless. I couldn't function. I couldn't walk very far. I couldn't read things and I do a lot of, I write as well as running my business. So I couldn't write anything. I had trouble processing information, so I couldn't work in my business because I couldn't follow the recipes.

And I didn't have any physical strength. I got to the stage where I can function at about 30% of how I could function before the vaccine. On a good day, I can maybe do a couple of hours. maybe do a couple of hours in the kitchen, but then after a while I have such chest pain that I have to come and lie down in here. And I used to do 12 hours on my feet working in there. It's not about money. It's about having a sense of purpose with your day, isn't it?

Jobs and work is for all of us. And if you can't do those things, you do get to the point where you think, I cannot live like this. Life is no longer worth living. And we have lost people in the fact. disease-injured community to suicide. I didn't want to live when it was at its worst. I just couldn't see the point.

These vaccines were tested thoroughly for safety and effectiveness at every stage of the development and manufacturing process. They are also continually being monitored, now they are being used in the wider population. This means we can be confident that the vaccines are safe and high effective. Safe and effective? Would millions have been so confident if they'd known how different these gene therapies were?

The word vaccine may have served as a reassurance, but by no traditional definition were these vaccines. The definition in the authorities are using is not what people understand the word vaccine to mean. The public's perception of a vaccine is, you know, we're thinking about polio and about measles and the conventional vaccines where you have a very inert part of the virus being used and it prevents the illness these these what we're using now is a different technology it's new and it doesn't prevent the illness although it's not my traditional area of expertise my understanding

looking at the data of the mechanism of harm from the vaccine is that the spike protein which we believed initially just be localized to the arm appears to be distributed throughout the body in every major organ system for several months, causing either a direct reaction through toxicity or an autoimmune reaction. And that is the most likely explanation behind the mechanism of harm from the MRNA products. Development of the jabs was done at warp speed,

so much so that governments had to indemnify the drug companies against any future injury claims and invest billions up front. They knew they were taking risks. As I understand it then, from what you're saying, is that it may be that there needs to be some compromise in some of the safety measures that would normally be expected to create a vaccine because time is so crucial. Well, of course, if you want to wait and see if a side effect shows up two years later, that takes two years. When vaccine efficacy was declared at 95%, relieved governments gave the green light. But Dr. Malhotra argues that the methodology was flawed.

Relative risk reduction is a way of exaggerating the benefits of any intervention, clearly which would be in the interest of people trying to sell you something, in this case the pharmaceutical industry. So if, for example, you have a thousand people in a trial that didn't have the vaccine versus a thousand people that did. In the placebo group, in the dummy group, you may have two people dying, and in the intervention group you may have just one person dying. And that's a reduction of 50% one over two is a 50% relative risk reduction.

But actually, you've only saved one life out of 1,000. So the absolute risk reduction is only 1 in 1,000. It's a big difference. The guidance has been for many years that we must always use absolute risk reduction in conversations with patients, not just relative risk reduction alone. otherwise it's considered unethical. The accusation is that governments acted on Pfizer's relative risk figure of 95% efficacy, when the absolute risk was a mere 0.84%.

In other words, you'd have to vaccinate 119 people to prevent just one from catching COVID. So we were basically sold on something that ultimately, in retrospect now, was very, very misleading. Red flags should have been raised when the FDA locked away Pfizer's trial data for 75 years while the vaccines were being rolled out. A US court finally ordered their release, and the initial disclosures are alarming. Alexandra Latipova is one of a group of experts who studied the documents.

Among her shocking allegations are these. Pfizer skipped major categories of safety testing altogether. The toxicity of the COVID-19 vaccine's MRNA active ingredient was never studied. The FDA and Pfizer knew about major toxicity associated with gene therapy class of medicines. The CDC, FDA and Pfizer lied about vaccine staying in the injection site. My examination of leaked Moderna documents also revealed that vaccine-induced antibody enhanced disease was identified as a serious risk. AstraZeneca also met with controversy. In March 2021, its use was temporarily halted in several European countries because of fears of blood clots.

In the UK, it is now not recommended for anyone under 40. We asked the DHSC whether they were aware of allegations of inadequate and possibly flawed trial data. This is not something that DHSC will be responding to. The pharmaceutical companies have also been reluctant to comment. reluctant to comment. Scientists prefer to emphasize the 20 million lives they claim to have been saved. So the suggestion that the vaccine has saved 20 million lives

is really, I think, science fiction, not scientific fact. Because the study that comes from is a very poor quality observational study. And when you look at a higher quality level of evidence, in fact, even Pfizer's own randomized control trial, didn't show any reduction in COVID mortality of statistical significance, it showed no reduction in all-caused mortality. So this really, this statement is almost implausible.

To be honest, it sounds more like an advert from the drug industry than true science. With so many questions about the benefits and safety of the vaccines, why were they authorized so quickly by the MHRA? And what exactly is the relationship between the regulators and the companies they regulate? A recent article in the British Medical Journal questioned their independence. The MHRA chief executive June Rain insists that safety and independence are vital. But this year, she admitted that the agency had changed from watchdog to enabler. Rules are written on tablets of stone and there's a lot of policemen in these places

that go around factories, find problems with trials and generally hold things up. We tore up the rulebook and we allowed companies to immediately start juxtaposing, not sequential phases of clinical trials, but overlapping, beginning the next one, before the previous had been finished. Doctors, patients and members of the public must be aware that regulators cannot be trusted to be independent as long as they continue to be captured by industry. You know, recent evidence that's emerged from a BMJ investigation real that 8, 6% of the funding. of the MHRA comes from the drug industry and that's a huge conflict of interest. We asked the MHRA for their observations, but they merely referred us to their official guidance on the safety of COVID vaccines. What was happening with informed consent was hugely concerning. I think what concerned me the most

were doctors who weren't informing themselves. They've been very busy and they haven't done their own research. They've just accepted everything that they're told, a government guideline, comes and we've seemed to have disrupted the doctor-patient relationship. There were many, many doctors who were getting all of their information from the BBC in their lunch breaks and who accepted at face value because of the word vaccine that these were going to be safe and effective. That was a real dereliction of duty. I think the lack of acknowledgement of vaccine injuries being a major issue is rooted in willful blindness, Specifically human beings turned a blind eye to feel safe, avoid conflict, reduce anxiety, and to protect prestige.

The General Medical Council responded, It is not within the remit or expertise of the GMC to assess the scientific or evidential basis for the recommendation made by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization, or the decisions made by government and public health bodies. But we do regularly share and discuss. our guidance and its application with government health officials and other relevant stakeholders. We expect doctors to follow the principles in our guidance and use their judgment about how to apply these in the circumstances of the pandemic. Later, why did the government continue driving the vaccine campaign?

When scientists had learned it didn't prevent infection, it didn't prevent transmission, and statistics show the vast majority of the population was never at risk from serious illness. And Dr Jones, a consultant pediatrician who's always been pro-vaccination, has this stark warning. The children are at low risk, they don't need this vaccine, and the harms are real. Hi folks, I'm here at St. Thomas's where I've just had my first AstraZeneca vaccine, and quite literally I did not feel the thing, and I cannot stress how important it is for everybody to get their vaccination. Get your jab when you're asked to do so. So it's good for you, it's good for your family, and it's a great thing for the whole country.

So please get your jab. Thanks very much. Can I ask, why did you get vaccinated? To minimise the threat of COVID on everybody and myself. Well, just trying to stop me dying from COVID-night name was a pretty big one. That and I wanted to go on holiday. Why did I get vaccinated? Because I didn't want the COVID, but I still got it anyway.

I was ill all over Christmas and I don't know quite what it was, but they said it's not COVID. It was something to do with COVID. But I know that I could have quite used to have called an ambulance. I was that ill. Were you told about any potential side effects from the vaccine? No. And when I did ask, especially about reproductive issues that it may cause in the future,

nobody really gave me any answers. and the other thing is after I've had my vaccinations, I noticed some changes. To be fair, I don't feel that we was given enough information, but because it was such a big outburst, it kind of scared me to having it done, and I've had it done, and luckily I haven't had any bad repercussions from it. Millions of people took the COVID-jabs without serious side effects.

But for those who did suffer, the physical pain and debility is made even worse by the frustration and mental stress of being ignored. They feel neglected by the NHS, misunderstood by the public, and betrayed by the government. Before I was fit and healthy, used to do boxing, we do crossfit, you know, do a lot of weight training and keep myself in good shape.

When I had my Pfizer booster, that's from my world to just totally crumble. I remember one time. grabbing on to the sick dolly, she's not going to dive. I can't even get to the toilet. He was so frightened. His body was shaking, it was jerk. It was horrendous. Absolutely horrendous.

My heart got elevated when it was on standing. I got really sick. I was being sick for six weeks. I was retching and being sick and thrown up every single day. My heart cramped. It felt like somebody had grabbed my heart and twisted it three times. I had brain fog. I developed a slur.

I would slur my words and I developed a stammer. I had seizures. My body can't regulate temperature anymore. It's totally my life. My life is, this is my life. now, stuck in my bed every day. We no help with anybody. It's not only life form, it's an existence, and nobody.

I tell you think I hold of Boris Johnson, I would tell Boris Johnson exactly what I think of him. Help these kids, help them, help these people that are injured. But I can't live like this. I can't... I can't... I can't live my life in my bed. I'm only 36 year age. I'm supposed to be getting married as you. getting money this year. I thought I was going to die.

I would go to bed at night not thinking I was going to wake up because of how much pain in my heart was in. In fact, I couldn't breathe. 80, Max and Katie Kavanston. Congratulations. We were ranked number six in the entire world for amateur ballroom and Latin dancing and the 10 dance championship.

And we were one of the highest ranking couples in the UK and subsequently the world. Our ambition is to become world professional 10 dance champions, European, international and British professional champions. And we only do that within the next eight years. So I got my second jab and for the first two to three days, completely normal, I was dancing, I was preparing for the world championships. So this is, you know, I'm going to the gym every day and practicing.

After the fourth and fifth I started getting a small pain in my heart and I thought it was just genuine heartburn. I was still dancing. And I'm told now that that could have been very dangerous and caused long-term health problems because of what could have happened. Originally it was pericoditis and I was then told just before Christmas actually is peri-myococytitis. So it's actually worse because I've got pericoditis and amyacoditis damage. So I have scarring on three parts of my heart and still the lining the muscle of my heart. I've got the inflammation which constricts it.

That's when my heart rate goes up. That's what's constricting my heart and sopping me from breathing. I don't trust myself, I don't trust my body. I don't know what my heart's doing. I can have a small pain now and 10 seconds I'm going to be on the floor. That's just the consequences of what's happened. Music's a very beautiful and powerful thing if you understand it and if you enjoy it. And just to be able to go onto a floor and do what I think I was born to do

in front of thousands of people, that's the most special thing in the world. And having lost that, I can't even begin to tell you how bad it feels. hotels days with experience meorka and we're about to jump off this cliff I used to be in the Olympic team for synchronised something is to train six days a week 10 hours a day incredibly hyperactive I was also always known as the person that was like running around set doing stupid things backflips when I shouldn't be doing them and stuff like that I'd go out and party and dance with my friends and then I'd be back home at 7 a.m. and then shooting a commercial at 10 AM.

So really pushing my limits. The industry required me to be double vaccinated to work on films, and I immediately regretted it as soon as she put it in my arm. I just thought, what have I done? Over that period of two weeks, I just got worse and worse and worse and worse, and eventually this awful headache that was like someone was inside my, actually inside my skull. like pushing out. I can't explain how awful it was and it was I was dizzy. I was literally

crawling. Like I really thought my life was over because I couldn't even I couldn't even cook for myself. I couldn't even stand up. I couldn't care for myself. My mom would come and see me. I think like twice a week to change my bed sheets for me, do a food shop for me, clean my house for me. I just couldn't do anything at all, but I just thought this isn't living. If my mess of my life is going to be like this, then I would rather not be here, but it was in the sense of desperation for help. And I wouldn't have had those feelings. My mind wouldn't have gone there if I had literally, if someone had just said, I see you, I'm going to help you. Those who were in perfect health before their vaccine have encountered

too much ignorance and skepticism when seeking medical help. For some, their GPs have refused to engage, and that has reached the extent that they are made to feel gaslighted, Madam Deputy Speaker, with their physical pain being dismissed or explained away as mental illness. How insulting and humiliating is that, and how at odds were the principles of the National Health Service? It was the most terrifying, terrifying experience to be told that what's going on with you is psychological and that it's not physical when you're in physical pain.

Genevieve and many of her fellow vaccine injured have spent thousands of pounds seeking treatments. They'll try anything to help ease their pain and disabilities. I found a private phlebotomy service and she comes to the hands. house and she takes a pint of blood out and literally sit here, she takes a pint of blood out and I come alive again and I'm me again. I can talk properly, I can move properly, my body feels different, everything feels different. I did a series of auction therapy treatments with Janie at the Wellness Lab. I'd come into the auction therapy and I'd have a migraine and I'd leave without one and feeling like so much better. I'm very fortunate in the fact that I'm

70% recovered. I'm back working, just pacing myself. But there's no such thing as autopilot. There's no such thing as easy. For John Watt, just making the journey for treatment as a trial, like many of his fellow sufferers, he has pots, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome. A walk of just 20 meters is enough to send his heart rage soaring.

So it's seen 134, 135. I can only stand for three minutes, five minutes, and then I start to black out, you know. So that's why I'm always having to lie down in that as well. He's trying a course of treatment called Goldick, where blood is taken from the arm, infused with gold particles and then spun to remove the reactive cells.

We've had to be about tens of thousands. My husband and I were getting ready to remorgase your house to get more treatment for him. He said every single treatment we can possibly give him get them better. It's important to note that John suffered a heart attack before getting any of his jabs. But he was back in the gym and back to health taking his first two jabs without problems. It was after the Pfizer booster that he collapsed.

In regards to people getting their vaccine, that's their choice. I've never told anyone not to get their vaccine. Just to let people know that when it goes wrong, there's like no help at all. I'm being serious, like you don't have any help at all. They'll use your mental health against you. Georgia Siegel also paid for private Goldick treatment and had some encouraging results. Although the treatment that I've had has helped me dramatically and significantly and giving me back a certain quality of life,

it's not the quality of life I had before. I had the vaccine. None of these treatments guarantee a cure. And the tragedy is that for most healthy people under the age of 70, there's very low risk from COVID-19. The benefits of vaccination are questionable. One thing that's become very clear now is that the vaccine doesn't prevent transmission and in fact has very limited, limited efficacy, if any,

in preventing infection. Therefore, it becomes an issue of individual choice. And certainly, when you look at age groups that are under 70, the harms clearly seem to outweigh the benefits for most people. This chart reflects deaths of people with COVID up to May 2022. And the numbers increased dramatically as the age groups rise. The vast majority are over 70 years old, and especially over 80. We asked the DHSC why the vaccine campaign targeted all age groups, and whether it accepted that the vaccines were not preventing infection or transmission.

This is not something that DHSC will be responding to. Let's now look at the data after the vaccinations began. These are deaths from any cause amongst 15 to 44-year-olds in England and Wales. There is a notable increase in 2021, the year of vaccination, higher even than 2020, when COVID emerged. Young men seem particularly prone to myocarditis, inflammation of the heart. This data from America shows the expected rate of myocarditis in blue against actual cases in yellow within seven days of a vaccine.

Note the increase in younger age groups, particularly 18 to 24s. It's hard to ignore reports of sudden deaths and collapses, in particular on the sports field. It's just been unbelievable. how many people, not just footballers, sports people in general, you know, you've had tennis players, you've had cricketers, basketball players, just how many are just keeling over. And at some point, surely you have to say, this isn't right. This needs to be investigated, you know?

And it might turn out that it's because they've had COVID and this is what COVID has perhaps done to their hearts. It might be that the vaccines are, of course, in these problems, but we need to find out why. Why in 2022 are many more people than usual dying, as confirmed by the Office of National Statistics. For instance, deaths are up 11.7% in 10 to 14-year-olds and almost 15% in the 55 to 59 age group.

Overall, that could equate to over 75,000 excess deaths in England and Wales this year, and not from COVID. The Daily Telegraph is reporting that deaths in the aftermath of lockdown could be greater than COVID itself. There are calls for an investigation, mentioning lack of health care, stress, long COVID,

even the cost of living. Why on Earth isn't COVID vaccination under suspicion when there are so many reports of adverse reactions here and around the world? It beggars belief. And yet, when, When there are so many questions on the efficacy and safety of COVID injections, the government still pushes ahead with a program of immunisation.

And for children. Last April, the NHS began a rollout of jabs for those aged between 5 and 11. Letters of information were distributed to parents across the nation. And in South East London, the NHS went further still, sending bright, smiley envelopes directly to the children. Inside there was a packet of sunflower seeds to, quote, bring some joy and sunshine into children's lives. Directly below, the vaccination message, quote, to give them the best protection. It all marked a major U-turn in policy.

The likelihood of children having significant detriment if they catch COVID-19 is very, very low. So this is an adult vaccine for the adult population. Nevertheless, this summer the NHS added COVID-19 to the regular vaccination schedule for 5 to 15-year-olds. Even though the government does not recommend Pfizer for under 12s and AstraZeneca for under 40s, it was a move that prompted 78 leading professors, doctors and analysts to write this to the MHRA.

We strongly challenge the addition of COVID-19 vaccination into the routine child immunisation program despite no demonstrated clinical need, known and unknown risks, and the fact that these vaccines still only have conditional marketing authorisation. I'm so deeply concerned at the lack of balance and the risk of harm that is...

And that's really why I've been speaking out. I feel I have a moral obligation, an ethical obligation to at least let as many parents as possible know that they don't need to get their children. children vaccinated. This is not necessary. The children are at low risk, they don't need this vaccine, and the harms are real. Now, government advice seems to have changed yet again. From September the first, children who turn five can only get a first and second dose of COVID-19 vaccination if they are either at high risk due to a health condition or living with someone with a weakened

immune system. And it appears that children aged between 12 and 15 can only be boosted if they too are at high risk. So if the jabs really are safe and effective, why are they now being limited? We asked about the changes. This is not something that DHSC will be responding to. If some of the contents of this program have surprised you, in our final part, we'll show you how and why the mainstream media only told you one side of the story, and how the government used psychological techniques to nudge the nation into compliance. You come in? It's gonna be good.

Come on mate, come on, let's go. Don't miss out on your two COVID jabs. Don't miss out on the good times. When they went for their jabs, those who were injured thought they were doing the right thing in following government instructions. They might even have lined up behind you. And yet the government, the NHS, the media, all those who encouraged vaccine take up, they've all back to

away. So people have had to help themselves through groups like UK CV family, VIB UK and others. My charity organisation for the vaccine injured has created a call centre to support people. The indifference that we've all experienced is unnecessary and cruel. We want to support each other. That's the main thing our group is doing is supporting each other because we've got no one else to talk to. The doctors don't know what to do with us. Nobody else really knows what to do. So we're just trying to help each other. On a weekly basis, I get told that someone is suicidal. Caroline and I have both had to call the police before because we've found a online suicide note.

We have frequently found ourselves in regular contact with somebody, private messaging, saying someone who's literally on the edge at that moment. And these support groups are keeping people alive. We get abuse from both sides. We're kind of stuck right in the middle. There are people who are very pro-vaccine who hate you. There are people who are very against this vaccine, if not all vaccines, they hate you two, all for different reasons.

This is the feeling that you get from people and you're stuck in the middle. And that's a very, very lonely place to be. The plight of the vaccine injured will be on the agenda when Baroness Heather Hallett finally holds her COVID inquiry. But she must also investigate Sage, the government's scientific advisory group, and especially their so-called Nudge Unit, otherwise known as Spy B. Why did they drive such a culture of fear? From this evening, I must give the British people a very simple instruction. You must stay at home.

Earlier on the very day of that historic Boris Johnson's speech, Sage met to discuss SpyB's methods of achieving behavioral change. The tactics were agreed. The influence is clear. The coronavirus is the biggest threat this country has faced for decades, and this country is not alone. All over the world, we're seeing the devastating impact of this invisible killer. And though huge numbers,

are complying and I thank you all. The time has now come for us all to do more. You should not be meeting friends. If your friends ask you to meet, you should say no. You should not be meeting family members who do not live in your home. You should not be going shopping except for essentials like food and medicine. And you should do this as little as you can. If you don't follow the rules, the police will have the powers to enforce them, including through fines and dispersing gatherings. The way ahead is hard, and it is still true that many lives will sadly be lost. This is an important update from the government about coronavirus. Someone on your street, at your supermarket or in your park, is highly likely to have COVID-19. Do not go out unless

absolutely necessary. Do not meet up with anyone outside your household. Do not put the lives of your loved ones in danger. This is a national health emergency. Around one in three people have no symptoms and are spreading it without knowing. Keep your distance. Exercise, don't socialize. Stop the spread. Stick to the rules. If you bend the rules, people will die. I think what's important to understand is over the last two years there has been the promotion of unethical psychological techniques to encourage behavioural change such as the use of fear artificially increasing the sense of being afraid in order to get people to change their behaviours and so fear drove the lockdown it was the strictest of peacetime regimes with untold

damage to businesses education mental health and family life in this atmosphere Deepened by fatality numbers which experts now tell us were inflated, the only way out, apparently, was vaccination. People have got to understand vaccination is going to be in the end. Your route to liberty. For the world at large, normalcy only returns when we've largely vaccinated the entire global population. And once vaccines were approved,

the promotional campaign went into overdrive worldwide. Our fellow Americans, the science is clear. These vaccines will protect you and those you love from this dangerous and deadly disease. My name is Michael Cain. I've just had a vaccine for COVID. It's really important to know that the vaccines have all been through and met the necessary safety and quality standards. There's no evidence that it affects fertility. So roll up your sleeve.

It's not just your own life you'll be saving. It's other people's lives too. Trust the science. and get on with it. The vaccine rollout was a logistical triumph and may well have prevented hospital admissions and deaths. But when 9 million adults in the UK chose to remain jab-free, the nudge became a threat.

No jab, no job, vaccine passports, and vilification of what were termed the anti-vaxxers. The nut jobs, the anti-vaxers, dangerous obsessives. I don't want them sitting next to me in the theatre. I don't want them standing next to me at the theatre. theatre bar. I don't want them next to me or anywhere near me or even in the same carriage on the train. Frankly, if you're not vaccinated at the moment and you're eligible and you've got no health reason for not being vaccinated, you're not just irresponsible. I mean, you're an idiot.

When you use unethical psychology on a population, you actually start to see splits and divisions occurring and that's really dangerous because you also encourage othering or the demonisation of people. So we see that kind of not just fear being raised, but also anger being raised as well. They deserve to be punished and I've told my friends as well. In fact, I have blocked my friends who have said they're not getting a jab. They are dead wood in my eyes. Tens of thousands of people would not bow to the drive for mass vaccination. They demanded choice and they accused the mainstream media of promoting government propaganda. Let's return to the sage playbook. It's says, use media to increase a sense of personal threat, a sense of responsibility to others,

and to promote positive messaging. Immediately, the regulator Ofcom asked broadcasters to take note of the significant potential harm that could be caused by material misleadingness in relation to the virus or public policy regarding it. They warned of taking appropriate regulatory action on any breaches. And note the date. It's the same day the SAGE document was approved and the Prime Minister spoke to the nation.

Cue the BBC. Just to let you on on a journalistic point here, we actually don't, as a matter of editorial policy. We don't debate with anti-vaxxers, whether they're right or wrong. We actually don't do that. So the BBC doesn't engage with so-called anti-vaxxers, even when they may be right.

And when several huge marches took place in London and across the UK, they were virtually ignored by the BBC and the rest of the media. These are the images they didn't want you to see, the story they didn't want you to know. Tens of thousands of citizens from all walks of life raising genuine concerns. The people the media painted as dangerous anti-vaxxers. And it just so happens that the government has spent an estimated half a billion pounds of public money for media advertising. Then there's the trusted news initiative, which the BBC says is an industry collaboration of major news and global tech organizations working together to stop the spread of disinformation. The partners include the BBC, Facebook, Google, YouTube, Twitter and Microsoft.

It sounds laudable, but what it really means is that governments, the media and the big tech companies, are working to a common script, their script, their version of the truth. We asked the BBC what happened to free speech, balanced reporting and impartiality. I'm afraid we won't be commenting. The real truth is that anybody who questions the official narrative is generally suppressed and cancelled or labels as a spreader of disinformation on social media. That includes eminent scientists, doctors, and disgracefully, the vaccine injured. We had thousands of people on that support group all over the world who were vaccine injured.

And we got shut down by Facebook. And I was quite shocked that that could happen. Your story is misinformation. You're anti-vaccine, your anti-science. You know, you're killing people. I've been told that. You're killing people telling your story. people won't take the vaccine if you tell your story, please be quiet.

This conspiracy of editorial control between mainstream and social media is stifling democratic discussion. A proper debate might have led to better informed choice on the vaccines and potentially fewer injuries. Instead, we've been subjected to psychological pressure under that dubious mantra, safe and effective. Proper balance. Science must come to a sound conclusion.

We need to know the truth. Through the madness and the last, as they're holding back the truth, no matter what they try, I will always fight for you. How will save your innocence, they are trying to remove. move I am here at your defense and I will always fight for you yes I will always fight for you I will stand here in the way and I will not give up on you I will shield you from in the bad there is evil that you can't feel that I will always fight for you so to every single mother father stand up for your sons and daughters do not back down don't let up you are so make this a war to win

look in their eyes and tell them that i will always fight for i will stand guard at the gate and i will stop each shot the I will always fight for you. I will always... I thank Mark Sharman and our friends over at Oracle Films that have helped us with a lot of our shooting in the UK, Phil and Liam. Brilliant job on that documentary. Look, folks, these people have put their lives into this incredible documentary and giving it out for free.

They're not going to make any money. So the least we can do is help get this out there the way it should have been. So we don't have NBC, we don't have CBS, we don't have the BBC, or, sky or any of these networks, but guess what we can beat them if we all work together. This is how we do this. It's now time for our community. This is something we can easily do. You can use your Facebook channels, you can use your Twitter channels, your Instagrams,

your emails, and let's get this documentary out there. I think it's brilliantly done. If our friends can't handle one hour to look at another perspective, then we're in real trouble. And maybe you sit down and have some popcorn. We're going to make this really easy for you. All you have to do is go to our watch page on the high wire and just scroll scroll down right there on the watch page and you will see there safe and effective a second opinion.

It's just the film. You don't have to send out the entire show that we've had here, though I know the show is brilliant. This is just the documentary. You can forward that to anyone you know. Totally for free. It's obviously brilliantly done. And I think it's so important that we get out this out there everywhere we can. These are tools.

There's not going to be a lot of them. But, you know, as I was sitting here talking to my stage manager and, I still, we still watch these documentaries and you just, you get this, you had that moment where you like, wait a minute, wait a minute, I'm in this movie, we're in this movie, like you, we're so used to seeing it happening outside of us and then you realize, wait a minute, this really happened in America. This is really happening now. This is really in our future if we don't do something to make sure that this never happens

again. So I think it's really, really important that we show them. We don't need your stinking NBC. We don't need your Fox. We don't need your MSNBC. We don't need the BBC. Humanity. Mankind is bigger than all of you.

Let's stand up shoulder to shoulder right now. This is a great way to do it. All right, I want to close out this show. Oh, also, before I close out the show, also because they could use your help, they did give it away for free. You can donate to Oracle Films and help recoup some of the costs. It's the buy me a coffee.com slash Oracle Films. This is how it works. I think each coffee is worth like $5. You can decide how many cups of coffee you want to buy for Oracle Films.

So let's go ahead and give them the usual high wire support. Let's see if we can't recoup some of the funds here. I assure you these guys are not going to get rich. I still have never seen a red scent from Vax, the movie, believe it or not, whatever, you can think which you will. Those of us that make things like this try to get out there. But there was a lot of support that helped us deliver it, delivery systems, things like that. I'd love to find out that they actually got this thing funded and recouped all their money because why should the filmmakers be starving and sacrificing their lives when they're doing all the work?

So please help them out and donate, buy me a coffee. All right. To close out this show, I found, you know, there was a brand new prime minister in Italy. I don't know if you're aware of this. And she's getting rave reviews. I mean, I really don't remember when media has just really embraced a douly. darling the way our mainstream media in America is embracing Georgia here. So let's just take a look at how much America and our news agencies love the new Prime Minister of Italy.

Voters in Italy tomorrow appear poised to make a hard right turn. The woman expected to become Prime Minister leads a party with roots in neo-fascism. The hallmarks of Italian fascism like this motto. God, Fatherland and Family. A far-right and family. A far-right political party whose roots go back to post-World War II neo-fascist. Far-right political party whose roots go back to post-war two neo-fascists. Roots in Italy's post-war fascist movement. Roots in Italy's 20th century neo-fascist movement.

Marloni herself was a hardcore neo-fascist militant. It's stunning because of Italy's disastrous history, the last time a hard-right party rose to power. The most far-right government in that country since Mussolini. most right-wing government since Mussolini. Since Mussolini. A red flag, if there ever was one, says Edith Brooke, a renowned poet and Holocaust survivor.

Italy about to see the country's most right-wing government since World War II. Most far-right, far-right government since World War II. Since the end of World War II. Meloni's win will probably send alarm bells throughout Europe. You know, it's alarming to a lot of people around Europe. Italy is revered for its history, but not all of it.

Not all of that history is beautiful, and many fear that one particularly ugly chapter can soon repeat itself. It's like almost like all those different networks we're reading from the same script. So weird. Anyway, you know, I want to do some research, and I don't know a lot about this person. I haven't been following European politics, but I want to see what type of language that they're talking about, you know, references to Mussolini and far right and fascist. She's a fascist. And we did find something damning.

Unfortunately, YouTube tried to take it down. I guess it was against their guidelines, and now I think maybe it's back up. But you can see why they definitely are ripping into this person. I mean, listen to how horrific these statements are. Potra farne many other of these questions. At Monta, there's what we're doing today. Why the family is a enemyco?

Because the family has so afraid. There's an response one for all these questions. Because it's a definition. Because it's our identity. Because all that we define in this time is a enemy for who would we'd that not have us even an identity, and that we're just simply

schiavi, consummators perfect. And then is sootack with identity national, and sootack with identity religious, and soot-attackle-dentity of genera, and soot-attackle-familiar. Not I'd have to define Italian, Christian, a daughter, mother, no.

I do have a citadino-ix, genere X, Genitone 1, one, the genitore two, I have been a number. Because when I'm only a number, when I'll not have more an identity, when not have more radici, well, then I'll be the schia of the grand speculation financial.

The consumer is the reason for the while, this is the reason for the which we make much a lot of this appointment has a lot of power. Because we don't want to be we're doing that we're not

We don't know we defender the value of the person human, of every single person human, because each one of us has a codice genetic, unique and repeatable. And this is a noah, of the sacro. We'll defender them, we'll defender me, the father and the family

that do much skiffo to someone. It will do you do finder the national liberty because we don't be never shi-scivi and simple consumers in valiating

of the speculation financial. Here's the our mission, that's because today I'm coming here. She said Cicesterton

or my more than a century ago. Let me see if I'm if I'm

put the fire are attizated to show that two plus two does four.

Spade will are going to show that the foggues are in pastate.

That time is arrived signori. We're ready. We're what I think, here's what I

think. When the very people that locked us down, destroyed our economy and our jobs, start calling those that are against that approach authoritarian. When we start hearing that when you say things like God or family or parental rights, you're called a fascist or a Nazi, I think we have to start questioning the languaging that's being used. And we've got to start looking at what is being said by the people themselves and watching their actions and their deeds. Of course, we'll have to see if this new

Prime Minister stands up to the things that she says she believes in, but at the moment, those sounds like things that I believe in. I believe in the power of the family. I think that parents' rights and the rights of how they handle their children override and supersede the government's rights to take control of our children. I do not believe our children are the property of the U.S. government, and I would say the same for every other government in the world. I do not believe that my body is the property of the U.S. government. I am a free citizen. My rights are endowed to me by God.

And so when we look at all that we've covered today, when we look at the scientists, they're all at different levels. You know, you have a Mahatra that's just jumping in here. He's in the shallow end of COVID-19 where we see a major problem. But that pool gets deeper and deeper and slides. And believe me, the bottom of that pool is very slippery. And we will watch that journey. Now we can judge those that jump in where they're at. As you heard one of the people in the documentary said,

you know, I'm being attacked from those that said I should have never gotten the vaccine and attacked by those that are for the vaccine and says I shouldn't be speaking out against it. I think we have to be aware that we are all in different places on this journey, but we are on this journey together. We were all born here at this time. I have said it before, I believe for a reason. I believe there's a reason why great film producers like Mark Sharman are, putting their entire life energy behind a great documentary to make a change in the world,

not just to undo a wrong, but to make sure that we are not all put in prisons for speaking our truth, are not injected or treated by medicine in a way that is not conducive to being human beings, that we're not locked away from our parents the next time a virus is around to be able to check on them in a hospital. We have some serious work to do here, and there's some real heroes stepping up. They might be not all the way down the road where you are. Does that make them controlled opposition? Does that make them against you because they still believe that there's some part of the vaccine program that works?

Or do we take them where they're at? Do we take their language and where we do agree? In fact, isn't that the most important thing right now as we try to assess who is our friend and who is not? Do we think about what do we agree on? If we were having a conversation, are these prime meridian discussions of what I believe to be true about this world, or we diametrically oppose? And then if we think the languaging that we hear and the people that are stepping out, they're getting out of their comfort zone, are we ready to get out of ours? And if you're afraid of being called a fascist or a Nazi or a nationalist, because you believe that you want your energy coming from inside of your own country, you want your food coming from inside of your own country, and by God, you want your energy. want the independent freedom to decide what is and is not injected into your body.

If that is going to bring some name calling, buck up, deal with it. This is the world we not live in. Stand up for your rights. Be a human being. Be loud. Be vocal. Share the videos when we give them to you. Donate where you can to make a difference.

We've got them on the run. You can tell because they're calling us really bad names. I know. It's weird, but it's a good. good sign. Keep watching the signs and I'll see you next week on the high wire.