The Highwire with Del Bigtree - AMERICA RISING

Episode Date: February 11, 2022

America is Rising!; What is Really Driving States to Reverse Lockdowns?; America is Rising, & SoCal Next Site for Huge ‘Defeat The Mandates’ Event; Top Expert Exposes The Hit on Ivermectin; The Coming Debut of ‘God Over Government’Guest: Pierre Kory, MD, MPABecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

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

Good afternoon, good evening. Wherever you are out there in the world, it's time to step out onto the high wire. Now, for the last several weeks, as everything has been crumbling around, the pro-vactors, the pro-medical institutions, the government-control bodies, all of it is crumbling down. And we've been saying, obviously, things are changing and they're changing very fast. We've been reporting it over the last several weeks, all of different changes, backing away from mandates, all of that's going on. One of the ways you know for sure that things are changing is when they start trying to rewrite history right in front of your eyes.

So know this. As this thing crumbles and falls apart, someone's going to have to change the narrative and remind us all that that never actually happened. These are not the droids you're looking for. Don't fall for it. Here's what it looks like in the news. Real quick on the Johns Hopkins study on the lockdowns. It was this meta-analysis that came out of several studies. lockdown during the first wave of COVID in spring of 2020, found that it only reduced

COVID mortality by 0.2 percent in the U.S. and Europe, and suggested they have little to no public health benefit, but severe consequences for the economy. And it suggests that lockdowns shouldn't be a part of a future pandemic response. Is that the shared view of the administration looking in the rearview mirror? Well, I would say, I would first, of course, point you to our health and medical experts for specifics on this specific scientific study. I would note that the president has been clear. We're not pushing lockdowns. We've not been pro-lockdowns. That has not been his agenda. Most of the lockdowns actually happened under the previous president. What our objective has been is conveying that we have the tools we need to keep our country open thanks

to the president's leadership and focus on fighting the virus. And that's reflected in the fact that 90 percent of schools are open. Over 210 million Americans are fully vaccinated. We have the tools to avoid lockdowns and we're not moving back and that's our intention at this point. You guys do believe that the lockdowns were more harmful than helpful. Again, I would point you to our scientific experts on the specifics of a study, but the president's agenda, the president's approach has not been lockdowns. It has been using the tools we have to prevent that. All right, did you get that very clearly.

Do you see what's happening here? The media is finally caught up to the high wire. It only took about two years for mainstream media to be asking the question. Now that the science is in, by the way, it's always been in if you've been watching the highway. Now if the science is in, we know that lockdowns do more harm than good. And it is now being said by this study at Johns Hopkins that we should never use this tool again. So where are you at as the administration? Well, we never believed in lockdowns.

I mean, that was never a part of our plan. That was the last administration. Now, I don't want to get partisan about this, but let's go ahead and check in with the last administration because I think that this is one of the most important turning points. I was watching this take place, I thought, man, what happens after this conversation? This is Donald Trump in the Rose Garden the moment he said. Now remember, this was a man who was not wearing masks in any single meeting, was being ridiculed by the news for not wearing masks, not sort of carrying his part of this lockdown and protocol.

So it seemed like we knew where he stood, but just in case we weren't quite sure, this is what he said to us just prior to Easter in this important. Take a look at this. We're going to be opening relatively soon. Our time comes up and Monday or Tuesday are, you know, the allotted two weeks, but I'd love to have it open by Easter. It's such an important day for other reasons, but I'll make it an important day for this too.

I would love to have the country opened up and just raring to go by Easter. I don't want the cure to be worse than the problem itself. And you can't compare this to 1918. where close to 100 million people died. That was a flu, which is a little different, but that was a flu where if you got it, you had a 50-50 chance or very close of dying. I think we're substantially under 1%

because the people that get better are not reporting. So we only know people that go to doctors and go to hospitals. And we're taking that and we're still a little bit above 1%. When you add all of the people, the millions of people that have it that get better, we're substantially less than 1%. And when they came to my office, don't forget, they were saying 3%, 4%, 5%.

This is a very big difference. No, we have to put our country back to work. All right, so we're blaming that administration where the president of the United States came in front of America and the world, frankly, and said, look, we've got to open up. This is crazy. The cure can't be worse than the disease. We can't destroy lives and businesses. This isn't a way to do this. And he made some very clear points that we had been making on the highway at that moment, saying,

Look, it appears to me, based on all the signs that's coming in, that this virus has a death rate that is much below 1%. You know, very, I think it gets very seriously, or far below 1%. In fact, it ended up being, and at that time I think we're announcing, was about 0.27%. That was the death rate. I think it's even been moved down to somewhere between 0.24 and 0.26% worldwide. That was the entire death rate of this thing. So the 3 to 5, you know, 6%, he was being told, as he said, was it completely. complete lie and he was calling them out on it.

Now, I'm not a fan of Donald Trump, I'm not saying that I'm choosing sides. What I want to say is we cannot let them rewrite history. Who was really the culprits in this? Who really didn't want the truth to get out? It was our own mainstream media because this is how they handled the President of the United States giving you clear data, which is now proven to be true, telling you I want to be open because these lockdowns are not the right approach. Remember now, two years later, we're all recognizing through studies.

that they were totally useless and only did harm. You had a president saying that, but what was the reaction by the media? This is what their reaction was. This president is being wildly irresponsible. What the president is suggesting is really a formula for more uncertainty, more infections, and more harm to the economy.

I'm stunned by the president saying this is the timeline. But many public health experts say that is too soon and could risk a health care catastrophe. No expert backed him up on the Easter call. Not one piece of science, not one projection. I think that the president was trying to do, he was making an aspirational projection. If you like to hear it or not, this is a wave that is here

and is escalating. So we need to stop it. Once everybody's healthy, then we can have a much more robust economy. We don't put a price on people's life. This is inconvenient. This is inconvenient from an economic and a personal standpoint, but we just have to do it. That is our major weapon against this virus right now. He's a fan of money first, mortality second.

No American is going to say, accelerate the economy at the cost of human life. Hmm, kill my grandparents or my parents so that we can get the economy. Sounds pretty good. Don't make that call for my family. If the president does end up saying anything true, you can run it as tape. But if he keeps lying like he has been every day on stuff this important, we should, all of us should stop broadcasting it. Honestly, it's going to cost lives. I think he's listening to the science.

And we know when we rely on data and science, not a president that seems to ignore both of those things. We have never heard a sicker, more perverse formulation than what that man said today. Sick and perverse information, otherwise known as truth. Now, again, I want to be very clear. This is not, I'm not here to say Donald Trump, you know, was the best president ever was. None of that. That's not the point. The point is, who are we as Americans supposed to blame?

Who are we supposed to be looking at? And here's what I'm showing you. And here's what I believe. Donald Trump, clearly, who was the president at that moment, did not want the mask, did not want the lockdowns, wanted everybody back. He was living his life in front of the cameras that exact way. So when we look back to the administration, maybe what we have to admit, and maybe what the conversation needs to be here is our president has no freaking power.

Because clearly this was a guy that was president, but no one around him moved this. So who was actually in charge? What does it mean to be an administration? Because Tony Fauci and Deborah Birx were speaking out against him there in the media, saying, well, I think he's just, it's wishful thinking where he wants to be. It happens to now, and it's going to go down in history as having been. In fact, the lockdowns were a disaster. They had absolutely no effect.

In fact, probably increased all the problems that we had. So as the science proves that out, we're gonna have to re-look at the history here. But what is the problem in America? Is it the president? Do we blame Joe Biden right now? Or do we blame that whatever that administration is, that deep state, if you will, that is always in power.

Is there no matter who's the head? Doesn't matter if your president's walking around without a mask or is in his basement, it won't come out and is wearing a mask the whole time. Either way, it seems that this is there. system moves anyway. So let's not let them hide the fact or blind us to the fact that whatever administration means, this is an establishment. This is, and by the way, Fox was in on it, they attacked everybody attacked. Everybody took their marching orders from somebody

and said, stick with the lockdowns, destroy the lives of Americans, let's get them vaccinated. So we're not going to let him off the hook here at the highway. And by the way, Chris Cuomo, when you say there are no experts that back his Easter decision, well, you should, you should should have been watching the high wire. We had experts every single week saying exactly that. In fact, you could only find experts that agreed with the administration if they were funded by the pharmaceutical industry or working for government. Everybody outside, it appears, and it's becoming more and more clear, we're on the side

of staying open, don't destroy lives, don't do something we have never done with any other virus, even those like the Spanish flu that Donald Trump referenced there that were deadly, we did not lock down the world and destroy our economies and everything. everything else. Folks, we cannot let them rewrite this history. Do not forget what happened here. It is time we make sure that the truth remains the truth. So help me God. All right, I'm going to talk more about that John Hopkins study with Jeffrey Jackson coming up in just a second. We have a huge show, a gigantic announcement. I will be announcing on the show. What I will be believe is going to be the largest medical freedom rally in the history of the United States

America. It's right around the corner. When's it happening? I'm going to tell you in just a little bit. I have people that are going to be at that rally, including Dr. Pierre Corey, is in studio waiting to come out right now. We're going to get into a deep conversation on what is happening in the deep state of medicine. Why can't you get drugs in the hospitals and into patients that actually work? And then we're also going to talk to Jimmy Levy and high-res that blew up that rally in D.C. with their songs, they're launching a brand new video today, live. We're going to send that out. We're going to bring all of your attention to it.

But first, it's time for The Jackson Report. I know, Jeffrey, I mean, this is amazing, right? There's one thing to keep saying that clearly the wheels have come off and things are crumbling down, but they're already now throwing people on the bus, pointing fingers, which means we're way past them accepting that this was a disaster. They now know it's a disaster, and now they're going to try and rewrite the history around it. But what is this all about? What is this John Hopkins study that's being referenced?

Yeah, Adele, there's so much spin going on out there. We have some work to do today. So this John Hopkins study, now, Jen Saki was talking about the John Hopkins study when she was questioned about it. She said, we've never really supported lockdowns. Well, let's go right to the John Hopkins study, and people can read it for themselves. It's a literature review of a meta-analysis of the effects of lockdowns like COVID-19 mortality. This is John Hopkins Institute for Applied Economic.

and global health. They looked at 24 analysis to go through this paper throughout the world. And in this paper, now here's where Jen Sock either didn't read the paper or she's playing word games to confuse you because in the paper it says lockdowns are defined as an imposition of at least one compulsory non-pharmaceutical interventions. That's closing of schools. That's closing businesses. That's mandating a face mask. And it says in here, while this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted. In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument. They go on to conclude this, the authors,

these costs to society must be compared to the benefits of lockdowns, which our meta-analysis has shown are marginal at best. Such a standard benefit cost calculation leads to a strong conclusion. Lockdown should be rejected out of hand as a pandemic policy instrument. Now, again, And we knew this because, I'm sorry, go on. So just to be clear, when she's saying, well, we have other tools in lockdown, she's referencing the masks that they're still recommending. But this study put masks in as a part of that's a lockdown measure, putting masks, forcing people to do something they wouldn't naturally do in order to handle COVID.

So where she's saying, we don't believe in lockdowns, we believe in the other tools. They are saying those other tools are lockdowns, right? Yes, be clear. Okay, got it. Yeah, according to this study, absolutely. and this is what they looked in this meta-analysis. And we knew this was the case. You know, we knew it because of the Great Barrington Declaration in early 2020. They said this exactly will happen if you put these lockdowns in. And it's going to affect the harder-hit

lower socioeconomic classes around the world even harder. And it did that. So we knew this. And now we're getting this full circle. And there's spin trying to be put on it. So let's just be clear about that. But we're seeing headlines like this. This is an amazing article out of the telegraph. It was lonely opposing the first lockdown, it reads, but the day will come when no one remembers backing it. So as this evidence keeps piling up that these lockdowns weren't worth it, it says in this article that 93% of British people back the first lockdown. The second lockdown was backed by 85%. And even by this past summer, 71% still one of the restrictions coming in. So as these people, as these people are waking up to the fact that, you know, that we've

known at the high wire here. And so many other outlets have. reported that these are not worth it. They're going to have to face this cognitive dissidence that we talked about last week. And it seems like the media and the public health apparatus is, is really trying to supercharge this cognitive dissidents and trying to rewrite history, as you mentioned. It's really interesting. But here's another headline. This started the UK. This is called shambolic. COVID PCR testing rules meant one in three who isolated were never contagious. So now we have these PCR tests, the case tests, as so many have already reported, it's coming around full circle that these cases, the PCR tests were not reliable. And this was a study co-authored by Dr. Tom Jefferson.

He is a co-author of this article, an epidemiologist at the Center for Evidence-based Medicine at the University of Oxford. And he said here, looking at the data, he said, quote, we found that about one-third of people who isolated probably didn't need to. PCR positivity means that you can tell people to isolate and ruin their lives, basically, even though in a large portion of these cases, they are not infectious. It's absolute chaos. The whole regulation of these tests seem to be shambolic. And what he was talking about in here is basically they found anything over 30 cycles, a cycle threshold, 30 cycles, was not going to show an accurate positivity rate.

And they found that most tests around the world were set at 35 and even 40 cycles. So people are, again, quarantining their cases. They can't travel. They have to work from home all because of these tests. And we knew this, but now it's really coming out. And just really quickly for people that are brand new to the high wire, we've gone over all the science around cycles. You can go back and watch other shows about the cycles and PCR tests.

But think of it like that little magnifying, you know, the microscope where you're turning it and getting bigger and bigger microscopic information. Well, at 30, they're saying you're so deep into this that now you're going to start picking up dead fragments that aren't necessarily the virus anymore. Maybe you breed them in, but they're not infectious or your body's already gone through it and you're letting them go.

But we went beyond 30, 40. I even think, if I remember right, the New York Times reported that a lot of these centers in America were using 45 cycles, meaning you were just exaggerating tiny fragments that even Tony Fauci said were totally irrelevant and couldn't be considered infectious disease. yet those people were being quarantined because of those results.

Absolutely. And that was, quote, the science. And people I didn't agree with at that time were, you know, they were called a bunch of names. And so the media is now trying to pivot here. But it's important not to forget what the media was saying. So one of the major mouthpieces was CNN's medical analyst, Leanna Wynn. She had a lot to say during the pandemic. She talked about unvaccinated, not being able to go out in public.

She talked about universal masking for kids for this entire time. Let's listen to what she had to say in April 5th, 2021. Take a look. There are many more people, millions of people who, for whatever reason, have concerns about the vaccine, who just don't know what's in it for them. And we need to make it clear to them that the vaccine is the ticket back to pre-pendemic life. And the window to do that is really narrowly. I mean, you were mentioning, Chris, about how all these states are reopening. They're reopening at 100%. And we have a very narrow window to tie reopening policy to vaccination status. Because otherwise, if everything is reopened, then what's the carrot going to be?

How are we going to incentivize people to actually get the vaccine? So that's why I think the CDC and the Biden administration needs to come out a lot bolder and say, if you're vaccinated, you can do all these things, hear all these freedoms that you have. Because otherwise, people are going to go out and enjoy these freedoms anyway. Unbelievable, looking back. I remember what she said that, but we can't just have people like enjoying their lives. They'll never get the vaccine. That's the case.

And of course, she was referencing the fact that Texas and Florida were just walking away saying, this is ridiculous. We're done here. And she's like, oh, my God, you know, we got to scare. And remember, they were trying to say scare everybody. There's going to be huge outbreaks in Texas. They didn't get their vaccines. Florida, you can't open up.

We ended up having some of the lowest rates around here in Texas, Florida, the same proved that she was wrong. But here's someone that literally wanted to like keep them locked down so that we can use. this is an incentive. I mean, what else? I mean, we got to have that carrot, that carrot that gets them to get the vaccine. That vaccine is their passport to freedom. I mean, it was crazy how she wanted to use lockdown and invited administration to be stronger. I mean, just an outrageous statement, rob people of their freedoms before they end up being too happy. Yeah, and at that point, the writing was starting to become on the wall that, you know, the things are going to be opening up

pretty soon. So she was desperately trying to, as you said, use those lockdowns as an incentive to get people vaccinated, but she's changed your tune a little bit. This was her this week. Listen to this. All right. Do you agree with the move? I do. There was a and is a time in place for pandemic restrictions, but when they were put in, it was always with the understanding that they would be removed as soon as we can. And in this case, circumstances have changed. Case counts are declining. Also, the science has changed. We know that vaccines protect very well against to Omicrom, which is the dominant variant. Everyone five and older have widespread access to vaccines. And we also know about one way masking, the idea that even if other people around you are not

wearing masks, if you wear a high quality mask that also protects you, the wearer too. And so in this case, I'm not saying, I don't think anyone really is saying that no one should ever wear masks, but rather that the responsibility should shift from a government mandate imposed from the state or the local district of the school. Rather, it should shift to. an individual responsibility by the family who can still decide that their child can wear a mask if needed. You know, take New Jersey, the case of New Jersey, for instance, their new case average is just over 4,000. Is that an acceptable number to do this, or are they projecting out to March 7th

at this point? I don't think we should be looking at case counts at all at this point, especially when we're dealing with a milder variant and when so many people were exposed to Omicron and their therefore have at least some level of protection either through vaccination or immunity. The key number that we should be looking at is hospitalizations. If our ICU's and hospitals in that particular region are not overwhelmed, if they're not overcapacity, we can set a number, for example, 75% or 80% full, then we should be able to relax all restrictions. And I actually believe that we should be starting to, with the first restriction removed,

should actually be the restriction on children. Because while for adults, you could say, well, what's the harm of? of adults masking when they go into a grocery store, there actually is a harm that we should be discussing of children continuing to mask. That doesn't mean that masking doesn't have its place for children when there are very high rates of hospitalization. If we get a new variant in the future

that children are particularly susceptible to, we may want to bring masks back. But we should also be intellectually honest and say that masking has had a cost, especially for the youngest to learners, people with English as a second language, children with learning disabilities, there has been a cost to them.

So the risk-benefit calculation has really changed. I mean, these people, Jeffrey, it's like no conscience, right? I mean, what you just saw there is the definition of a shill. Like, I will stand by and have anything come out of my mouth, I'm told to say, and have no reference point to what I've said before or where we're going in the future.

I mean, for her to say, look, I mean, I don't think anyone would say that, you know, you shouldn't wear your mask, but I'm saying, then later on, she's saying, But it's definitely harmful for the children. I don't recommend doing it. I mean, she's all over the map. But this entire idea of saying no case.

I think we should stop looking at case counts. That's confusing everything. We should really look at hospitalizations. That's exactly what Donald Trump said in the middle of all this. Why are we? He called it a casemic. This is a casemic. We are making our country look bad by overtesting with tests that aren't accurate.

And so we're freaking everybody out for no reason. We never filled up. You know that all those army hospital tents? that were put outside in New York and all over the country. Not one of them was ever used. We never used them. We never overflowed a single hospital. So her entire point is the exact opposite of where she was, you know, a year ago or what they've been saying to us.

They're literally acting like, well, no, we got through it. No, we never filled up hospitals. Nobody ever overflowed a single hospital in the United States of America, yet we were locked down. I mean, look, I'm glad she's coming around. I'm glad it is so embarrassing now that she has to go out and just reach. virtually everything she said without saying I'm retracting it, just that the science has changed. And honestly, Jeffrey, what does that mean? I mean, I made me think about what is science change? Does science actually change? I try to think this. Science changes, the immovable object, or is it always changing?

I know our perception of the science, at least I think the science is, you know, that this is what's been discovered. But if it changes, then our perception was wrong. Either way, what she's saying is, we totally misunderstood this. you've been watching the high wire, you would have been right the whole time. We're finally coming around to where the high wire was at, where the Great Barrington Declaration, so the science has changed. All right, whatever you want to call it, you were wrong. And the science hasn't changed on masking kids. It's never been right to universally masked kids. And she says, we have to be intellectually honest that masks are harming kids. They've always harmed kids. We've known this. They're emotional setbacks. Their verbal

setbacks, all of these things, intelligence quotients. We've reported on all this. We've known this and fair to say this now is i mean okay thanks for coming out but so reportedly there was a uh a new york times report that quickly just i think about that term intellectually honest i mean i think maybe the reason she has so much difficulty with that is certainly to be intellectually honest you have to have an intelligence correct yeah yeah instead of reading off a teleprompter perhaps or a talking point that that may be one of the options we're working at here so according to new Times, there was a meeting last week of governors talking about how, looking for Biden and by administration to have a roadmap on how to get these mask mandates and a plan on reopening and ending

these restrictions finally. And it wasn't, it wasn't moved on vast enough. So at the beginning of this week, New Jersey governor, Phil Murphy, he took the first initiative. And from them, from there, it's been dominoes. And so what the headlines look like at that point, New Jersey to end school mask mandate on March 7th at COVID cases, Wayne. They're lifting, they're lifting at March 7th. for school districts will be able to decide those. So now we went from the state calling the shots on the mass mandates to letting the school districts decide. How about we let the parents decide?

But I guess that's a little too far. Just remember people, if they try to do this again, remember how hard it is wrestling this power away from them. So we're at the point now where I guess the school district get to decide at some point. But now it keeps going. And also, let's give a shout out to New Jersey because, by the way, I realize you weren't able to get rid of Murphy,

but you got rid of Sweeney, which was his bulldog that was in the Senate President Sweeney, who was the one pushing all of this farm agenda all over New Jersey. He was disgusting, and he lost to nobody with no money. He was funded by pharma, and even that wasn't enough to get Steve Sweeney in. So even though I know you were all upset in New Jersey, look at the power. It did. Sweeney's away.

The bulldog's gone, and so now Murphy works for you again. You've got him back on the leash. Well done. Battle of Trenton, one of the great moments in the history of this conversation. So again, New Jersey is standing up and showing what happens when you just have to take one of those cogs out of there, one of the cogs out of the machine, and the entire thing starts falling apart. Exactly. And this is what we've seen this week after New Jersey's opening shot there, you're seeing headlines like this is out of NPR. Four other states plan to drop mandates. This in New Jersey is involved in here. But Connecticut, Delaware, Oregon. So Connecticut's going to be on February 28th. Same thing. They're going to leave it up to the districts for the schools. Delaware is going to be on April 1st.

That's four K through 12 schools leaving it up to the districts. And then Oregon's going to be on March 31st. Even California has joined the fray, believe it or not. This is days numbered for California's mask mandate, policy to remain in schools. So on February 15th, their indoor mask mandate is going to be lifted. But schools are keeping that, going completely against the science at this point. Keep torturing the children, the one group and the one population that's never been at risk. Let's destroy their lives, make them totally terrified.

to breathe the air, let them never see a smile, and then put them on riddling and drugs and psychotropic drugs to deal with the depression because they just don't even feel human. It's so inhuman, it's so horrible. But look, I feel like all these people are just signing, you know, that document to say, yeah, I was that stupid, I was that guy, you voted for me.

There's one of them, one of the big clowns in the circus, Gavin Newsome. Right, and as has been throughout the pandemic, the way California goes, New York goes, or vice versa. So Hockel in New York is also signaling the same thing. Hockel to drop mask mandate for New York businesses today. Wait on schools. So the schools aren't going to get it.

She said, perhaps in March, we're going to see something ending in the schools, but no date set in New York. And then the headline starting last night all the way up to right before we went on air here. We have Illinois ending the mass mandate. That's ending February 28th. Massachusetts here where I'm at, the school mask mandate is going to end February 28th. being left up to the local officials, though, again. And even in Nevada, this is the interesting one.

They'll end, this is minutes before we went on air, so we don't have a picture of this. But Nevada, they're going to end their indoor mass mandate and for schools effective immediately. So anybody, any governor at this point or any leader that's talking about a long, drawn-out plan or a path to how, you can end this immediately because the science is really showing this at this point. It always has, but there's really no argument at this point. But here we are with- point really quick, Jeffrey, just to interrupt you, is that I know it's frustrating, as we say, they're putting it into the school board. The school is going to make the decision. We all know sort of how corrupted those school boards seem to be. We've shown you that some of them are

receiving literally millions of dollars for counties from the government to stay masking, to keep doing all these things. But I want to point out that I really truly believe politically now, even though I'm politically marooned, we really want our government closer to us. So, you know, we want more power in the smaller the government is. We less, you know, the federal government, the state government, I believe should have more power than federal government. The county should have more power than the states, the city. And then ultimately these school boards. And what I'm saying here is folks, you know, we only have ourselves to blame. You can run for school board. You don't have to have, I mean, literally get in there, get to be a part of the system. This is where

they've gotten away with it. Look at the power the school boards had over our lives and our children's lives over these last couple of years, please next time there's a school board election, get in there, the power of what that does and how it affects a society, now you're going to see it. We shouldn't be upset that the power is being given to school board. We should be on that school board. So get out there, do what you need to do. This is how we take our country back. Tremendously important point. The closer it gets to your backyard, the better. Now going to the federal agency, we have the CDC really, you know, antiquated, admitted that It's data collection was antiquated, confusing people, really getting a lot of pushback from the

establishment, the media and also the governments as well. This is their headline coming out in the midst of all of these states ending their mask mandate. Reuters, U.S. CDC stands by K through 12 school masking guidance as states relax rules. And Wielinski is saying we continue to endorse the universal masking mandate right now. There's been nothing that's changed. So at this point, and to your point, Della, about bringing this. back to the school level, it may be up to the kids. And this is what's happening across America.

Take a look. All right. Try County Health's decision to once again require students to wear masks is not sitting well with Douglas County. Today mark the first day of the mask mandate in schools across Pennsylvania, but not everyone's on board. More than 100 Rockwood students went to school today without wearing masks in protest of district policies. Students walked out of class around 930 Wednesday morning demanding an end to masks in class. The first day of the mask mandate was brought in with haunts, chance, no more masks, and signs. If you want to wear a mask, wear a mask. If you don't want to wear a mask, if you don't want to wear a mask.

Hundreds of students in Oakdale banned from class for not wearing their masks. The students say they were following Governor Newsom's example after pictures showed him maskless at the NFC championship game over the weekend. If they don't follow by their own rules that they're trying to force upon me, why should I follow them? My greatest concern has been that my right to an education seems to have just gone out the window apparently. We want this to be a peaceful, respectful movement. We are just trying to gain back our rights as citizens. The teachers in the end are just doing their jobs. It doesn't come from them. It comes from the state.

Everybody is going to meet at the back row of the senior parking lot, and we're all walking into the school with no mask on. It's distracting. It gives people anxiety. We can't breathe. There's a whole lot of kids who are standing up to this. I walked into school with no mask and a stack of pamphlets containing the Attorney General's letter of Missouri and handing them out to students. We want them to acknowledge that the Attorney General of the entire state has told them that they're not allowed to do this.

They gave us two choices. We could go home and not come back until we had a mask on. or we could go put a mask on and go back to class like nothing ever happened. Good job. You can stand up to yourself. There you go, guys. Good job, guys. Good job, guys. You can get me in trouble.

They can suspend me. I don't care. We're done with this. It's fantastic. There actually is hope for the future of America. And I'm sure that sentiment is held by the teens and children all around the world. Yeah, and Del, I want to shift gears here for a second. While many local news reporting is around these victories and around reporting these good news,

other news outlets are going to have to cover tragic stories like this. Take a look. George Watts Jr. was a college student. Described as a homebody, he loved playing video games and being with his family. He's funny. Kind of shy. You get to know him, and he's a jokester, quick-witted kid. He wanted to take classes in person to do.

He knew that he needed to be vaccinated, so he scheduled his COVID vaccine appointment. His first dose in August, his second in September. He wanted to get that one because that one was FDA approved. George Jr. started to feel sick. I noticed he was starting when he started getting a puffy in the face, like a sinus issue. So, and plus he had a cough, and I decided to take him to the emergency room to see what was going on. That's where he was given antibiotics to treat a sinus infection.

But a week later, George Jr. was still sick. So they went back to the ER. After that second visit, his symptoms got worse. Another week goes by and he's getting worse. He's cough is getting worse. He's coughing up blood. His feet are hurting. His hands are hurting.

His teeth are hurting. And he didn't like the light, the sunlight. But then the air, unthinkable. And I told him that it's going to take him to the emergency room the next day after I got out of work. We never made that trip to the emergency room. George Jr. collapsed in his room on October 27th and was pronounced dead later that morning. His dad describes him as healthy, saying he had no underlying medical conditions. An autopsy report from the Bradford County Coroner's Office shows George Jr. died from quote COVID-19 vaccine related myocarditis.

Myocarditis is how I ruled it. Have you seen anything like this before? We are currently working on other cases that are related to vaccine and booster-related issues within our county, yes. I mean, that final statement by the corner there is so shocking. Remember, like you say it's other cases as though people are getting sick. This is a coroner. When he's talking about other cases, we're talking about deaths. What he's saying is, yes, we're looking at other deaths that are being caused by these boosters, by these vaccines.

And you're right, boy, is that a shift from a media that says, oh, there's no proof of injury whatsoever, no evidence that there's any injuries despite the now, I think it's 22,000 deaths that have been reported to theirs. I mean, it's shocking. And you have to imagine that these media institutions are realizing, you know, they're seeing people they know die. Or maybe someone in their family and they're saying, screw it, I'm telling the truth here. So just really a sad story. But it does show, like how many stories like that are we going to start seeing? in the future. Right. And these stories are being shown now in the medical literature. So we had out of the

Journal of the American Medical Association just recently, this study was published looking at myocarditis. And they used the VERS reporting system from CDC. And the title is, myocarditis case is reported after MR-NA-based COVID-19 vaccination in the U.S. from December 2020 to August 2021. And let's look at the table here directly from the study. And we have some things highlighted here. So on the far right that highlighted, you have a column there. And these are the expected cases of myocarditis in a seven-day risk interval per million doses. So this is kind of the background rate of myocarditis. And then in the left side, we have this highlighted section. This is the second dose of males after the Pfizer vaccination. That's the one that really packs that

punch for myocarditis. So if you look at the age group, 12 to 15, all the way on the right, The expected is 0.53 per million. What they found after the second dose of fives a shot was 70.73 per million. Just to give that some clarity, Jeffrey, you know, I ran that through a calculator. That's over a 13,000 percent increase from what was expected. I mean, so we can't brush this up, a 13,000 percent increase in what was the expected amount of my, know that issue. What I also want to ask though is just to be clear, it said in a seven-day interval, so are we saying these numbers only, they only looked at the cases that happened within seven

days of that second shot? Because I know, you know, the different doctors that are out there that have been talking about this, Peter McCullough being one of them, have been talking about like the long term that we may not see this myocarditis for weeks. What about 10 days out? I mean, so these numbers are at 13,000 percent higher, and we're only looking at seven days. What about two weeks? What about a month down the road? Should that be, you know, we start seeing these cases that were maybe undetectable at first, or the kid wasn't jogging or wasn't, you know, having strenuous exercise all of a sudden appears. That's not even in here. I mean, those numbers aren't even in here. Right. And this is partly because of the CDC's poor data collection. And we talked about this last

week, the antiquated data collection systems that they have that they say are going to be updated someday maybe. Let's look at this second row. So we have kids, 16 to 17 males after their second dose. They were expecting 1.34 per million. They had 105.86 per million. So again, astronomical rates of myocarditis here way, way above. I mean, this, again, we've called this, this would be a gigantic red flashing signal. That's what they call this. to be investigated. And I guess they're investigating in a seven-day risk interval. And, you know, sometimes people have a hard time with the numbers.

So we took those numbers and we put them into a bar graph here. So let's take a look at this bar graph. And so on the left is Moderna. On the right is Pfizer. And these are the myocarditis cases. The blue lines are what they found. The orange lines, those little slivers down there are what's expected. So you can see here, just in a snapshot, this is way, way above.

anything that's expected by leaps and bounds. We're talking mountains of myocarditis here in these kids in just this seven-day risk interval. But, you know, I hate to say this, but it gets worse from this study. Let's look at what the authors talked about as a limitation for this study. So here the authors are trying to do research. We're trying to find an answer to this because kids are experiencing this. And here's what the limitation they say. As a passive system, VERS data are subject to reporting biases and that both underreporting and overreporting are possible. Given the high verification rate of reports of myocarditis to VERS after MRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination,

underreporting is more likely. Therefore, the actual rates of myocarditis per million doses of vaccines are likely higher than estimated. And that should be the mic drop here. Let's get some real data so we can figure this out. And why there's a mic drop, just as I'm reading that, I just want to talk to the audience here for a second. I want you to spend the entire next two or three days watching nothing but your favorite news channel outside of the highway.

Go to CNN. Go to MSNBC. Go to Fox and ask yourself, am I seeing this JAMA study? JAMA being one of the most powerful medical journals in the world? This is, I mean, this is huge. This is huge information. Why are you not hearing it from your news agencies? Do you see what's going on here? None of these people are recording these numbers or reporting on these numbers. I mean, it's absolutely insane. Can you imagine if, I mean, what time do we live in that the heart inflammation of children, you know, thousands and thousands of them, probably tens of thousands if we look at this? And they're saying we looked at bears. It's going to be even worse than reporting, yet no one in media is covering this,

and they're attacking those places like the high wire by New York Times, by Washington Post, because we do. I mean, talk about an insane world we live in. I know you know this. But really let it sink in when you ask yourself, huh, I wonder if I should donate to the high wire. You know, I mean, they seem like they're doing pretty good. Do you realize what we're up against? And by the way, we don't, we're not just a news agency here. We're suing to get some of these information.

Some of this is being hidden by our own government. And the only way to get to them is by using Aaron Siri, the greatest constitutional lawyer that ever lived. We need your help. This is obviously a huge battle. This truth, we are here because of those of you that have donated to the high wire. If you haven't been, you don't get to lay claim. You get to say, I'm smart because I watch the High Wire. But wouldn't you like to be able to say, I'm a part of changing the world?

I'm a part of bringing down these institutions that are lying to us. So please, if you have a moment right now, go to thehighwire.com. It's right there where you're watching. Click on that donate to I Can and then hit that button and become a recurring donor. How much could you, how much is it worth to you to have the truth not only given to you every week? We're saying $22 for $22, but what about the fact that you're funding for all? of the millions of people that don't donate that are getting this information to waking up and we're changing the world as we know it.

Becoming, like, please enroll yourself in this movement, enroll yourself in making a difference. I mean, I don't usually, I usually wait till after Jeffrey Jackson, but it's so glaring in that moment. How is this study not on every single news channel in this country and around the world? It's absolutely egregious and frankly I think it's murder. I think it's murder. And as I've said before, you in the press. Yeah, you.

All right, timing. Timing is everything. Look, that very well may have just been a glitch in the system, but the timing is a bit strange. I mean, these are the types of things we're dealing with. The tech gremlins are out there. We are constantly working. One of the things that you're funding when you help us

is to build a stronger and more fortified system, not only so they can handle all the pressure of the millions of you that are watching this, but also that we can avoid attacks that do come on occasion to our system. We'll find out later if that's what that really was. But you get my point. Here's the point is I do believe that the Nuremberg Code is being violated.

I do believe people are being put in harm's way without being given informed consent. And I believe the media is an integral part of that propaganda that is pushing dangerous products, dangerous lockdowns and mass, and all the science is crumbling down around them. We won't let them rewrite the history. But right now, we also have to remember, we're going to hold all of you accountable. that should have known the truth, should have done good reporting, should have been on top of this. We are right. I mean, if you've been watching the high wire this whole time for the last couple of years, you know for a fact and say, you know what? Del has been saying all of this for like two

years. And some of you, we have a super smart audience. I know you're sending us the studies. Say, look at this. And we're presenting him on the show. But here we are. It's a little bit of segue. I got so amped up there that I might have just crashed the entire system. So Jeffrey, let me hand it back to you. I'll take a couple of breaths in a sip of water. now. Okay. Well, let's go to the ASIP committee. Now, this is the advisory committee of immunization practices. This is the CDC's committee that recommends vaccine recommendations, the COVID vaccines and other vaccines, we've covered this before. But this, once they recommend something or they say it's safe and effective, this signal goes out across America and everyone kind of gets their marching orders. And really

around the world, too, they take their cue from ASIP in a way as well. So let's look at their most recent meeting. They looked at myocarditis. They looked at people that. And they looked at people that had that kids 12 to 29 years old. They found about 380 of them that they were found that they could track down. Now that was way down from the number that they had in the VAR's system, which apparently is still underreported, but they can only find 380 of them. Let's look at this slide. They're talking about the results of the most recent cardiac function test. So remember, this isn't when these kids go to the hospital and get diagnosed with myocarditis. This is after they're diagnosed, typically about 90 days after. This is their most recent cardiac function test of many. So it says here we have

elevated troponin levels there, 46% on the left hand column that light blue line, abnormal or elevated tropon levels. Triponin is a very specific biomarker that marks heart injury. The elevation of that reflects ongoing myocardial damage. So 46% of these kids or teenagers, young adults, are still showing increased troponin. And the timeline of this, just so we're clear, this is basically they're tracking these kids, and they're saying after 90 days, we were told this is mild, it clears itself up or with some light drugs, and what we're seeing here is after 90 days, nearly half of these patients still have elevated proponents. So for three months, all these people, three months later, this is how bad they're still doing, right?

Is that how I'm supposed to see this? Okay. Yeah, and also, we go to that next column. We have cardiac MRI. We have 64% still showing. abnormal or elevated cardiac MRIs. And then it keeps going. We still have some percentages across all electrocardiogram, electro diagram. And now let's go to another slide here. This is the summary of this presentation to the ASIP committee. And it says here, this is highlighted. There did not appear to be a single test that was indicative of recovery. So here we are. The media is telling people that this is mild. It goes away. It resolves on its own. Nothing to see here. And behind closed doors here

at the ASIP committee, which really anybody can watch on the live stream, they're saying, we're not showing any tests that are indicative of recovery here conclusively. So it's a big question mark about what the future for these kids. So they're basically saying we're not seeing people recovering. Like this is a long-term problem, right? As, as Dr. Peter McCullough, the most published heart doctor in the world has said, there's no such thing as mild, mild charditis. This is a lifelong injury. It is an injury to the heart that only develops scar tissue. It does not heal. It does not get replaced. Those aren't cells like the rest of your body. This is a permanent injury and now the CDC recognizes and is saying clearly we're not seeing recovery. That's amazing. Right and around the world. We're seeing some other headlines. So check this out the Dutch.

No boosters necessary for Dutch teens health counsel says and that's that's partly because of this myocardous risk. But in the UK, listen to this. This is the Sage group. This is the group that advises the government. This is a group that advised the government. I on how to use fear. They say vaccine passports can be a lever to get more young people jab, scientists tell government. So as this myocarditis risk is hovering there in the background like an elephant, the vaccine passports are not effective really anymore. And a lot of people are dropping them. And this group comes to the government and says this, quote, given higher vaccine complacency in certain groups such as youth who perceive lower risk of infection, this intervention, which are the vaccine passports, could be an additional policy lever to increase vaccine uptake and population level So no science here whatsoever.

We're just going to use this as a lever or stick to beat these kids over the head to get them vaccinated with a shot that's showing, you know, an increased myocarditis risk. But back here in the U.S., in January of 2021, the UK was talking about adjusting their schedule, their vaccine schedule to try to avoid this myocarditis risk and increase the interval. January 2021, Dr. Fauci came out against that. So here's the headline of that, just in case anybody forgets this. Dr. Fauci advises against the British approach of delaying a second dose of the vaccine. But now here we are. We've come full circle. People within the CDC are saying that we need to have a longer time interval.

And this is the headline out of here. This is out of, I believe, NBC Boston, CDC to consider increasing time between vaccine doses to lower risk of heart inflammation. So they're only considering it right now. But these are people within the CDC saying, look, we need to consider this. they're really kind of raising a flag here within the agency saying this this really needs to happen and it's being reported thank god by the media and it's amazing this shows exactly why you're supposed to have long-term safety trials so you work all of this out on a small group of people

that dedicated their lives of the cause by being trial participants you don't turn the entire planet into a trial and then discover that everybody that received this vaccine so far got that interval too close together and now you may have a permanent heart injury that you have either have been diagnosed with or don't even know about yet. This is what we've been arguing about even before COVID. This has always been my issues with the vaccine program. We need long-term safety trials, double-blind placebo studies where we have a placebo group that we say, hey, they're not having this myocarditis issue. They're not having it. In fact, you're having it at 13,000 the rate that the placebo group is. Do you realize this is all happening folks in real time, in real

people. We've been turned into guinea pigs and now the CDC's admitting it saying, yeah, we're going to have to, sorry everybody that's gotten it so far. Unfortunately, we weren't able to give it to every one of you because your brains were too big. So those of you with big brains and intelligence and blood actually pumping through your brains and a little bit of skepticism, you're going to live just fine. The rest of you, sorry about that. But once we fix it, do you think we could talk you smart people into then getting it? Right, right. Well, let's shift gears here. Let's look to the in Canada. It's almost two weeks now since the truckers have rolled into capital city, Ottawa, to peacefully protest. It has been 100% peaceful, no issues whatsoever. And this has been

ongoing. And there's been so many stories coming out of here. I mean, my God, this could be a documentary or a book at this point. It's only been two weeks in. So we have, we have reports now at the beginning of this week. The truckers have been there. They're getting low on fuel. We have the reports of the police seizing their gasoline. This is what that looked like. Take a look. So here the officers have come in or started to steal the fuel that the volunteers locally have been bringing in.

Here's their first attempts. Now our move. So, so, you know, so you're friends and guys. So, So in fact, yes, they are taking fuel right away from people as they attempt to fuel their vehicles.

Wow. So the people are bringing fuel so the truckers could stay there, probably keep their engines running, right? And stay warm, things like that. And I mean, and the police are stealing, stealing fuel. Right, right. And great work to everyone there on the ground, live streaming. This is the eyes and ears of the world. really through your phone. So thank you so much. And so the headlines look like this. This is out of Ottawa. Ottawa mayor declares state of emergency as police threatened arrests for bringing gas to freedom convoy. But as so many of these stories we're going to cover right now, it takes 24 hours or so for it to flip right on its head. So this is what it looks like at this point. People have now in mass begun bringing gas to the truckers and disobeying these police orders. Take a look.

I love how they keep trying to incite this fear thing. Like, oh, they're violent. Like we're all at risk when all they're doing like, no, they're just bringing gas to each other. Like they do realize they outnumber you for sure. They're walking peacefully and doing whatever they want to do. And the power to the people, man. It's such an exciting moment to be watching that.

Yeah, completely peaceful. And so that's a little taste of what's happening outside on the streets of Canada. But here's a taste of what's been happening inside Parliament and what Tudot is having to be dealing with. What Prime Minister Tadot has having to been dealing with. Take a look. Okay. Comes to lockdowns and mandates, we're seeing things change very quickly and rightly so.

Dr. Tam has said that vaccine mandate should be re-evaluated. And today, the chair of the Quebec Liberal Caucus clearly and strongly stated, it's time to end the divisiveness and the politicization and end the mandates. We conservatives could not agree more. This cannot be a slow and drag. process simply because of the Prime Minister's ego, pride, or denial. Canadians are too tired. Canadians need hope. So will the Prime Minister follow the science, follow the evidence, and the restrictions and the mandates? The right, Honourable Prime Minister.

Mr. Speaker, everyone is sick and tired of lockdowns, of the measures we have to do, of the sacrifices we've had to make. But Canadians have continued to step up over the past two years, been there for each other, been there to get vaccinated. And that's the unity we've seen across the country of people who've been there for their neighbors, who've been there for their frontline health workers. That's what Canadians are going to continue to do. That's how we get through and back to the things we love. We're going to continue to follow the science. We're going to continue to have Canadians' backs. We're going to continue to protect people's lives.

the opposition. Countries like Ireland, Sweden, Norway, Israel, Czech Republic, the UK, Spain, Denmark, they're all removing restrictions and mandates, and they're all countries that have a lower vaccine rate than Canada. Here in Canada, though, we have a Prime Minister who refuses to lead and instead is being divisive. I have to agree with the MP for Louis Ibert when he says, people don't know where public health ends and politics begins.

Canadians want their lives back, so again, I ask the person. Prime Minister, will you follow, will he follow the evidence? Will he follow the science and the mandates and the restrictions quickly? Mr. Speaker, every step of the way, we have had Canadians' backs by following the science, by working clumsly with prevent... A lot of noise back there. Finally, Trudeau just gives up. It's clear he's out. He's out. A lot of noise back there. Finally, Trudeau just gives up. It's clear he's out. numbered even inside the halls of parliament. And here's members of his own cabinet now. So let's go to these videos. This is Joe Liebao.

He is a member of the parliament, and he came out just a couple days ago and had a press conference. This is what it looked like. I think it's time to stop dividing Canadians to stop hitting one part of the population against another. I can't help but notice with regret that both the tone and the policies of my government changed drastically on the eve and during the last election campaign. From a positive and unifying approach, a decision was made to wedge, to divide, and to stigmatize. I fear that this politicization of the pandemic risks undermining the public's trust in our public health institutions. This is not a risk we ought to be taking lightly.

Wow. And then we have Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe. We talked about him last week. He said he was going to end the vaccine passport. Well, he came out this week as well, and basically the same time as Joel Liebaum. And this is what this sounded like. Here's his press conference. Take a look.

It's time for us to come together as families, as friends, as communities, and as a province and as a nation. And it's time for us to reach out and support one another. Let's not judge our neighbor because they may be very. vaccinated or because they may not be vaccinated. Let's not judge our neighbor if they should choose to wear a mask or not to choose to wear a mask in the weeks ahead. Whenever someone is doing their own personal risk assessment, which we have asked them to do in this province for a period of time now, they're doing that assessment for themselves, possibly for their family, and they may come back with a different decision than what you might arrive at. And that different conclusion, albeit

it may be different from where you have landed should not be judged. It should be respected and it should be accepted. It's time for each of us as individuals now to make a conscious effort to treat everyone in our daily lives that we encounter equally. It's also time for the proof of vaccination mandate to end. So effective at midnight this Sunday, February the 13th, all provincial proof of vaccination requirements will end. Wow. You know, I want to say this, to people because there's a lot of people that watch the show and I see the comments and there's always this sort of Debbie Downer space like, oh, this is all the part of their plan. They're just relaxing on so they could come at us again.

Please screw your brain back in. Trust me. Nobody ever want to see their own government, the governments of the world, turning on the issue of mandating vaccinations, of mandating lockdowns. Do you realize how hard it will be to ever get back to this place for those that this was their dream? I mean, this is amazing. They have messed up so bad.

This conversation now of forcing vaccinations is not going to end here. For all of us that have been in this conversation, the idea that the government tells you what is going into your body is totally insane. And believe me, this thing has blown wide open. I said it at the beginning of this pandemic. I said it as soon as they started trying to make the sausage in front of everybody, you know, by trying to make this vaccine. This is going to be the greatest mistake they have ever made. And we're going to make sure the world is watching it. Look what's happening, Jeffrey.

These are conversations that are going to go down in history. This is a turning point for the conversation of mandated vaccines and mandated lockdowns that will affect decades to come. We just have to make sure that we keep pushing. We've got to stay strong now. I mean, it's going to be so hard for them to get back to this place again. Huge, huge error and overstep by governments around the world. Right.

It's supercharged people's eyes and ears to watch out for this. It's supercharged media outlets to finally understand, you know, They've been asleep at the wheel on the vaccine topic for so long. They've been supercharged. They've been quick studies to report on this, and it's been beautiful to watch. And following Scott Moe there in Saskatchewan, we have Alberta also following suit. Here's the headline Alberta's vaccine passport program lifted as of midnight Tuesday. So there were some funds now.

Here's another side story or sub story. There's so many going on here in Canada. So the truckers were able to raise almost $10 million from GoFundMe. But GoFundMe suspended that charity giving or the fundraiser, trucker convoy, GoFundMe, suspended. It was put under review after raising over $10 million. GoFundMe basically seized their funds and said, we'll let them go to a charity that we approve of if you want to get your funds back. And that's basically the only way you're going to get it. Well, days later, this is what the headlines look like.

GoFundMe, relents after backlash. Thank you to the people. We'll refund all donors to Canadian trucker fund. So at this point now, the Canadian truckers searched around, and there was a bunch of links going on out there about where they would go next. They went to give send go. Here's the link for that now. Here's a screenshot of it.

And it's approaching now almost nine. It says here at 7.5 million, but as of today, I looked at it, it's over $8 million on its way to $9 million. So they're really doing some great work over there. And if you want to give to that, that's the fundraiser there. But another side story here, we'll wrap up with this. Well, hold on before you go there, because I want to make this point as we're talking about this. Do you realize what GoFundMe just proved to the world?

What they just proved to the world is that money may never get to the source that it was being raised for. That they feel that that money is theirs to spend how they see fit. Any of you that ever use GoFundMe again deserve whatever happens to you. Go to give send go. Let's make sure that we starve any institution. that takes our money, steals our money, and then has headlines telling us, we're gonna spend it wherever we see fit.

That is the exact opposite of the type of security we should be expecting from a company like, GoFund Me. So go fund me, go fund me, go fund yourself. And that's kind of what the tow truck companies are saying to the Ottawa government. Check out this headline. Toe truck companies refuse to holloway

large trucks gridlocking Ottawa. So it says here, this is an incredible story, All tow truck companies on contract with the city have refused to haul away the big rigs that have gridlocked Ottawa's downtown for the second week in a row, the city manager says. So we're having tow truck civil disobedience. It seems like everywhere this government turns to try to kind of use some backroom thuggery. It's just blowing up in their face in a very beautiful and peaceful way, I might add. So Trudeau really looks like he's on the ropes here.

I'm really interested to see what's going to happen coming into this week. But, you know, this trucker convoy really just, it took the, it captured the consciousness of the moment and put it on the streets in Canada. And it's being repeated all over the, all over the world. But it also captured the hearts and minds of the world. Take a look at this. I just got overwhelmed. We opened up one of the bags to see what they had in them. And I got punched in the art.

Whoever these people are, they had their kids. do up a bag with a cookie in it for the truckers and they attached a note with it put their artwork on there sorry I'm getting emotional again I'm gonna show you what it was and this is why we're doing what we're doing reach for the stars we believe in you there was a picture of a truck inside of it they left a note the note says dear mr or Mrs. Trucker. It's really awesome that you're standing up for human rights. I'm only 11, so I don't know much about it, but I believe what's happening is wrong. And I know you can do it. Sincerely, Kate. It's really beautiful. It's amazing. And it is. It's truly touching our hearts to all those

truckers out there. I know many of you are watching the high wire. Thank you for your sacrifice. Thank you for standing up. And it really, you know, people have always asked me, you know, as we go through this, where is our Rosa Parks? And I have said from the beginning, you don't decide that. You don't know what that breaking point is or who's going to be standing in that. But I have to say right now, it does feel like these truckers up in Canada have really sparked something, a shift like nothing else has all around the world. So thank you so much for those of you organizing it. May you remain safe. All of you, our prayers are with you, just absolutely outstanding and truly what it means to be a human being and a brother and a sister

on this earth together. Amazing reporting, Jeffrey. So much going on. I just want to thank you for all the hard work that you're doing and allowing us to keep looking back and recognizing that we've been getting it right. So where you're getting your information, how you're doing it, just mad respect for you and thank you for being a part of our team. Yeah, it's been a heck of a ride. Thanks so much, Del. All right, take care. We'll see you next week.

Well, it's just moving. It's powerful. It's incredible to see where we're at. It's incredible, isn't it? When you sit here thinking that we still have friends and family that have no idea this is going on or is somehow living on a different planet talking about like they can't wait for the next boost or whatever it is, I would just go ahead and just bless them, you know, let them move on their way. I mean, that is, that's going to be what that's going to be.

to be. I don't know what's going to happen to their future, but the future truly is ours. It's in our hands. And as we look at those truckers and the power that that's had, there's been a lot of discussions now about, you know, truckers and even, I think, Department of Justice, the U.S. government is starting to say they're worrying that there might be a trucker convoy in the United States of America. They're worried that we're going to stand up. Well, I have news for you. They are going to. And it's going to be a part of what I think will be the largest rally of all times. After being in D.C., just a few weeks ago, many of us that showed up to that event in D.C. Didn't necessarily recognize who had put it together.

It was a brand new group of dynamic people that put together to defeat the mandates. It was the biggest rally ever seen, at least as far as I've seen, and I think I've been to most of these when it comes to medical freedom. Some reports saying around 40,000 people stood in that audience that day. I've talked about walking from that monument all the way to the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and the people just kept coming. Look at that. It's packed and still you see those sidewalks behind them packed with people moving towards the audience. Just an outstanding event. And as I got done, and for those of you that were there, for those of you that stepped out, we were worried, right? We were worried about what is the safety going to be in D.C.

We'll be able to use a bathroom or a restaurant since they have a vaccine mandate. You know, there was all of this threats of sort of January 6th, like lingering up. So I get it. There was a lot of people that were out there. I know you wanted to go, but you didn't show up. And I was thinking about that just days after that event, and I just thought, can you imagine if we do this one more time, if we do this right now, if we can do this again, how many people show up, how many people will say, okay, now I trust who's putting on, now I know what's going on?

Well, I immediately reached out to the organizers. I'm not the only one. I'm not going to claim that. But I said, I can. We would support. We want to be behind what you have done here. We want to do it again. And I said, I think we've got to go to California.

We've got to go to California where the body of, where Hollywood is, where this insanity is coming from. You know, what do we need to do to try to make that happen? And so a huge team has come together to do it, defeat the mandates. But we've gone one step further. We're going to be bringing in the truckers. The truckers are going to be launching from this event in California. They're going to be launching their convoy across America to Washington, D.C. That's right.

Can you imagine what this is about to be? If you think you missed Woodstock when you didn't go to D.C., forget it. This is going to be the biggest event of all times. And here is the promotion video we're going to hand you today that you can show everyone you know. This is the example of what you get when you choose to attack all members of the human family. This is what you get when you decide to go to. after a person's child. And I have to make it very clear that they really didn't expect all of this.

Thousands from across the country rallied today in Washington, D.C. A rally against COVID-19 mandates. The message for many on Sunday was not anti-vaccines, but the right to choose. Thank all of you for coming out today to stand up for our children, our grandchildren, and our great-grandchildren. The determination to pursue. Reserve Medical Freedom is in your hands. We're fighting for ourselves, our patients, and all of you.

We are fighting against Big Pharma. They have always put profits before patients. You know, here in the United States, really, it's going to be black people who really should get it first. To my African-American brothers and sisters, the vaccine that you're going to take was developed by an African-American woman. As an African-American, I come here as one of the most vaccine-hesitant group. If you choose to take the vaccination, do you take it?

We should have a choice. The vaccine passports and the vaccine mandates take us back to the days of segregation. It's back to the slave passports. Are you free or you're not free? You can't go here if you're not free. Or are you clean or not clean? I'm tired of these people that sit in the White House that stimulate race wars. We're going to come together and we're going to fight these mandates together.

Tired that we are being experimented on. We have all been deceived. I'm tired that we are being manipulated. They used our artists. They used our athletes, our singers, our rapper. Celebrities are under a tremendous amount of pressure because they used celebrities to control the black community. Shout out to we the people.

Oh yeah, I forgot. They made that phrase, but this is too. But as you see in the audience, those who are Muslims, Christians, those in the Jewish community, Democrats, Republicans, white, black, everyone all in between. This is the example that they do not want to see, but they have no children. But they have no choice. This wall is so beautiful. Look at all of you.

Look at you. The world sees us. We are 17,000 doctors. We are the last vegan of hope. We will not stop fighting for truth and for life. I believe in you. Are we ready to reclaim the dream? Now the people rise up.

Let's reclaim our country. The truth is like a lion. You don't have to defend it. Let it loose. It will defend itself. Defeat the man. is going to California. We are this close to fully locking in the exact location, but we didn't want to share it until we're totally sure. But you know this. It's going to be March 5th. It looks like

the closest airport is going to be L-A-X, but you want to be going to this website, watching all of it. We want everyone there. Everyone should be there for this. This is going to be the event of the century. Let's show the rest of the world what happens when the United States of America rises up. This is our moment. It's going to be great. Musicians, the speakers, it's just a fantastic event. It's going to be bigger than DC. I'm really, really looking forward to it. Now, we want that video going everywhere. Remember, censorship is alive and well. They want to shut us down. So that means we've got to be like those people in Canada. Everyone grab your gas can today. They cannot stop all of us if we march together. So we want that video being shared by everyone on every one of your Facebook channels, every Twitter, every one of your Facebook. where you can put that video up so that we have this invite out there that people are going to the defeat the mandates website. So here's all you have to do right now or any time today. Just text, I can to the number 72022.

I can to 72022. You'll get a link to this promotional video that you can share with everyone you know. I want to thank Mickey Willis and the Plandemic team over there for directing and producing and putting that incredible video together. Folks, we're all coming together on this. The high wires involved in I can. We've got Mickey Willis, the videos. We are going to hit this from every side.

If they ever thought that there was some sort of media empire behind this, they ain't seen nothing yet. Here we come, California. All right. So enough of that pitch for right now. I want to talk about one of the great speakers that's going to be there that was in D.C. This is a doctor who I've wanted to speak with for quite some time now. So I'm really excited that we're about to be joined by Dr. Pierre Corey, who some would say is the godfather of ivermectin, at least when we're talking about its use against COVID-19. Take a look at this. Dr. Pierre Corey, the godfather of Ivermectin.

Dr. Pierre Corey, an infectious disease specialist. Dr. Corey has traveled across multiple states in the U.S. to care for COVID-19 patients throughout the pandemic. Dr. Pierre Corey joins us now. We have Dr. Pierre Corey. Those of you that know them, you better buckle your seatbelt. We are fighting against big pharma. They have controlled and captured our health agencies. Every single policy that they have issued out of those agencies,

the entire pandemic was written by the pharmaceutical industry. For-profit medicines are favored to almost the total exclusion of nonprofit medicines. And so you see all of this money being thrown at pharmaceutical companies to develop new things. therapies when we already have existing repurposed drugs that are highly affected we have a solution to this crisis there is a drug that is proving to be of miraculous impact and when I say miracle I do not use that term lightly Ivermectin is a known really for combating parasites in fact it transformed the health status of a good portion of the globe after was invented the discoverers

won the Nobel Prize so when I hear people asking for randomized control trials I point out we have them. We have thousands of patients in them. Each showing remarkable, reproducible, consistent benefits in terms of reducing transmission, reducing deterioration, hospitalization, and reducing death. We are sitting on a mountain of data and we're not using it. On average, a 62% reduction in death when you used Ivermectin from all of these randomized controlled trials. So basically you'd save two out of every three people that you treated. And I would also, again, argue that's the minimum of what Ivermectin is capable,

of because not in every trial where they treated early. In Mexico City last month, they adopted it throughout the city. Every testing booth where you get positive, they give Ivermectin. Their hospitals are emptying and their death rates are plummeting. We're seeing it play out in a number of countries. Panama is the same. Czech Republic, Slovakia, all of them are showing these dramatic reductions in deaths and hospitalizations.

I am absolutely exhausted about hearing about vaccinated and unvaccinated. There's only one category. you need to care about. It's untreated versus treated. Stop with the vaccination. My dream is that every household has, has Ivermectin in the cupboard, and you take it upon development of first symptom of anything approximating a viral syndrome. They will never develop a drug that is more effective than Ivermectin. They are killing us with censorship and propaganda. They are manipulating the minds of millions. Most of the healthcare system, many of my fellow physicians, are completely brainwashed into believing that there is no treatment.

We are tired. I can't keep doing this. Any further deaths are going to be needless deaths, and I cannot be traumatized by that. This is corruption. Plain and simple, it's corruption. Enough with the medical tyranny. Live, free, or die has never meant more to me than it does now.

We must live free or we will die. He's passionate, he's brilliant, He's dedicated. His name is Dr. Pierre Corey and is an absolute honor to have you joining me. It's nice to see you. All right, man. I have to say, I have a bucket list,

and you've been on that bucket list. We've been talking to you for some time and trying to find the right time, so we're finally here. I really want to thank you for coming to the studio. Pleasure to be here. All right. So before we get into the details

of almost what it appears to be may go down as your life's work, let's just talk about the rally for a second. First of all, that first rally. Did you ever think you were going to be like a rock star? I remember like standing in audiences of 40,000, like seeing, you know, my favorite bands play and thinking, God, what does that feel like? And then to stand there, what was that moment like?

It was just amazing. I mean, the whole time I was up there, we were up there for 40 of my minutes, and I spoke for a couple of minutes. But, I mean, I was tingling the whole time. You saw the energy. It was so peaceful. And everybody was just like coming together from all walks of life, races, political stripes. And the speakers were great. You know, we're just speaking the truth.

Speaking science. And, I mean, it was just. You know, at my organization, I saw little signs in support of my organization. It's just, I mean, it's a moment I will never, ever forget. I'll never forget. It still gives me chills when I think about it. It's such a beautiful moment. I agree.

It was absolutely outstanding. And I think that we're about to have an event that is going to rival that. I think that this one is going to be just off the chart. So I know that you're working as I am with the people that put that together. So did you have any thoughts as we sort of look at this rally? You know, you just, you know, you covered it. I want to just say a few words about it. I mean, you did this beautiful piece on the Canadian convoy, right?

The Freedom Convoy up there. So in solidarity with them, you know, the U.S. truckers, taking that example, seeing what they could accomplish, we're calling it the people's convoy. And they're going to join our march against the mandates, which is going to be in Southern California on March 5th. And that's actually in the heart of mandate country, right? We're going right to where they need our help the most. The heart of the bees.

And so, you know, the marching route is going to be a one-day event. It's going to feature many of the same prominent doctors and speakers, right? There was at the first one along with, we got some recording artists, musicians, actors, and athletes. And then the next day, March 6th is when the convoy kicks off. The people's convoy. They're going to leave from Southern California to start their track from California, D.C., sending them off in a spirit with peace and love, right? Amazing. And, you know, this defeat the Mandate's March, it's just going to add more momentum, right?

We're starting to see that momentum build. The U.S. is behind, right? You just covered that. You see all these other countries doing it. Even Canada, which was one of the most lockdown and, you know, totalitarian COVID regimes, I guess. Totally. You know, they're starting to break down. And I always think of them as sort of like a mild-mannered people, right?

You know what I mean? I actually went to school up in Canada for some time and love Canadians, just loving, heartfelt, you know, if they take to the streets, you know, you got problems. Them in Australia, I mean, the two of them were just shocking. When you think of their national character and their general disposition, you know, and the way they turned, I mean, it was. It's really shocking. But, you know, in adding to that momentum, right, and let's just go over those objectives, right? You know, when we say defeat the mandates,

it's not just vaccines, but it definitely is vaccine. So it's no to vaccine passports. It's no to forcing COVID-19 vaccinations on children, the absurdity of which I'm sure you've covered, you know, million times. No to coerced vaccinations without accepting risk. Right. I mean, this is simple foundational principled stuff. No to censorship.

I would even say no to propaganda. Yeah. You know, those two go hand in hand. Those are tools that are being used. No to limits on reasonable debate. What happened to that? Exactly right. And then, of course, yes, in the power of natural immunity.

That is a real thing. That's real science. And somehow that's been, you know, distorted. And then, of course, we insist, yes, to inform consent. And then my personal pet issue, which I'm most focal about, is yes, yes, to doctors and patients, making decisions without interference and without restrictions. Amen. And for that, I really, like you said,

everybody's got to show up. And we got to turn this country back to more of its foundation. I mean, you know, so many countries have lost their way from principles that have, you know, protected us and given us our freedoms and our health and our spirit. And look where it's all taken us. And you think about the United States of America, the beacon of light for liberty and freedom

and to see that we in this nation have lost our power over our own body, our power to go to work, our power to leave our house, our power to breathe the freaking air. Are you kidding me? I mean, I don't know what it takes to wake you up, but we got to get that back. Yeah, I mean, you know, the phrase that we keep using, me and my colleagues, you know, we just look around every day and each and every new absurdity, the world has gone mad. Yeah. Now, I don't think it has to stay mad. I think it's going to find its way.

It's sanity. And I think we're helping to do that. So, you know, we're going to keep trying. We're going to keep fighting. And I think, you know, we are seeing positive change finally. And I just, we've got to keep that momentum going. Absolutely. All right.

So let's get down to, there's so many things I'd like to cover. So I'm going to try and keep this inside of today before the sun goes down. But let's start out with ivermectin. Sure. Even in that video that we just played, you make some really bold claims saying things like they wouldn't be, they wouldn't be able to develop a drug that works better than ivermectin. for this case when it comes to COVID-19, you know, that you could have saved, you know,

all these lives and how good the studies are. So before we get into sort of the details around that, what is ivermectin and where does it come from? Yeah. So it's got such a beautiful story behind it. So it was discovered by a Japanese researcher who basically they were looking for microorganisms that secrete substances that kill other organisms

because they figured if they could isolate that substance, they could use it as medicines to try to kill. infections. And it's such an interesting story because it's a professor named Satoshium who was a microbiologist in Japan. And he was looking for taking soil samples on a golf course in Japan. And he found this organism. And then in the lab, they noticed that this substance that they secreted, it was a bacteria called streptomyces, which is well known. This particular form, what's interesting is the particular form that makes the Ivermectin family of compounds has only ever been found in Japan.

Really? Yeah, it hasn't been found anywhere else. I mean, obviously, they've replicated it, they've used it, but that original source is, so it's just an interesting thing that that microbiologist used that golf course in that area and found it. And so what they found was that it was really toxic to nematodes or worms or parasites. Okay. And so it was very quickly discovered to be a highly effective parasitic agent with almost no toxicity.

And so it was quickly, along with Merck, and I have to be clear here, old Merck. Okay. This is a different century. What year are we talking about? What is it happening? This is late 70s, or mid to late 70s when it was discovered and we started to develop it. The old Merck, they were as a partnership between the Institute of Professor Murr, there's a man named William Camel, a chemist with Merck, who then purified it from its original compound, which was avermectin to Ivermectin. and they saw that it was a really powerful anti-parasitic,

and so they developed a medicine. And what's interesting is the first parasitic infections that they learned that it treated were largely concentrated in low-and-middle-income countries. And they recognized that there was not a huge profit to be made, but there was a huge almost like global human health impact that it could have. So from the beginning, Merck decided to produce it and distribute it through WHO programs,

programs for free to huge portions of the globe. Wow. And the two main diseases that it was treating at first, although it works against many of them, was a disease called River Blonde blindness or Onco-Sychiasis. And that disease is particularly nasty in that it causes blindness. In many communities, Africa, most of the adults over the age of 40 are blind. And they're led around by the children with sticks. So there's an epidemic of blindness.

It essentially restored the site of millions of people. You mean even after they were blind, they'd get their site back? No, not that, but after the introduction, you stopped. So you backed it off. That's fair. I shouldn't say restore site, but essentially it preserved the site of future generations after it was distributed. And so it has this beautiful story about it. It transformed like the public health status of a good portion of the globe.

And for those impacts and that beautiful, really public-private partnership. if those beautiful, the beautiful ones still happen? I'm always down with saying when an industry and a multi-billion dollar industry actually sets out and does some good in the world, let's definitely recognize Merck for having done that. And I think it used to happen more often. But, you know, that impact led to the awarding of the Nobel Prize in medicine to William Campbell and Satoshi Amora. So it has this beautiful backstory. And it's long been called a wonder drug for those things.

But let's go. Let's move to now. That's my question, right? I mean, like if it's, this is, and this is what everyone says, right? This isn't a parasite. It's a virus, you know, so why does ivermectin work against the virus? Our same question before we discovered, you know, the science behind it. But here's what we now know about ivermectin.

It's this incredible drug because it not only has antiparcytic properties, It has anti-bacterial properties. It has anti-inflammatory properties. It even has, get this, anti-tumor properties. But here's the thing. When we first, and I have to give credit to my colleague, Paul Merrick, you know, the co-founder of the FLCCC, that he originally brought us together in our organization, really just to develop effective protocols. We did not have Ivermectin. Was that done just for COVID or is this going back before that?

Totally for COVID. So I'll talk about that and I'll get back to Ivermite. So our organization. So Paul's a very well-known physician, very well-known for his protocols in treating sepsis. All of us in the group actually are ICU doctors, and some of us are lung doctors like myself. And some prominent doctors, they saw that there was not really an effective early response. There was no protocols being offered. The NIH was basically saying supportive care only. All the hospitals are just giving Tylenol, fluids, oxygen, and ventilators.

And we were seeing mortality rates that had never seen in ICU care before. And so two different doctors around the same time, one from California, one from New York City, a doctor named Howard Cornfield, and then Keith Berkowitz from Manhattan, they reached out to Paul. And then they started talking to me, and they said, you know, you guys got to get your group together, get a group together, put out some protocols. We'll help you, and we've got to disseminate the folks. And so Paul and I, we were already working on protocols. I was right, we went almost like a will to my wife. It's like, honey, if I get COVID, this is what you're going to do.

We're going to do this, this, this, and this. I had like a 14-step protocol for myself. And so we all five of us, you know, we were reading just voraciously. I mean, it was a crazy time. I mean, our email inboxes every day to each other, this paper, that paper, we've taken off pre-print servers. We were talking to doctors in China and Italy. I'm from New York.

I trained in New York. I've trained a lot of people in New York. I've been trained by others in New York. I know everyone in the ICU in New York City. I was on the phone every day when they were getting hit. I was in Madison, Wisconsin. So we were just, like, vacuuming up knowledge, experience, figuring out what was working. One of my partners in the FLCC, Amberta Moutur, who's a famous intensivist and expert at steroids and lung disease.

He was talking to his colleagues back in Italy. So we were just putting as much information together as we could. And, you know, so we formed this group. You know, in the beginning, we were like five guys with a website kind of, pretty modest. And, you know, we put together our protocols and we hired like a website designer. We started to post them and they started getting some attention. And over time, you know, we first came to prominence. I testified in May of 2020, you know, calling to the world for the critical use of corticosteroids.

Okay. And that was actually at a time when all national and international health agencies specifically recommend against use. So don't use cortical steroids. Do not. You came out and said... They were convinced it would increase mortality. We knew it was life-saving. We knew this was a steroid.

responsive disease we knew it was critical but when we came out and I was given that platform in the Senate testimony and I called out to the world that you need to start using this in the hospitalized patient boy did we that was our first round of attacks yeah now the thing is we were saved there because eight weeks later a huge trial out of Oxford came out okay showed that it was absolutely life-saving and it became the standard of care worldwide now no nobody remembers our advocacy you know eight weeks prior right they do remember the trial but you know we got that right we got blood thinners right so many of our

first protocol we put out in March is still there well hasn't changed it's only has evidence is deepened around like we know what we're doing yeah and something called expertise you don't need trials for every let me ask you a question just very quickly because you said something that from the NIH and basically that you know the health department of our country that their recommendation was just comfort care take give him Tylenol if they gets really bad I know that they were just sending him home I put them on oxygen ventilator. We all watch that devastating. As you're saying, death rates for the roof. Can I ask you this?

Is that the normal approach to any sort of new ailment that hits America is don't do any, like the mandate is don't do anything at all? Or was this something unique? Sure. I have to be honest, I in my career don't, well, I think they, I guess the best analogy would be HIV. So HIV, the first throws of HIV, you know, happened before I became a physician. But I have lots of older mentors. You know, if you think about what, you know, one of the biggest analogies with HIV is if you want to talk about Ivermectin, its best analogy is Bactrum. So Bactrum for the devastating, you know, HIV-associated pneumonia called PCP or now it's called PJP, it was killing thousands of young men, you know, with AIDS in the 80s. Yeah. And the AIDS activists by then were beseeching and we're, you know, you know, calling on Fauci to please come up with the records. vaccination backram and I'll tell you why.

This is how absurd it is. They knew it worked and you know why they knew it worked because cancer patients, like with leukemia on chemotherapy, would get the same pneumonia. The oncologists figured out that Bactrum worked, so it's not much of a leap to say if it works in those patients, why wouldn't work in the disease? So this was being used to treat this very incidence in cancer patients,

but when the gay men mostly were dealing with this issue, they're saying it's the same issue. we want back to be in, and voucher was saying no? Would not do it. Wow. Would not do it. And, you know, it's unfortunate,

and we're probably going to get into the more sinister aspects of the public health system and our structures, but it's the same thing. You know, they're probably leaving the market. They wanted to develop other drugs that are probably more profitable. Right. And they sat on it, despite increasing activism, increasing protests against the NIH,

and then finally they approved it. But in that interim, it's estimated something, 59,000 AIDS died prematurely. Wow. And so, you know, the reason why that's analogous to Ivermectin is the same thing. Like, we know it works. Right. So you got this group.

Yeah. It's taken two. So you've, this group of doctors, passionate doctors, all ICU doctors. You got Merrick, who is, I think, the second most published. Well, I like to call him, he's the most highly published practicing intensiveness. Because the guy who's more published than him actually doesn't practice medicine. Got it. He's got a lab.

He's got researchers. All right. Got it. It's the most published practicing ICU doctor. In the history of the field. Wow. And, I mean, he's a giant. And he's always questioned orthodoxy guidelines.

And, you know, when I was a younger physician in training, I mean, he was like a god. You know, when I became friends and colleagues with him, I'm just so exhilarating for me. We connected on another disease and another specific interest some years ago. And so when we became good friends and colleagues, so when, you know, COVID broke out, you know, he called on his closest colleagues. happen to be one of them. So, you know, it's, it's been an honor and it's, it's, I'd like to say it's been a pleasure, but it's been, it's been, it's been an honor. It's been everything. But, you know, you know, so we developed a protocol for the hospital first. Paul had a little protocol of prevention, vitamin supplementation, you know, just to really optimize your health in case you got it to

afford it. But we didn't have a specific therapy like an antiviral. And, and, you know, and, you know, And what we were doing, and Paul started the system, is every possible therapeutic that was being considered or trialed or tested or even used empirically, we had on a list. And we were following the data behind it. The ones that we believed worked were in our protocols, but the ones that were still under investigation, we weren't sure of its role. We just followed the data, followed the trials. And around September, October of 2020, a whole slew of trials, because now you're about six months, eight months, and a whole slew of trials started to report. on numbers of therapies like tocellusumab, which is, you know, a cytokine blocker, hydroxychloric and randomized controlled trials, convalescent plasma,

and they were all not satisfied. None of them were producing positive results. And so one week, Paul, as he's reviewing all these trials, he starts to look at ivermectin. We'd always had ivermectin as like a question mark, like a possibility. It was not on our protocol, but we just were following it. And around that time, Paul noticed there was this consistent, reproducible signal benefit from this country, that country.

It was like, it was just so consistent and reproducible from so many different centers and so many different types of trials. We hadn't seen that in COVID before. And Paul actually put up, and he put up a lecture on YouTube in mid-October of 2020, essentially saying that it was the solution to that pandemic. And, you know, I'm listening to Paul. We were on our weekly calls and Paul's lecturing us on Iver Mac, and I hadn't really been, I was always a step behind, Paul.

And so I jumped in right behind. I just dove deep. And over the next month, we just, I mean, it was a crazy time to write the paper. We did what's called a comprehensive review, which is not just looking at trials. We looked at the basic science, the biological plausibility, what we knew about the mechanisms. We looked at case series, case reports, observational trials, randomized control trials, even epidemiological reports from health ministries that used at distribution programs. And it's everywhere I looked, everything was positive.

I had never seen that. I could not find any consistent or substantive negative signal. And so we were, I was like overwhelmed with this. I mean, I was consumed. And all I did was read, read, read. And we were writing this paper. And it was hard to write the paper because every time I would write a draft,

I'd wake up to next morning. New trial just reported it. I'd have to put it in. My reference manager was not working well. So it was taking me hours to update the references. But anyway, fast forward to November. 13th is I posted it, I finally had a

mature draft that I was ready to go and I posted on a pre-print summer and I still remember like kind of trembling because like it wasn't a delusion of grandeur by I literally felt that the solution to the pandemic. Like we finally identified it in a mature scientific

manuscript from five highly credible, highly published researchers all of us with reputations. You know, I was also a minor light in my specialty. I'm an expert and a pioneer in a subfield of critical care. It's called Point of Care Ultrasound. I had a textbook that's seven languages, two editions.

So I was well known in the country and the world for that because I traveled around lecturing. And so I figured our credibility, you know, and our longstanding careers and our achievements in our careers would carry some weight. And so we post on the preprint server. Crickets. Like not a lot of.

And at first, and I think this is probably, at first I think it was just so much noise. There were so many papers. I think there was like a million papers in the first six months. And so like everybody was saying this, that, the other thing. So I can see where it got lost in the noise. And so we kind of realized that like dissemination of scientific knowledge, not that it was broken, but it just wasn't working. It was too much high volume, too many things.

And to get into the high impact journals, they're very, narrow on what they take and so it's very hard to get attention to this and so we actually recognized that we probably needed to be more public facing and you know speaking to doctors doctors are extremely skeptical they've all been kind of trained to not believe anything until it comes out of a large double-blind multi-center randomized control trial from some high-impact journal so a pre-print server by even a group of highly credentials guy is not going to change the world and so we did a press conference and use

at Joseph Roones, one of our, you know, founding members' hospital. It got picked up by a lot of TV stations. It got some attention, but then it kind of died down. And then where we got lucky is, you know, I was asked again to give testimony. You know, Ron Johnson, who he's just been such a great leader. He noticed from the beginning that there was something off with this health care. He couldn't figure out, like that supportive care only you mentioned. He couldn't figure out, like, why the country wasn't trying to treat this.

disease and go after it. The first time he called me to testify, he said, I want the doctors to take their gloves off. And he saw our protocols, he saw our website. What we were doing is exactly what he thought doctors should be doing. Try to help these patients using your expertise, your knowledge of the disease, your insights, and your understanding experience with the medicines that you know. And so we were doing like just straight up doctor, you know, no conflicts of interest.

patient as our former as our foremost you know concern and so he appreciated that so he asked me again to testify in December and I'll tell you a little backstory because I was pretty impassioned and fired up right but I got insulted before I spoke the the ranking member of the Democratic Party which is my old party I don't have a party anymore but yeah I don't even consider myself politically maroon yeah yeah totally so but he like gave this speech saying that this is an empty exercise, these are politically motivated scientific opinions

or something, and I was fuming. So when it came down to speak, I just ripped. And so that got me angry, but also what I had talked about and what we'll talk about today is that I couldn't figure out why there was no focus on using readily available,

studying readily available drugs that are off-patent, generic, widely known, widely used, safety records that we clearly know, why wouldn't we focus on building protocols there? Every, the first six rounds of the active trials, which is the NIH-funded trials for COVID, every single one was a novel, high-cost, patented pharmaceutical agent. Brand new, no history whatsoever, no idea what it could do.

Let's use the things we have decades of information on what we've seen it can do. Let's try it over here. It's similar. None of that. Let's just go with brand-new, flying blind, expensive drugs. That was my first inkling like, there's something. wrong with the system and I touched on in my testimony. So, you know, I think the, the, the, the, the anger, the frustration, the fatigue, like, you know, COVID is hard, you know, like, I've been

running ICU for, you know, 15 years and, you know, going into an ICU, you see every patient in the bed has COVID. The x-rays are the same. The oxygen settings are the same. Like, it's hard to differentiate names and faces. It takes days to understand that because everyone is so similar. And and they're so hard to recover. Even with our aggressive protocols, we had pretty good success in the beginning with later variants. By the time they got the ICU,

it was harder and harder to recover. Once you're at the ICU, you're past that. It's late in the game, yeah. It's late in the game. We now know it's one of the things I found so interesting being at the hearing after the March in D.C. that you guys had

is I really hadn't wrapped my head around the fact that you have two different parts of this. You have the five days where we've got to stop the proliferation of this virus, which is where Ivermectin, hydroxychloric with these repurposed drugs are so effective. Then once you're past that, now it's all the results of this thing having, you know, gotten inside of all of your cells and inflammation and all the problems. Now you're treating those problems.

So in ICU, you're really at the back end of this by the time they're there, which is tough. You know, like any, it's one of a founding principle of any acute disease. Earlier treatment is better. You don't wait until organ failures develop to treat. You treat early to prevent the organ failures. And so, you know, that testimony went viral and it put Ivermectin into, I think, the minds and thoughts and psyche of a lot of the public. And so I would say we got lucky because it, you know, for whatever reason, it went viral. So I think it was.

Well, we were the ones and ones putting out there. I think we had something to do with that. I was like, look at this. You basically opened it up, addressed the senator that just insulted you. Yeah. I'm insulted, like what you're calling us. You read off your degrees and everything, one part of this group, the great doctors, and here's what we're seeing.

There's no drug that is working as well. So, you know, and I think, for me, I mean, I grew up in film. I'm a filmmaker. That's where I sort of come from. And I see things as movies in many ways. And I imagine as you're telling this story, I'm thinking, what an amazing movie this is going to be. You know, you've got a handful of doctors. You've got a pandemic, if you will.

It's a perfect setting for a movie. People are dying. No one can figure it out. And then a couple of doctors get together. And like, wait a minute. I'm seeing in this village and this, like piecing together these pieces. There's this one drug that's rising up, you know, that nobody's paying attention to. But five guys were really looking.

You're thinking, this is how the movie. And then the moment they, and now they put the paper together. And boom, it changed the world. And then nothing happened. Del, I feel like I'm living in a movie. Yeah. Right. It's so surreal everything that's happening.

And there's dark. There's stuff that I've seen. I've learned. I've been transformed. I've learned so much not only about science, but about the corruption of science and how science is really run. So I've learned life lessons like all over the place. And so, but, you know, let's go back to the, you know, because I do want to talk about

that, you know, you brought up the idea, you know, Ivermects, it's an anti-parasitis. Right, yeah. How does it work? It has all these properties. So I mentioned antiparcytic. It has, you know, interesting case reports and anti-tumor. as some antibacterial, anti-inflammatory. But here's the thing.

When Paul started talking about Ivermectin, I started digging deep more into the science papers, the in vitro studies. And I find out that for 10 years now, since 2012, dozen different RNA virus models in vitro of ivermectin stops the replication of Zika, dengue, West Nile, HIV, herpes viruses, influenza.

I mean, I literally, it was avermectin, I mean, I literally was like, wait, what? This has these amazing antiviral properties, and we're not talking about it more. No one's researching it more. And so, you know, we already saw it clinically. So as I go back, like I said, I kept finding positive, positive signals.

So the biologic plausibility, the mechanisms that were being discovered around trials is that it binds to the spike protein, and it alters the entry. And so there's a whole host of prevention trials. That's the other thing. When I looked, I was finding treatment trials, And then these wickedly positive prevention trials.

People who are taking it regularly, in some trials, nobody got sick and others, very few got sick. It was rivaling and besting the efficacy of the vaccines, which is a problem. Right. Right. And that's when you were saying it, if you have a product that handles Zika, West Nile, all of these things that the vaccine makers are lining up. And here's the thing. I mean, I don't know if you've thought about this. Maybe you have.

because I've been focused on vaccines for some time. Vaccines are like no other product. Like if you think about a drug company, right? If I make a drug, then a drug's only used on those people that get sick. Yeah. Right? A drug is only for that percentage that get a disease. A vaccine, on the other hand, is something that's given to everybody.

So if I'm going to choose what part, what I want to invest my time and energy in, do I want a product that's only used for the small group of people that maybe have an issue with this? or do I want something that I can say the entire world has to take it? Oh, and I got a better slogan, it only works if everybody takes it. I mean, this thing is, you know, right there, the financial benefits of calling something a vaccine and keeping anything out of the way that just deals with the illness and those that have it.

It's obvious why it seems to me the entire farmer's going to see it's moving towards vaccinations. I haven't thought of it in that way, but almost in, yeah, I haven't thought of that, but you're absolutely right. The market of people who could be a recipient of vaccine to prevent the possibility of getting disease is... Everybody. Magnitudes more than those who get sick with it. So is that why there's this terribly troubling, sinister and criminal history of the vaccine industry? I mean, the profit incentive is so absurd and obscene.

Yeah. And so we find out that it has this decade of antiviral properties. And then all of these studies showing these really potent inhibitors of inflammation, right? Because going back to COVID, simplistic, two phases, early antiviral, right? Where you get kind of fever, stuffy nose, sore throat, headache, you know, myeloges, things like that. And then in a proportion of those, for whatever reason, it'll cause this severe inflammatory reaction in the lung. It's actually essentially a macrophage activation syndrome. It stimulates one of the resident, the most popular resident immune cell in the lungs,

and they get activated and they start attacking. And so the lungs become inflamed. You lose gas exchange. You go into respiratory failure. And Ivermactin has these myriad mechanisms against the virus. It's not just one mechanism. It works on many different things, from binding to interrupting, like, these enzymes that it needs to replicate. Then it has all these anti-inflammatory problems.

So when I say things like, it would be hard to design. a drug better for this disease than something that has myriad potent antiviral and then multiple anti-inflammatory that's a truth i mean there's not a lot of antiviral anti-inflammatory combination of medicine it's a miracle drug i mean it's like a little miracle you know paul calls you know like a gift from you know heaven or you know i mean it really was like so so that's that's that's its role in COVID, right? It's an anti-paracic that has all these other properties. And, you know, one of the things I'm looking forward, if we ever get out of this little war that we're in, is the future of Ivermectin in other viral models. You know, what's it like in influenza? What's it

like in herpes and all these other things? I think it has so much potential. But let's change the world. You said in that piece, I see your future where everybody should have Ivermectin in their cabinet because it's just so effective, so safe. Before we, I want to jump in and really get into what this real story is, is why they, how did it get covered up? What happened behind scenes? Things we didn't see. But first, for those right now, there's going to be doctors, and I want people sending this to their doctors, do you have a website that sort of lists all of the studies where they can really see this many studies show Ivermectin work, all that?

So our website has a lot of information. A lot of summaries, so different summers of the safety studies, summary of the health ministry programs, our review paper. The most up-to-date, which has the most up-to-date compendium of all the studies, is something called c19 early.com. Okay. So C-19 Early.com. Okay. And it's the group of scientists that prefer to rein knowledge. All right, here we are. Is this, so this is, is this an IVM meta.com? Yeah, so that's another way to get to just the IVM page.

All right. So this page is really cool, everybody. This is something I was looking as well as getting to IVMmeda.com. Well, you'll see there is the list of like each issue that is dealing with, the amount of studies that looked at the success rate of those stories, studies, and then the statistical significance in which case you see just powerful amounts of studies, metadata around this. And my understanding you also have a page like this for hydroxychloroquine also. Yeah, that's similar thing.

That website also has hydroxychlorine showing really similar benefits. So if you, so just very, just very quickly. Just, and here's the hydroxychloroquine. Same thing. So folks, you've all been asking for this. You've been asking for where do I send doctors to, I mean, where is the proof? Here it is. If you're a doctor and a scientist, look how many studies had this right that are saying,

look at the percentages, the success rate. This, this body of evidence is why Dr. Robert Malone is saying 500,000 people have been killed in hospitals in America that didn't need to die. Right? I mean, essentially, that's where we're at. The suppression of this evidence around repurpose drugs is really what I talk about now. You know, it's like when you look at those are called forest plots and you see the amount of people in the trials, the number of trials, and the large magnitude of benefit, the farther the boxes are to left shows you the more potent the benefits. There's not many drugs in history that have such tight, precise, and large signals of benefit in any disease model. And so it's truly remarkable.

And what's absurd is the government, the NIH, is currently running randomized placebo-controlled trials right now. It has proven efficacy. It's really just shocking that they're actually entering people and giving them placebo. So it's not only the trials, right? So in my Senate testimony, and I know you were there and you listen, I cited the health ministry programs

from many different countries around Roe. around room. Remarkable results. Real world data. They gave patients treatment kits. They compared them to those that didn't. And you saw these dramatic differences in deaths and hospitalizations. And so we know it works in trials. We know it works in the test tube, in animals and case theaters, you know, I mean, there shouldn't be any question. So, I mean, this just gets down to something that, you know, I keep saying. One of the things I've been saying is the double blind, I always say inert placebo study because we started changing this word placebo to being other vaccines when it's supposed to be something that has no effect on the human body. So I always throw

this word inert like no effect on the human body, double blind study. But what I'm finding, and this is something that, you know, we were talking backstage about it, is that, you know, I only hear Tony Fauci refer to a double blind randomized trial when he's talking about something he doesn't like, right? I mean, it feels like that's his way of burying. He did it during AIDS. He did it, you know, with all those drugs that, repurpose drugs that were working, That's why we have the Dallas Buyers Club, you know, movie about the fact that they just create this black market because he just says, until I see a double-blind study, I'm not even going to consider that drug. And what, I mean, behind that really is he knows that those studies, to do them right with the right amount of people for the drug,

and the drug companies are the only ones that pay for it, tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions of dollars based on those studies, they're not going to fund it because most of the time, as you said, they're repurposed. They're off patent. They make no money for that drug company. Like, we're not going to do it. And so this is what, and just to be clear with my audience, and something I didn't know, I think we always think the FDA and the CDC are the ones funding these sort of trials. What I didn't realize, and to be clear, we make a bad guy out of the drug companies

because they don't do proper long-term studies or whatever, but we don't realize how much that actually costs, right? So when they say, for instance, when I've heard arguments, I'm a little bit off track, but just to bring people up to why I'm not anti-pharma, When the pharmaceutical industry is saying, we can't have this go off patent yet, we haven't made back our money. And be like, oh, they're just a bunch of money grubbing. They're paying hundreds of millions of dollars. And that's for the drugs that worked.

How about the ones that didn't work? I mean, they're doing that. If we want this system to work, we have to realize billions, in fact, dollars are being spent on drugs that never got to market. So when these drug companies are trying to recoup their money, I'm just giving their side of it, we need that to be on patent long enough that it pays for all of the other drugs that we did the right thing, didn't put them on the market, and poison you with them. And so that's their argument, right?

Yeah, there's weaknesses. Right, right, right. Okay. So one of them is, so certainly there needs to be a profit incentive for them to invest, develop, drugs, and test them. Right. The problem is, is they claim otherwise they can't make money. Meanwhile, the standard operating procedure of pharmaceuticals, they spend billions and billions on marketing. Right. They do illegal practices. It is a criminal industry. The last 20 years, the biggest 20 settlements, right? 13 billion in civil penalties, six billion in criminal penalties.

They do not care. They will bury toxic effects of drugs. They'll bury the evidence around toxic of drugs. Tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, die. We're still living through the opioid epidemic that's released by a pharmaceutical company. That penalty has not yet been settled.

And so, you know, they're rapacious. And so when they cry, poverty, like they're somehow not going to, going to get profit. Well, then why are you spending so many billions sending these drug representatives essentially manipulating doctors into using their products? You know, why don't just go develop good ones? Or, you know, so, you know, the cries of poverty that there's no profit, they make obscene profits. It's one of the more profitable industries in the world. But the reason I bring it up is because what I, and I'm, I think people watch this show because they're like Dell's reasonable.

I'm being reasonable about this. I'm saying I'm not, I see all sides of this. And we have a real quandary here. We have a quandary because the need to make money, you're right, obscene amounts of money, but to pay off your stockholders, there's a way that business is set up. And we have a real problem moving the future that we're going to talk about right here, which is what do we do when the best, what if there's a cancer cure that exists? What if there's a cure for cancer right in front of our eyes? Maybe it's Ivermecta, something like that, right? In this case, but it's off patent. It makes no money. I might as well say water cures you. You know what I mean? They're like, what am I going to go near it?

I don't want to sell my old drug, because I don't make any freaking money from it. And so we live in this world where literally things are getting shelved. I always think of it, it's sort of like that scene in Raiders the Lost Ark, when you finally find the Holy Grail, and they just shelve it into the catacombs of a museum. It's never seen again. They don't want the world to see it.

We literally live in that moment now, where the drug companies go out of their way to hide. Even Merck came out against, I think, was Ivermican, right? Saying, no, no, no, we don't believe in that at all. Well, even Merck doesn't believe it. They don't believe in it because they can't make any money. What they say to Fauci is, yo, brother, you know what I mean? We're not going to make any money off that.

So we're not doing that study. So you're safe to tell the world it's not safe because the proper study will never be done. But we'll have this brand new drug. We'd love for you to get NIH funding behind. And so this is what you ran into. That's the system. That's the system. So I learned, I didn't understand how pervasive and how damaging it is and how destructive

of our public health it is and how it's not new. So what you just described, right, is actually the business model of the pharmaceutical company. They need to develop new drugs to protect obscene profits. They could make a profit off of vitamin. It would just be, they're not used to those modest profits. It's not that it's a nonprofit drug. It just doesn't, you know, afford them the obscene ones that they're used to that they run on. And so what you have here is you have a decades-long war now on what are called repurposed and generally off-patent generic drugs.

So their model is destroyed, distort, suppress, and deny any efficacy of the older drugs, or just say they're not as good as the new shinier pill. Right. Because that's how they protect and keep the profit machine going. And the way in which they conduct that war is what I've had a front row to this year. And I've been transformed. I would call myself somewhat of a broken physician. I don't really know who to trust anymore.

I can't even read journals because what I've learned about the capture of the journals, the capture of the agencies, all of the policies I've witnessed around therapeutics and vaccines, you just have to ask yourself, when you read a policy on therapeutics or vaccines, ask yourself, what policy would a pharmaceutical company write? And then read the policy and say, gee, that seems consistent entirely in line with the interests of a pharmaceutical company. They've essentially control and are integrated with our federal health agencies. And so I've, I've had to witness and learn of the complete capture of a public health system and how it's destroyed public health for decades.

And by the way, Ivermactin is not unique. It's just the latest, right? So you put up a slide before on hydroxychloroquine. There was a huge war, and that was a sinister war. It was well documented in Bobby Kennedy's book. It's one of the most chilling chapters to read of a public health episode, what they did to convince the world that hydroxychic of Corriguan didn't work when they knew it worked. Essentially referencing-Fouch is on record knowing that it worked in other coronavirus.

Correct. And just to be clear, what they did was they gave lethal doses of hydroxychloroquine in the studies they finally recognized. None of the doses that were being used by doctors all over the world, including DDR, Rue, Vladimir Zelenko, and others. But to get to the bottom, I think, to launch in this next part, what happens when the pharmaceutical industry is funding the United States, you know, our government, which is what happens, is in this revolving door of working at the CDC, the FD. They're all in bed together, this entire thing. And you're in this place where they need to make money, and Fauci seems to be doling out that cash

and protecting them from ever having to have an off-patent drug get in the way of profits and sales. What happens is that mandate comes down and it affects the doctor. And I think the best way to look at that was the great testimony by your friend and partner, Dr. Ralph Merrick. Paul Merrick. Paul, I mean, this is Paul Merrick, just giving his testimony. just giving his testimony.

Listen to what he said when they took away his use of iburemectin, the other drugs, that he was having a 50% increased result over all the other doctors around him. They didn't go to him and say, hey, how's that working? Why don't you teach everyone else? Instead, they took it away from, look at this. I was using our protocol to treat critically ill patients in the ICU with a whole host of repurposed drugs. I then, this is a memo, this is a memo sent to the entire healthcare system, but they targeted me personally.

And what did this memo say? These medications will not be verified or dispense for the prevention or treatment of COVID. This list includes either mectin, becalutamide, etopsicide, fluvoxamine, dutesteroid, and finestoride. And then just to stick it to me, they added acorbic acid. What was I to do? My hands were tied. As a clinician for the first time in my entire career, I could not be a doctor. I could not treat patients the way I had to be to treat patients. I had seven COVID patients, including a 31-year-old woman.

I was not allowed to treat these people. I had to stand by idly. I had to stand by idly watching these people die. Incredible testimony, powerful, emotional. I can't even imagine, you know, as a doctor having your hands tied like that. The total destruction, the doctor-patient relationship, being forced to go against the Hippocratic oath to first do no harm. And here you are, you're being forced to basically, you know,

watch people die. Kill them. I mean, and in some ways it must be like, I'm killing them because I could save them. You know, the other part of the oath is you put your patient as your primary consideration, you know, and Paul does that. He knows the science. He knows his therapeutics. We know these drugs work.

And to suddenly be handcuffed and have them removed and you can't do anything for your patient, you're watching it deteriorate in the bed every day. I mean, I was on the poll. We were like co-counseling each other that week. I remember Paul was destroyed. He was destroyed by that week. And, you know, he hasn't worked again in the ICU since.

And that was really, you know, the prelude to the ending of his career. And, you know, he was attacked because of his contrarian approach. He was not with the program. There's so many sadness. Where does that come from? How did it happen? I mean, I know that that goes specifically to, you know, his hospital, and they seem to be just had it out for him because they were in conflict.

But we're, you know, every, I have a friend that's a doctor. And, you know, I've had trouble really having the conversation. I mean, he won't really come near me. He knows who I am. We go back. But I know he's not like, he said to a mutual best friend. He's like, yeah, I was talking to him about you, Del. And he said, look, I'm sure he disagrees.

But, you know, hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin don't work. And so my friend was like, so you've tried it. He's like, no, that's what they tell us. He's like, so then how do you know that to be the case? So what is it? I mean, is this how doctors work? Do they just, it just comes from a mandate from above? And you just assume that that that's.

the truth, even though you're having terrible results right before your eyes? So of the many things that I've learned, these are things I knew, the extent of which I didn't know. So one of the things is it's well known that not all doctors read or keep up with the evidence. Overwork, stress, maybe not intellectually interested, or they just stick with what they know and they just work on that. They're not interested in new diseases or any. And so they are particularly reliant on listening to who they think are experts. And the challenges, and this is the crime of COVID, is that they put an implicit faith in what I have to call,

what Paul calls the gods of science and knowledge, right? This implicit faith, which I had at the beginning, I had an implicit faith in these agencies that they had public health as their primary consideration and that they did have the record expert, and they would convene the right panels and particularly populated with clinicians, which I found out they don't.

They have doctors who think they're clinicians. They're not. They do a lot of research. They do administration, but they're not talking to guys who are treating this disease all day long, day in and day out. There is no seat for the clinicians at the table.

And so that's one thing I learned is that doctors are particularly able to be manipulated. And when you capture the agencies where they're looking for for guidance and the pharmaceutical companies, are telling them the truths that they need to understand, which is these generic drugs don't work, right? Right.

And that vaccines are the only way out. I mean, these are all pharmaceutical industry interests that are speaking. Right. And so those are what they hear, and the fact that they have the faith that those things are true. And the thing is, it's also supported by what they see in the high-impact journals. They're told this by the experts, and then they go to the high-impact journals.

What appears in high-impact journals? no positive trials of Ivermectin can appear in those journals because the journals are captured. I know research. Those journals take funding from the pharmaceutical industry that is driving what we do and do not know about. And that's been well described. You know, editors of some of those prominent journals,

either during or after their long tenures, say you can't believe half of what you see there. You know, the amount of control. And I always thought of it theoretical. But now, you know, I got to learn it in real life. One of the beauties of my journey is I have this rich, robust, just interesting collection of colleagues that I've made from around the world that have reached out to us, our group,

and I've had so many interesting debates. And when I learn of their papers and the fate of their papers, you know, really well-done trials. And, you know, when we talk about double-blind, randomized control trials, when, you know, of the 32 or 34 randomized controlled trials, 16 are double-blind randomized placebo control. Of Ivermectin. Yeah, of avermectin.

Yet they're ignored. Because they're not done in some, you know, or like some major U.S. university. They're done in other land. Which is still farma-funded. I mean, honestly, I think that that's the problem. These universities are taking the funding from pharma. And then we know many doctors and scientists

that have been on this show over the years as soon as you touch certain third rail, you know, investigations, your university fires you. Because they're like, we're getting told by the controlling system. Pharma. The amount of control that pharma has has just been terrifying to learn. Every day that I've learned the extent of it. For instance, what you talk about with research,

so either pharma does their own trials, right, so they fund and do their own trials, which is really scary. You're talking about a company who has specific profitable interest in the drug doing their own trial. It's been well described in books for decades, that their results are consistently overinflated. When later studies are done by independent entities, they're 50% positive. Farmer trials, 86% positive.

So anytime I see a farmer trial now, I'm like, okay, they say it's 80% effective. It's probably around 40 to maybe 50, if you're lucky. Right. And even then, they manipulate things. They bury adverse data. They use very controlled and most favorable populations. They do all sorts of statistical chicanery. I always say, like, the test group is the Justice League.

They bring in the superheroes of our planet. don't drink, don't smoke, the healthiest people, do the studies on them, and then give it to everybody that is a high-risk group all over the planet. Right, exactly. And so you get that game. So there's that part. But the thing is, is the other trials that are done are largely relying on NIH funding. And when the NIH is essentially captured by those working with or for pharmaceutical interests,

when you write a grant for a study, if you were to write a grant for an Ivermectin study and send it to the NIH, what's the chance of that getting approved? Right. Zero. Zero. And so, or now there are trials, so the NIH is doing a trial, but that's what's scary. If you look at the hydroxy and chlorgoids. Right. How are they going to manipulate that?

Right. You know, a study giving Ivermectin the best chance? No, what they do is they allow Ivermectin to be started up to like the UK trials up to 14 days after symptoms, absolutely ludicrous. Right. Or seven days is in this case. And then they use a very modest dose. We know in these subsequent variants, the viral loads are 250, 400 times the earlier variants where we're using the lower doses.

Do they use a requisite higher dose? No. And it's, so the idea, I'm so cynical now. I'm not even cynical. I know it's a corrupt exercise. So, you know, the idea when, you know, everybody, you know, and that's the other thing. The whole country's waiting for this, you know, NIH trial. Right.

And, you know, when it's negative, they're all going to see C, I told you so. Look, when we look at the trials of AZT, I mean, look at how Fouchy manipulate. those. He's giving blood transfusions on a daily basis to those that are in the A. Z.T. group and leaving the placebo control. So this is a man at the NIH who is known to manipulate the studies to get the favorable outcome that he wants. He's come out against Ivermectin. Let's be honest. If Ivermectin proves to be safe and effective, I think he's going away to prison for crimes against humanity because all those studies that were in his face. So he knows that. So will he allow? To the head of this trial right now, do we really think we're going to get a good

trial when it comes out oh geez I was wrong everybody my bad I killed 250,000 400,000 people by denying this drug it's hard to imagine that the NIH and this is the problem now we can no longer trust his regular three agents I want to just get into the story though of the moment you have this blow-up moment in Congress right so you're up there you're passionate you grab the hearts of minds we're sharing your video it's going viral Ivermectin is now on the rise what happened between that moment where it felt like we have the cure we had the How are you going to stop this?

Credible doctors got up, Senate heard them. The world is sharing it. And yet I am shocked today. You have to take, you know, you got to get a judge involved and take a hospital to court in order to get hybramectin. What was the death blow? So when I first thought, when I first discovered that there was something really wrong, first there was a little honeymoon period, right? So we got a lot of attention.

One of a chief of staff, a former Texas Health Commission, worked for a chief of staff, for a Nebraska congressman who sits on some of the funding committees of the agencies, they put pressure on the NAH to talk to us. So they got us a meeting to present to the therapeutics committee at NAA. So I presented with Paul Merrick and a guy named Andrew Hill. He invited Andrew. After my testimony, I met Andrew at a virtual conference where he gave a talk. I saw he was from the WHO.

I emailed him. We shared our slides and we started talking. And he was equally enthusiastic. I mean, he had been studying repurposed drugs for six months. Every single compound he studied, he had failed. And he said the same thing to us. He said he saw a signal that was so consistent and reproduced. This is the old Andy Hill.

We'll talk about later, Andy Hill. But you got this WHO doctor that's like, I'm with you. I totally agree. So what can go wrong with that? Now we've got a WHO doctor on board. We have WHO lead researcher, heading a huge team, well-resourced team, that were scouring every clinical trial registry around the world. They were developing independent communications with every principal investigator

of every randomized controlled trial of Ivermectin. The results were coming. They were consistently positive. He was building them. Then we go to the NIH, January 6th. So I testified December 8th. January 6th, we had an audience with the entire committee at the NIH. And we presented each a piece. And we brought in Andrew because his data was the most deep, sophisticated, and robust because he really, he had results of randomized controlled trials, hadn't been posted you. He had more data than us because he had a huge team

and they only talk the language of randomized control. They don't want to hear about my observational you know, all the other stuff. So we did this combination presentation. I thought it was pretty impressive and then the question and answer session like

you know, yeah, you're supposed to be skeptical and so they were asking challenging questions. They were, you could clear they would see that they were underwhelmed and, you know, they thanked us for coming, and I'll tell you an interesting anecdote. So at the end, it was interesting.

Before they finished, they said, do you have any questions for us? I'm like, we paused. And then I just like, I think, you know, me, I just blunt. And I said to the committee, I said, you know, I've got to ask you a question. You guys currently have a recommendation that Ivermectin not be used outside of a clinical trial. I have not seen that recommendation apply to any other drug. Why do you guys say don't use it out of, you know, everything else is neutral or, you know, insufficient evidence to recommend like convalescent plasma? Why do you have a recommendation based on expert opinion only to not use it out of a trial when it's safe and, you know, it has all this evidence of equity.

Why do you have that? And I'll tell you, we have this recorded. A 14-second pause of a committee of 23 members. Do you know how long 14-second pauses in a meeting? I had one at the NIH myself, actually. I've talked about a lot. I had a pause. Bobby Kennedy, I had a shocking pause in the same way.

When we said, we can't find a single double-blind placebo study of any of the childhood vaccines. You know, are they being done and we're just not seeing them? Is it not public? Or are they not being done? Pause. Like, they knew what we were there. We were there for that exact way? Like, no, like, it was just, it was incredible.

It was incredible. So back to your giant pause. So NIH now, we now have confirmation from two different sides. And NIH is the home of the long silent pause. I'm borrowing a phrase from Brett Weinstein, but that's when you know you're over the target. Right, right, exactly. There was like, you know, people are really uncomfortable with that question. And I was shocked at how long the pause went on.

And then finally the head of the committee said, okay, guys, we need to answer this. and they gave me the most demeaning, condescending answer ever. They did not answer my question. They answered simply why it was expert opinion. It was like a non-answer. They're like, you know, expert opinion only is when we don't have, you know, sufficient trials data to really base. And I was like, why are you talking to me like I'm a medical student?

Like, that's not the question I answered. So clearly we were over the target and clearly they were hiding something. And so that was one thing that started to bother me. Yeah. The next important thing is at the time that I gave testimony, I was looking for a journal to submitted to. And obviously, like any other physician with an important paper, you wanted to get it in the highest impact paper, a journal you can.

And I discovered through some new connections and colleagues that there was a scientist who proposed a special issue to a journal called Frontiers and Pharmacology. Frontiers has a whole collection of journals, and one of them is Frontiers in Pharmacology. And this issue was going to be dedicated to repurpose drugs to treat COVID. I was like, what better journal issue, especially a special editor. And so I was introduced to him, and you want to know who that editor was? Who? A guy named Robert Malone.

Really? So that's how far back I go with Rob. Wow. And then the other funny anecdote, Robert's probably going to get tired of hear me tell this anecdote, But he and I became close. We're on the phone a lot because I would harass him because people were dying. So many people were dying. And peer review can take a long time.

Peer reviewers, they, you know, they're all busy. It's voluntary work. And so he chose four peer reviewers. Three of them were senior governmental scientists that he'd work with for decades. And, you know, I'd be like, Robert, you know, reviewer one submitted their peer review. Can you get reviewer two, reviewer three, reviewer four? You know, I didn't know who they were. But so he would be called, and it was Christmas.

Like, I think I submitted to him on like December 18th and like Christmas holidays and people are dying. And I'm like, come on, Robert. Like, I don't care about Christmas. I can't imagine, right? Like, people are dying. People like, I'm watching them. So Robert was getting sick of me. But, you know, I also was becoming a little bit of a public figure.

And Robert, you know Robert now. He's so wise. He's so smart. He was kind of becoming a mentor to me and he was talking to me. And I remember this one day, you know, I said, Robert, man, you see me out here. you know, I'm trying to, you know, advocate, disseminate, you know, get this knowledge out. I said, why

aren't you out there? You know what he told me at that time? He said, he goes to me, if they can't see you, they can't shoot you. That's the Robert Malone who said that last year. Now look at Robert Malone. He's walking around a huge target on his back and everyone's shooting out of him.

I think he's waving at Target over his head. So, so anyway, but just, it also speaks to Robert Malone. I mean, he was, He knows pandemics. He's been involved in pandemics, and that's part of his career. He knows that in a pandemic, the best solution would be to identify an available drug that you could deploy immediately. And so he was trying to get the science around them in a journal.

So here's what happened next, though. And this is when, like, our lives blew up. It passed peer review after three rounds, lots of revisions. They didn't like some of the stuff we were concluding. Fine. We softened them. We changed them. We simplified them.

We changed the order. And it finally got accepted for publications somewhere around, I think, mid-January, late January. And it's an online publication. And what they do is they put up the abstract first as a provisional acceptance. And then it has to go into production and whatnot. But it's online. It's a pandemic. And our literal conclusion of our paper was,

Ivorymectin should be systematically and globally deployed for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19. because we had a dozen prevention trials, 32 controlled trials. I mean, we couldn't find evidence that it didn't work, and it's so safe. And the problem was what happened is, like, one week passed, two weeks passed, three weeks passed. And I would start writing to the editor, you know,

representatives at the journal, like, what's going on, guys? This is a very important paper you must publish. And it was getting really bad, and one day in frustration I wrote to them, I said, you know, I don't think something is wrong here. You're not communicating. There's no explanation for the amount of time you're taking to publish this. And I said, I'm going to go public.

I have a deep concern that there may be misconduct going on. And after that email, Robert Malone got a call from the editor. And the editor said, and this is where it gets sinister, the editor said that there was an anonymous complaint saying that they didn't feel like our conclusions were substantiated. And he asked some anonymous third party peer review. We never saw the peer review. Don't know who it was. Some person that he called in to independently evaluate the paper.

And that person overruled the four peer reviewers of three senior governmental scientists and an ICU expert and said those conclusions unsubstantiated, that paper needs to be retracted. That's first of many Ivermectin papers retracted around the world from my close colleagues. By mysterious individuals of high power that override multiple world-renowned scientists and reviews. And you know what? You know what? I almost feel like I'm going to cry because, you know, the way it was explained, like they said not only they were rejecting for that. And I argue, why won't you ask for a revision? Give me what the problems are. Like, I would even go so far as to soften the conclusion if if they would want me to and and the editor said we won't work with them based on like my email and so Dell I literally like couldn't sleep for days because I thought like my temper and

my email like basically is going to cause like untold death because I misbehaved on an email I literally thought it was about me and my behavior yeah and it devastated me I literally couldn't sleep. I kept thinking like, man, if I didn't write that email, maybe he would have been able to work with us and accept revisions. Didn't take too long for me to get over that, because I understood because what happened next is

Robert had papers that were being evaluated, and all of the papers of the issue, all of the repurposed drugs were put on halted production. All of them were then stopped and all of the editors of the special counsel. Obviously, that was enough to bring him out of height. Yeah, I think that's

that's when he started on it. But, so So we saw, you know, that's when we saw that like, and they complained. They went to the editor and then they had meetings and they saw that this was like they were under the control of something else. So Andrew Hill, just very quickly. You've got this W.A.O. scientist. Yeah. What happened with him? That's at the same time.

So if I published January 16th. So what happened next is Andrew Hill, January 6th, prevented with us. And he at that time, I think he had 11 or 12 randomized control. trials and the results were just dramatic. They were showing something called a dose response relationship, which is in therapeutics is another pillar of efficacy. When you could show that one dose works this much and a higher dose burdened about a bigger and potent effect, it really is almost an unicellive. He was showing dose response relationship. He was showing markedly reductions in viral presence based on dose. One dose, you could clear.

virus in X amount of time. You know, multiple doses, you can clear it in a much shorter time. And these were just like eye-popping results. Hospitalizations, deaths, everything, just on the first 11 randomized controlled trials. And we were like, when are you going to publish? And he's like, you know, I'm getting ready for the meta-analysis. And, you know, we waited for it. And he posted it on like January 19th.

And Paul and I looked at the paper, and we were shocked. It was, it was, we'd never, so when, when you author a paper, authors, they generally almost all make the same, if they're going to make an error, they make the same, which is that they over-conclude based on the data, right, because they're too enthusiastic, you know, which is what I was accused of, you know. And here, for the first time, he presents this ridiculously robust and potent data. and in the conclusion basically argues against the data say, you know, this is preliminary and it should not be used by regulatory agents. I've never seen that kind of language

and a conclusion of anything. I've never talked about what regulatory agencies should or shouldn't do. Just present the science and conclude what it says. And there was like, it's almost this editorializing. And then I'm reading the paper. And one of the things that we presented to the NIH was unpublished data from Kali and Waxstackstein.

The first researchers in Australia who showed that Ivermectin eradicated the virus in a cell culture model, and everyone attacked that trial by saying the concentrations they used were so high it could never be reached in the human. They did follow-up studies using actual lung cells, and they showed that standard dosing of Ivermectin did reach an effective concentration in lung tissue and adipose tissue. We had that data. We presented to NIH in Andy Hill's pre-print, peppered throughout our... constant comments that the doses required for efficacy could not be reached. So Paul and I were like, he knows he has this data. And like, this is when I'm first like almost kind of like, we were

deeply concerned. In fact, I peer reviewed his preprint, and I did exhaustive peer review, and I pointed out every inanity, every inaccuracy, every, he put limitations of the paper in multiple places. There's a standard place where you put limitations. It's usually at the end of the discussion section. He had it at the end of the introduction. I was like, it was almost like a paper that was attacking itself. And it was bizarre. It was like presented these great results, but then it was also arguing why they couldn't be true. I mean, I've never seen it. We were incensed. So I did this huge peer review. Paul edited a little bit. We sent it to Andrew, and we actually told him at that time. We said, Andrew, we cannot understand how you could

write these things when you know what you know. Nothing makes sense. you know, the negativity, the limitations that you're placing on this paper, your lack of an effective conclusion makes a strongly suspect that scientific misconduct may be occurring. We are deeply concerned. We are asking you to use this peer review and please revise your paper. And that's when he started a string of soul. And he said, I will, I will, I'll do it on the next one. We're like, people are dying. You know that you're spouting inaccuracies in this. You need to revise your paper. And then right around that time is when, you're Tess had that famous recorded conversation, which was transcribed and also published in Bobby's

book. And that's just a chilling encounter. And, you know, as sinister as that was, and as much as she had dead to rights, I mean, Tess was on fire. She's a powerful woman, ridiculously smart. And she spoke from science, from empathy, from humanity. And, you know, how many people are dying every day, Andrew? How many people are dying? Oh, yeah, there's no question. In Bobby's book, We find out later, five days before his preprinted was posted, his institution that employs him, the University of Liverpool in the UK, got a $40 million grant from who?

His sponsor of the study, the person paying for the research, Unitate, which is essentially an organization run and operated by Bill Gates. Yeah, there's some countries that contribute, but Bill Gates runs that thing. And so they give him a $40 million grant, and suddenly this ridiculous paper comes out of it.

And then since then, you know, he's done nothing but work to question, distort the science around Ivermectin. His latest paper is like fraud and low quality and how you can't trust, you know, the science around Ivermactant. And so you're talking now, so we talked about captured agencies, captured journals, they capture researchers. I mean, 40 million for exactly the disease he studies, which is in fact, this disease. I remember, you know, when I think about Peter Hotez, at the very beginning, this came out against the vaccine, said you cannot rush this for having antibody dependent, I think disease enhancement, how he referenced it, talked to the Congress and now he's out there championing the vaccine. Interesting. You see this giant influx of money at the Baylor University where his work is being done. So they buy these people.

Look, we could talk all day. There's somebody and maybe we'll do a part two and bring you in, but I want to get to a couple of things because the climate around this is changing. The media obviously came out is attacking. the horse paste, all of that. But now it's getting serious. Now we have, you know, you sort of brought to my attention, something that we looked at this week. We have, you know, the Department of Justice, is it?

I think the, or the Homeland Security, is now referencing anyone sort of having conversations that are against public policy. And I guess in this case would be vaccines or Ivermecting these things. It seems that they want to label you and people like you as a terrorist. Is that how you think this writing is?

I read the dialogue. And I mean, I was shocked. I mean, essentially what I took from it is that anyone exercising their First Amendment rights in this space is a terrorist? Right. I mean, that's one reading of it. And I think we have a couple. Do we have a couple of excerpts from it that we can pull up? I forget if that's the Cades.

Norland's lie? No? Okay, maybe we didn't grab that. I guess I'm also not hearing anything here. So, all right. Yeah. You know, that's sort of one reading. You know, they never really came out and talked about, you know,

misinformation around therapy. I mean, I think there was a mention of vaccine, and then there's these allusions to elections and weird groups. Right. It's very general. It sort of mixes everybody together, but it does, like, you know, yeah, misinformation. I think that's on purpose. Yeah, I agree.

They don't want you to know who you are, but who you might be. Right. We might be talking about you. And so, like, it was very unsettling, but ultimately, no matter what you say, you have a right to say it. That's one of the founding principles of this country. Now they're calling people terrorists. Are you worried about it?

Are you worried? You're very outspoken. You're out there. You know, as you had said, you know, the moment we're seeing people are starting to use Ivermectin, you saw the media come out. That's when like this horse pace. And it wasn't just one person. This is how the talking points work.

Every comedy show, every night show, everywhere had this slogan. It's, you know. horse-be-warming medication. That thing, let's talk about that, because that whole campaign that had a start and an end, and it only started a certain time, because they could have gone after

Ivermectin after my testimony. They could have started that PR campaign. They let it die down. They retracted papers. They did whatever they could. They started publishing negative. They did their usual standard operating procedure to attack a drug.

What happened when it hit the media, that PR campaign started, is that the Ivermactin prescription, United States, during the summer Delta wave, hit 90,000 a week. Wow. And so the pharma interest, or whatever interest, I just call them the other side. Those with interest in suppressing the evidence of the efficacy of amortemectin,

they got spooked. And that's when they unleashed what is clearly a pre-planned PR campaign. And they used every gun. It was like a, you know, a blitz, right? They used media organizations, and particularly they used the agencies. And that war was started with the CDC, put out a memo with actually erroneous and overstated reports of poisonings from Ivorymack. Basically they called it dangerous.

And they literally said something that is clearly misleading. They kept saying FDA has not authorized this drug for COVID, as if we need the FDA, as it should be assumed that we're waiting for the FDA, as if anyone is applied for the FDA. We don't need the FDA to tell FDA is not their job. A lot of drugs that are being used every single day. It's off-label prescribed. It's legal and encouraged when there's no alternative effective therapy. So when you see this absurd memo, but when you talk about the doctors, the lack of critical thinking, like they don't read into that. What I'm reading into that, which is absurdly misleading, it's intended to scare everyone from using.

Because if the big guys up top tell you not to use, you might be accused of malpractice. And so they're scared. They're going to lose their license. And some of that is happening, right? So then what happens is every State Department Health gets that memo. It goes down to every license provider in that state. It goes to the pharmacy board, to every pharmacist. And now the war is on.

And then it gets real for us. I had had problems with pharmacists before then. But suddenly, like the landscape of that battle changed, it became increasingly hard. And I had patients real sick with Delta. And I'm calling multiple pharmacies. We're figuring out ways, starting to find compounding pharmacy. Many of us bringing a list of safe havens. Like, we're literally fighting a war for our patients out there

against the agencies which are manipulating the entire system. And then they change, you know, then there's the second round of attack, which is the media. Every media broadcaster, every late-night talk show host, there's no, no one mentions it as human drug Nobel Prize winning. It's horse dewormer, horse dewormer. The FDA tweets, you're not a, hey, you're, you're not a horse, you're not a cow, stop it.

You know, making jokes with a picture of a horse. And it's, I'm watching this and I'm just like, this can't be happening. They're literally killing people with this PR campaign to try to get the doctors

to stop using it. They know that the evidence of evidence. Doctors were learning it work. They were using it widely. And by the way, let's keep in mind, right? 23 countries have either partially or fully approved and recommended Ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19, which encompasses 25% of the globe's inhabitants. Wow.

In the United States, it's a horsy warmer. Amazing. And so, and most of the West, right, and they're the most captured. You know, I use this analogy that, you know, there are narco states and there are pharma states. And in fact, I tweeted something, which was half humorous, half morbid, but someone sent me a picture of a vending machine in a Mexican airport. And in the vending machine, there was one row, it said, is itrymicin, iburemectin, hydroxychloroquine. So you could go to a vending machine and get these effective drugs for COVID just right out of the machine. So I tweeted something like, I said, you know, it's a strange time when a citizen being terrorized in a pharma state is envious of the public health offerings.

of a narco state. I mean, this is just another absurdity. And so as we, you know, as you look forward, I think that I've said here, I know Robert Kennedy Jr. is with me on this. Like these people, I think people

need to go to jail. I need to, we've got to change how our regulatory health agencies are working. They're obviously in bed pharma. We're seeing the power that pharma has over the papers, over the journals, over the hospitals, over the medical systems over the regulatory agencies, I mean, all of that.

What is, you know, do you think this plays out? Do you think that ultimately the truth is going to be revealed and we're just going to have to accept and know we were lied to when Ivermectin was the answer? I have to believe that and I do believe that. And I want to give like almost a two-part answer. Let's talk about the solution, right? Because we can detail and dissect this terrible problem and these essentially crimes, like you said, crimes, and there should be lawyers, prosecutors.

and prisons in the future for these acts. But, you know, the solutions, first of all, start, I think, with kind of work that we've done as the FLCCC at our website. We have highly effective combination therapy protocols, not only using prescription off-label generic drugs, but a lot of over-the-counter stuff, some nutritional therapies,

all based on evidence and trials. And, you know, we've been championed by them around the world. So we've just done sound pragmatic stuff using expertise, looking at data, looking at it fairly, looking at biological plausibility, and just trying to disseminate those. So one solution is just trying to be a source for good pragmatic, sound medical guidance, right? No conflicts of interest and expertise.

That's one. And then what you touched on is, you know, the other solutions are this system, right? And I think there was a slide, you know, where I show, like, if you look at all of the drugs that have been studied, that's shown efficacy, There's well over two dozen. But when you look at our system, that slide doesn't have it circled there. Yeah, there it is. You know, when you circle what the U.S. recommends for the treatment of COVID-19,

on that list of well over two dozen compounds with efficacy, the only thing circled are huge obscene high dollar ticket items. Every low-cost drug is not recommended. And just look at that slide. That's the problem with our system. That's what has to change. We have to have to restructure and somehow right into a restructure it so that removes the influence of the pharmaceutical industry. You know, what we want is we want to see the table's clinicians.

Like how about expert clinicians' voices who've been trialing things, doing empiric things, studying different things, finding benefits with this? Let us come share our knowledge with you. By the way, science doesn't come from the top of the mountain. You know, it comes from the field. You know, we tell them what we learn. And so it's exactly backwards. And so we know things like steroids, blood thinners, all the things in our program, we knew this before any of them.

So for people that want this information, what website, where are we following you? Where do we help? Where do we promote? So, FLCCC.C.net is the easiest way to remember. That's net. Okay. And there there's protocols. We have a lot of updates, information guidance. We have infographics. And so I think, you know, people really like the website. They find it very helpful.

You can print out stuff, share it with your doctor, although that's very hard to turn a doctor at this point. They're pretty set in the sand. But, you know, that would be, you know, what we think is a great resource, especially when, let's say you don't have access to a doctor who will prescribe. We also have lists of doctors, generally telehealth that cover most of the country that are willing to use. and deploy early treatment protocols. And so, you know, you have a resource to get to a provider. You have options where you don't even need a doctor. You know, we love the science around like the mouthwashes, gargles and nasal drops, the vericidal ones,

the ones that kill the virus. And so, you know, we're trying to give patients agency when the agencies will give them agency. Amazing. You know. Dr. Pierre, Corey, I know we're going to get through this because we're no longer alone. As people, you know, as a journalist here, you know, trying to get doctors to speak out.

These truths have been there over the years that I've been investigating. But finally, when I look at you, when I see Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. Robert Malone, I mean, you know, or so we could go on and on. You guys are standing shoulder to shoulder. I think you're carrying the future of science and medicine. I think you're carrying the future of liberty and freedom in this country. It's an honor to have gotten to really sort of get into some of these details of what must be, you know, You know, one of the most frustrating experiences, but you're a hero, you're courageous. And just, we're going to be at this rally coming up.

Yeah, man. Just March 5th. Keep it going, man. You're a brother in the fight. And if you allow me, I've got to tell you, I really deeply respect and admire your work, your voice in this. And, you know, I mean, we're a brand of brothers and sisters. And the only thing, you know, and this isn't negative, but it's just another surprise is that there's so few of us. You know, I mean, I just thought, like, when I stood up and spoke out that, you know, you look to the right and left, you'd see people coming forward.

They're coming forward now, you know, especially the people there. And like you said, the power of the people is the key thing. And I'm really looking forward to this man. We're going to do a great job, and I appreciate your support and help. And so pleasure. Fabulous. Yeah, man. Yeah, man.

Thank you, brother. Keep up the good work. Thanks, though. All right. Well, we got Jimmy Levy and high-res. We've got a brand new video that's launching. today, God over government, go ahead and share it. And by the way, this too will be a part of that text.

If you want to just dial 72022 and then type in ICANN, this video, the promotion for the rally coming up on March 5th in Southern California. Start booking your tickets. Here is that video launching right now as we speak. They want you locked in your home without God and alone. Don't want you looking up. Dr. Sett. be in rob him alone the truth blocked on your phones they call the shots from they thrown these politicians and these doctors they are not in control jimmy

don't cover the face that the lord creates we just want to be free opened the rally in dc it was the moment i thought here we are now we got uh the venue is incredible that again is going to be happening in southern california on march fifth i want to give a shout out to jimmy levy and high res um they're going to be there and for the work that they're doing and bring art to this. We've talked so much about that. But as we talk about California, really quick, as I close this up, I mean, first of all, we've got to get everyone we know out to this rally. California has lost its mind. So many of us are refugees from California. I've moved to Texas. At the heart of that is one insane lunatic that just can't poison enough children. Of course, I'm talking about Senator Richard Pan. I should thank him, really, because he's the father.

He's the father of this movement, at least the modern vaccine risk awareness movement or anti-mandates movement. It's his mandates that got me started, that got so many people that now find themselves at these marches started when he tried to take away our rights to control our own children. He thinks the government owns our children with SB 277 and then SB 276. But right now they're literally changing the rules to rush forward a bill to force vaccinate with COVID vaccine, the children in California. This is it. Dr. Richard Pan announces new bill that would add COVID vaccine to list of mandatory vaccines needed by California school children. He's rushing this. All California school children must be vaccinated against COVID-19 under the new bill. This is terrifying. It's terrifying to think with all we know about myocarditis, all of the issues. And frankly, I have a hard time believing that there's enough senators and congressmen in the state capital that are that brain dead,

that they would force this vaccine that cannot stop infection, cannot stop transmission, only brings harm to children. Senator Richard Pan doesn't care, but we can't trust it. We can't trust that our government has enough intelligent people to stop this. We've got to do something. We've got to do it now. This rally on March 5th, of course, we are showing up there. We will remember everybody.

If they decide to try and pass something like this, let it be known right now, Senator Richard Pan and everyone listening to him, that is why we're coming to California. We're coming to stop this insanity. But we need to make sure that we stop this thing, even so that they don't rush it through before. we can all stand there and speak, you know, for the country and for the world.

And so right now, we've got to write in everyone, especially in California, you've got to write the senators and those people that are listening to this garbage that are making this decision. So here it is, who to contact to stop Senator Pan's bill. Of course, always this is going to be available to you. But right now, Tony Atkins, Pat Bates, Shannon Grove, Sydney Kamliger, and John Laird. These are people that are going to be making this decision. Are they Health Committee?

I don't know exactly the relevance, but they're making this decision whether this thing's going to hit the floor. You need to let them know that they will not be elected again, that we stand as a body against this vaccine. And just be really simple with them. Just say this vaccine now is stated by Tony Fauci, does not stop infection, does not stop transmission. All the signs shows that children are at zero to very little risk from this virus, especially Omicron. And all of the studies on heart disease on the myocarditis and periocarditis are putting our children at risk. And there's obviously plenty of articles. You can talk about these articles that come out.

This is weird pro-vaccine but can't support California lawmakers school COVID vaccine mandate. Two physicians, epidemiologists argue in this op-head the likely cost of Senator Pan's bill would not be worth the benefits. Send that to those people in mass. Just get online. Send that article. Say, how could you do this? Let them know. We are going to show up.

And by the way, I think we're going to have over 100,000 people. Just to guess, I think over 100,000 people can be standing shoulder to shoulder in California, making sure this insanity stops now, along with the trucks and the convoy. This is what it takes, people. America is rising up. But don't get lazy right now, today. Take those phone numbers. You'll have it.

Obviously, if you're on our mailing list, all you had to do is be at the highwire.com. Just hit on the mailing list there, it doesn't cost you anything. Just put your name, your email in there. And then all this information will be there. Also, all the videos that we've shown specifically about the mandates. Again, you can text and receive those. Just go to 72022 is the number and type in I-C-A-N. You'll get the mandates video.

And you're going to get a really powerful video that I want to share right now. These are just some of the voices of the movement that made what happened in D.C. possible. Those voices that are going to be in California as we speak. We just want to put together the heart and the soul. Humanity speaking out. Once again, I want to thank Mickey Willis for putting this brilliant video together. Here are the voices that are speaking the truth to power. Would you support a nationwide mandate of the COVID vaccine once it comes out?

No, definitely not. You don't want to mandate and try and force anyone to take a vaccine. We've never done that. Starting tomorrow in the district, you'll have to show proof of vaccination to dine out, Go to the gym, see a concert, or catch a sports game. Full circle, here we are. Here we are, right? Masks, vaccines.

No food. Can't go into certain places without a mask on or if you don't have a vaccine. Doctors turning down patients because they aren't vaccinated, determining who will live and who will die. This is absurd. But it was coming. And compliance is the driving force. We are concerned about the virus, but we also believe that where there is risk, there must be choice. And the way that the executive orders with the vaccine mandates have been put into place,

it leaves employees without the option to make their own medical decisions. And we believe that the government doesn't have the legal or moral right to force employees to put something into their body that they don't want. I couldn't imagine people who worked with me for years to help me build my company up off of the ground. Me happened to fire them because They refuse to make a medical decision. Our basic civil liberties are under attack, and they have been for a long time now.

And it's crazy. It's wearing people out. The city of Los Angeles is already amending its proof of vaccination ordinance just days after it went into effect. And now a decision where to Rob Hayes is live with those developments and the push to get kids vaccinated. If you want to take over a whole nation, you have to target the young.

And once you change their perception, moving forward, they won't be able to fight for freedom. anymore because they're going to confuse freedom for slavery, and to them it's going to be normalized. You are traumatizing a little child. It should be my body, my choice. You choose what goes into your body. You want to get the vaccine?

Fine. I don't want to. I don't want to. It's my decision. It's your decision. I keep hearing this narrative about the new normal. No, my goal in life is to return us to the old normal, where my kid can grow up and not look at me and tell me,

me in 10 years and say, mom, you had a chance. Why didn't you fight for my future and my rights? Thousands gathered at the National Mall for a rally against COVID-19 mandates. I don't think there's any better word to say. I mean, there might be something more eloquent to say, but my word is epic. I'm just curious, make a little noise if you love freedom.

It felt like a huge historical moment, because there were so many of these fractured, compartmentalized groups that we all should have technically hated each other. But everyone came together for one solid purpose, and that was to support freedom of choice and bodily autonomy. Medical freedom has been hijacked by hospitals, by insurance companies, by the government, and by big pharma. I'm trying to stand up.

Don't let other people decide what goes in your body, and certainly don't let other people decide what goes in your children's bodies. I took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States. States and I take that very seriously. I don't just speak out for a rebellious reason. I'm a law-abiding citizen who just believes that we can't be have our freedoms taken away for a virus that probably isn't going away either. And we got to remember the five freedoms y'all see the fist on my hat. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of press, the right to assemble and the right to petition the government. When you see this fist, this is our power to fight back.

We must be brave now, or we'll have to explain to our children, grandchildren, and millions of Americans yet to be born, that our failure to do so is the very reason that they need to live their life on their knees. And that is not a conversation I am willing to have. I'm looking at you, and I don't care what you look like, where you come from, what's going on, we are unified together, because this movement is too important to let anything divide us. You don't get to tell me what to put into my body. only thing you can mandate is love. That's the vibe. We're so excited to be a part of defeat the mandates. Obviously, this is going to be a huge event. I can't imagine why you would allow yourself

to miss it. So please check it off on your calendar. It's just around the corner. Let's all show up. I've been watching Germany. You have two France, Spain, the UK, rising up, hundreds of thousands of people. We did brilliant. It was 40,000 DC. It was so exciting. Let's just blow this off the Richter scales. Let's show them what it means when America rises up. Let's not just wait for Canada to do it for us and others. We are the beacon of liberty and freedom for the world. It's time to represent. We're going to go do that in the belly of the beast. Right there where Senator Richard Pann is trying to poison children as we speak, right there where Hollywood keeps cranking out this propaganda and these lies. We are taking it to the belly

of the beast. Just one more time. Share these videos everywhere you can, the voices video, And then of course the promotional video for this rally, get it out on every social media platform that you have. Text, I can to 72022. We'll hand you those links. You just put that link into your Twitter and your Facebook. That beautiful thumbnail pops up and send it out to the world. This is it. Are you ready for this?

The ride begins. Now we take back America. We're going to defeat the mandates. This is the goal. It's been a goal for years. And now they've overstepped their bounds. They put themselves right into the trap, and here we are. It is time to shift the conversation around forced medical tyranny all around the world.

This is never going to happen again, and we need to rise up and show the world that that is the case. This is the high wire. I want to thank you for taking the time. I want to thank you for caring enough to listen to these stories, to listen to scientists, where everyone else is giving them sound bites, we're getting the entire truth. This is a record. Right here, we have a time capsule being built so that they will never. get to rewrite this history. This is the history. This is the truth. It's happening here and

no one is going to take that away from us. So keep donating, keep helping. And by God, I will see you in California for the biggest rally there ever was. This is the Highwire and I'll catch you next week. This is the example of what you get when you choose to attack all members of the human family. This is what you get when you decide to go after a person's child. And I have to make it very clear that they really didn't expect all of this. Thousands from across the country rallied today in Washington, D.C. A rally against COVID-19 mandates.

The message for many on Sunday was not anti-vaccines, but the right to choose. Thank all of you for coming out today to stand up for our children, our grandchildren, and our great-grandchildren. The determination to preserve medical freedom is. is in your hands. We're fighting for ourselves, our patients, and all of you. We are fighting against big pharma. They have always put profits before patients. You know, here in the United States,

really, it's going to be black people who really should get it first. To my African-American brothers and sisters, the vaccine that you're gonna take was developed by an African-American woman. As an African-American, I come here as one of the most vaccine-hesident group. If you choose to

Take the vaccination? Do you take it? We should have a choice. The vaccine passports and the vaccine mandates take us back to the days of segregation. It's back to the slave passports. Are you free or you're not free? You can't go here if you're not free or are you telling you to not for you. I'm tired of these people that sit in the White House that stimulate race wars. We're going to come together and we're going to fight these mandates together. Tired that we are being experimented on. We have all been deceived.

I'm tired that we are being manipulated. They used our arms. artists. They use our athletes, our singers, our rappers. Celebrities are under a tremendous amount of pressure because they use celebrities to control the black community. Shout out to we the people. Oh yeah, I forgot. They made that phrase, racist too. But as you see in the audience, those who are Muslims, Christians, those in the Jewish community, Democrats, Republicans, white, black, everyone all in between. This is the example that they do not want to see, but they have no choice. This wall is so beautiful. Look at all of you. Look at you. The world sees us.

We are 17,000 doctors. We are the last vegan. And for life, I believe in you. Are we ready to reclaim the dream? Now the people rise up. Let's reclaim our country. The truth is like a lion. You don't have to defend it.

Let it loose. It will defend itself.