The Highwire with Del Bigtree - BIGTREE / TYSON INTERVIEW GOES MAINSTREAM

Episode Date: April 20, 2023

A week after the viral interview with Neil Degrasse Tyson, Neil made waves on primetime for the statements the celebrated astrophysicist made on The Highwire regarding his comments on ‘consensus.’Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

The High Wire had an amazing week, and for many of you are probably joining us for the very first time, welcome to a very unique news program where we actually just tell you the truth. And we provide all of the evidence behind that truth. Why are you joining for the first time? Probably because our interview with Neil deGrasse Tyson last week went absolutely viral. Millions and millions of people viewed clips that were being made by organizations outside of ours by us. It was an amazing windfall for the high wire, and it made it all the way to prime time. This is world-renowned astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, a scientist explaining why you, and everybody out there shouldn't ask questions.

Watch. There's a list of top-ranking medical professionals. Just take a look at him here. Dr. Peter McCullough. No, no, no, I want to go through what happened here. This is the problem with the consensus. The consensus, medical professional. I want you to...

Because the medical unit is so huge, I can find you an astrophysicist who is sure we've been visited by aliens. That's not the consensus. The problem was, the scientific method died here, and this is the point I want to make. It died a death here, and I need you to help me save it, because Dr. Peter McCullough is the leading cardiologist.

I don't care. I don't care. It's... They don't matter. What should matter... What should... What should... I'm not interested in medical pedigree.

I'm interested in medical consensus, in scientific consensus. Scientists that were on the ground that were dealing with patients were being censored, were being shut down, their YouTube channels were being shut down, their LinkedIn's are being shut down. Because the individual scientist does not matter. So let me get this straight. The scientist doesn't want you to follow the scientific method, because it goes against the scientific consensus, even if the consensus was wrong. And it's not just the vaccines.

The consensus did the same thing with. COVID. Remember when Fauci and companies said COVID came from a wet market? That lab leak theory went against the fake consensus. If you mentioned it, you got censored and smeared as a crazy person. Hey, Kuk, the coronavirus came from a bat. Definitely not the coronavirus lab around the corner. I definitely want to give a shout out to Chief Nerd. That's the Twitter handle that did some great job cutting clips and putting it out for the entire world to see. It is hard to get it all done from our side. As you can see, what is it, four million views

on that clip alone, which was amazing and great to get that assist. So thank you, Chief Nerd. And people, if you wanna watch, Chief Nerd puts out a lot of great information, follows us, but other great news organizations and breaking news that's out there around the world. And Mike Sertovich and others like him

that made posts like this, great points from Del Big Tree. This is why no one will debate him. And to that point, I wanna say it's true, we've really, had difficulty people, getting people from the ProVax side to ever sit and debate me or to sit in this chair, if you will, next to me. There has always been an open invitation out to Tony Fauci and all the other illustrious pro-vaxxers that are out there. But I want to really thank

Neil deGrasse Tyson for having the courage and standing by his word. He put out the challenge that he was open to a scientific debate and anyone that would be willing to have it, discuss our differences and then share a beer afterwards, which we did. So Neil, really, I want to thank you for being a man of your word in that space. And I know it's probably not been the best week ever for Neil deGrasse. And of course, really, when you watch the comments on this conversation, what everybody was struck by was this religious belief in consensus, if you will, the power of consensus. And I've actually, you know, there's something unique about when you talk about vaccines as much as I do in this issue, sometimes we miss the simplest argument. And what's

unique about a live debate, I didn't know where it was going to go. Obviously, we were well prepared for anywhere it could go, but we ended up landing in a space I never planned on. I never expected that the entire argument by Neil deGrasse Tyson speaking for the scientific community was that consensus is all that mattered. It left me in having to recalculate what I wanted to say. And it turned out to be this. If there's a consensus, okay, but the consensus has never taken care of the minority. It never cares about the smaller group. Consensus is about as long as the majority is okay, then it's okay. But what about the minority? I mean, the United States of America is not just focused on consensus. In fact, I think this is a misconception of what,

you know, what this nation is. We're actually not a democracy, which is mob rule and the majority gets the say over everybody, it's actually a republic, which means we have a constitution that protects every single citizen in this country. It's what makes America unique across all of the other democracies, if you will, across the world, is that we don't just let the majority decide what's right because the consensus and the majority

has never ever cared about those that it injures, those that it harms, those that it harms, Those that it oppresses. If we were to go with consensus, then look at all of the medical mistakes that we'd still be living with. We'd still have thalidomide babies, birth defects, you know, that were caused that ended up, you know,

looking like this. It was only because we investigated those that were being injured against those that were doing just fine with thalidomide. Or how about all the other products like Merck and, you know, had to pay out billions for Vioxx, which caused heart attacks, or Fenn Fenn, the consensus believed that was safe.

The consensus also believed that Monson Glyphosate was safe as now it's being pulled off of shells across America and countries are rejecting all the products using it. Johnson and Johnson's baby powder had a consensus and now we know it's caused cancer for millions of people around the world. And the consensus said that Oxycontin was safe and non-habit forming and they're paying out billions. The consensus is all we ever cared about would never allow for women's rights and would have said it was okay to segregate African Americans.

Who cares that they can't go to school? It doesn't affect the majority. The rest of us are just fine. Who cares if they have their own water fountain or can't go into a building? I mean, in all honesty, it is one of the most terrifying arguments ever made inside of the United States of America, but it shows what the problem with science is. That if science only cares about the consensus, and Neil DeKrasse Tyson pointed it out, he says the problem is, there's no money to invest in challenging studies.

We talked about how peer-reviewed science, maybe up to 50% of it is inaccurate. And he said, well, the problem is who's going to fund the studies looking at challenging those studies? Exactly right. Who's going to go up against farmer that owns our government, owns our television sets to say this product isn't working, especially when every time someone does step forward to stand for the truth, to stand for the truth for the smaller group of people, the minority, the oppressed, the injured, when they're attacked by mainstream media that is being funded by pharma,

how do we move forward? When they're being censored, when the great scientists, as I was trying to point out, and doctors like Dr. Peter McCullough, inventor of the MRNA vaccine, Dr. Robert Malone. Look at this list I showed him. Dr. Paul Merrick,

the second most published ICU doctor in the world that had a 50% reduction in death in his ICU compared to those in the rest of the hospital and around the world. Dr. Geert Van der Boch, a pro-vaxxer that believes in vaccine, but spoke out against this one. Dr. John Eonidis, one of the top epidemiologists in the world.

We have the Great Barrington Declaration, you know, written and designed by Dr. J. Badacharya from Stanford, Sinatra Gupta from Oxford, and Dr. Martin Koldar, if I believe, is it, Harvard. I mean, these are legendary people that all were trying to speak out, but were censored. So here's what I want to point. I want to point to what before Neil deGrasse Tyson knew what he was getting into. This is what he said about the importance of the scientific method and his simple way of describing how it should work. The scientific method is do whatever it takes to

To not be fooled that something is true that is not Or that something is not true that is did I say that right? I get what you're saying do whatever it takes it doesn't mean get a chart recorder right get a get a friend to verify... Unearthed in any way possible. Any way possible. Yes. Okay?

I don't care what it is. You don't want to be fooled into thinking something is true that isn't or something is not true that is. Period. And that sequence is the unpacking of that sentence I just uttered to you to try to systematize that process. Completely, totally agree. Here's my problem.

I cannot trust science and my audience will not trust science that continues to say we will not let top officials at the table that have now proven to be right. When we see emails that said, just keep them out of the room, and they are the ones that ended up being right about this virus. I will not trust the head task force when they come forward and say, I always knew it wouldn't stop transmission. Even though I and you and Neil deGrasse Tyson were telling you get it to protect each other, I always knew it never could do that. So we're going to have a hard time getting back to a place of trust. What we need now is a regulatory agency and people in charge that get back to actually listening to,

As you said, those people that are challenging this from all sides. The challenge has to be allowed into the room, and it's not. Science is dead in my mind. The scientific method is dead, and I think the coronavirus experiment proves that we are in a terrifying moment of science. And I reach out to you to think about what we've said here today and say, is he right? Did the scientific method take place? Is it taking place now, retrospectively?

Even if you want to argue in an emergency, we've made decisions and we rush things, why is Peter McCullough and why is Robert Malone and the people that were right? Why are they not at the table now? I cannot answer that. Okay. I mean, there you have it. And obviously, you know, the world has spoken as they've watched these videos of this interview. But I want to really sort of drill this down for those that really maybe haven't thought about the scientific method. The scientific method does not demand that the most powerful richest industry in the world, that's the most powerful lobby in Washington, buying more politicians than anyone else,

is the number one investor in all of television, the number one sponsor, that it then goes and uses government power and television power to force social media contracts, to pull down Twitter accounts and LinkedIn accounts of people that are well-credentialed, trying to bring the scientific method, as Neil deGrasse Tyson said, attack it from all sides.

The scientific method does not say, keep all of them out and don't let them anywhere near our hypothesis on this brand new product that's never been injected to human beings. The scientific method did die here. Let me tell you how this has to work. We have VERS right now. We have the VERS system. And what we are seeing is that there are reports,

reported deaths, people that believe that people died. Many of these written into VERS by doctors, the vaccine adverse events reporting system, 35,048 reports of death from the COVID vaccine. Almost every, you know, when we look at those other products have been pulled, we pull baby seats after a few babies are strangled, not 35,000, but this is how this works. And you can say, well, that's not accurate.

Okay, but here's how the scientific method works. I want that entire panel of doctors that I showed. And this is something that Robert Kennedy Jr. was talking about when we went before the NIH, when Donald Trump sent us, as a consortium to discuss vaccine issues, what we said is there needs to be an independent vaccine safety commission designed not by people who believe in the product because, as Neil deGrasse Tyson admitted, there's bias involved. Let's bring the opposite bias. You should attack from every side and after the product or after the theory is attacked and you cannot prove it is wrong or you cannot

prove it's not safe, then it is safe. So here's what I want to have. Here's what a forward-thinking nation like the United States of America should be doing, and Neil deGrasse Tyson should be standing right next to me right now. All of those scientists that are well credentialed, whether Neil deGrasse Tyson likes it or not, the Martin Cold Horse and the J. Bottacharias and Peter McCullough, I want them to be the Vaccine Safety Commission. And I want them to take all 35,000 of those death reports. I want them to get all of them.

And I want them to do a deep investigation and try to prove and see how many they can prove look like they're directly related, correlated to this vaccination. And if they can't prove that any of the 35,000 were caused by the vaccine, there it is. Now you're allowed to say it's safe. But there is not a single scientist in this world that has any credibility. Not a doctor in this world can sit here and tell you no one died from the COVID vaccine. And we need to know how many actually did. And that bear system is only a tiny percentage of what's there.

But let's be clear, the scientific method does not say that the NIH that received $400 million in payouts for the sale of the COVID vaccine gets to be the one to investigate the bear system and prove that the vaccine is not causing the deaths. No, the scientific method demands that someone that believes it is causing deaths does that research. And if they can prove it, if they can prove that any group of those, 10 of them, 100 of them, a thousand of them, all of them, probably even more than is listening. there is directly related to the COVID vaccine, we have a national problem. We have an international problem that deserves attention. Thalidomide. The fact that we wash our hands between surgeries was all pushed back on by the consensus. Change is only made by those brave enough to actually do the investigation where it's inconvenient. The inconvenient truth of vaccinations is, Matter of factly, as clear as I can state it, vaccines do kill some people.

Vaccines do injure some people. That is a fact, and I don't care who wants to push back. Anyone pushing you back against that thought is an absolute moron or a liar. They are definitely not a scientist. All right. That is my point. I am passionate about this because I am tired of watching those that stand up for the minority, being attacked and vilified for caring about the individual.

In the United States of America, no man, no woman gets left behind. Every COVID death counts, as they said in the news all the time, so should every death by a COVID vaccine. An investigation needs to be done here. The high wire is a part of that and other great groups out there are investigating it. We shouldn't be attacked. We should be celebrated.