The Highwire with Del Bigtree - BRINGING THE HEAT

Episode Date: December 16, 2022

Ex-BlackRock Manager’s New Data; Return of Restrictions?; #TwitterFiles Update; DeSantis Drops Public Health Bomb; Is Del Controlled Opposition?; Laying Out ICAN’s Public Health Watchdog WorkGuests: Edward Dowd, Aaron Siri, Esq.#ICAN #PublicHealth #Tripledemic #DeSantisCovidRoundtableBecome 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. Welcome, everybody, from around the world. It's amazing to see how this audience is growing leaps and bounds as we continue to just share the truth as we're finding it. And speaking of finding it, there was an article that came out. It was actually a few weeks ago. I'm wanting to get it on the show. We've been obviously just doing these gigantic shows.

But I thought this week I want to share because it really sort of made me think about something. that I haven't thought about before. I mean, we're all like obviously concerned, transhumanism, AI, takeovers, all this stuff in our future, some sort of dystopian nightmare ahead. But what if the dystopian nightmare actually works in our favor?

Let me just bring up this headline. I thought this was hilarious. This is meta-trained an AI on 48 million science papers. It was shut down after two days. Obviously, meta being what we used to refer to as Facebook, And they built this giant AI and fed it 48 million science papers and then said to the world, go ahead and ask AI anything you'd like. Well, all sorts of questions were asked, but I think this paragraph about says it all.

Almost as soon as it hit the web, users questioned Galactica. I guess that was the name of it, with all sorts of hardball scientific questions. One user asked, do vaccines cause autism? Galactica responded with a garbled, nonsensical response to explain the answer. is no. Vaccines do not cause autism. The answer is yes. Vaccines do cause autism. The answer is no. I suppose it went on like that until it started smoke started coming out of the computer, but it goes on to say, for the record, vaccines do not cause autism. Well, they obviously, this whole article was about how somehow AI started putting out misinformation, which led me to

think, you know, as we're worried about AI, the question we should be asking ourselves is, can AI lie. And this is what I think is really interesting. Now I'm sure this computer program is others say AI can do whatever we ultimately train it to do. But here's what's so fascinating I think about this AI and this little experiment that failed for Facebook, which is only people like us, the informed consent action network, have really ever taken the time to read all of the science and studies that got vaccines approved, all the things that they said made it safe. all things they said that it was effective. Nobody else in the world has really ever done that.

You see, during COVID, something's happened that we've never seen before, where scientists are actually demanding to see Pfizer's data. It's never happened before. We've been holding up the data to doctors and politicians on all the other childhood vaccines saying, no placebo group, no randomized control trial. Five days was all that they tested for, and nobody really wanted to listen. But here's the thing.

Most doctors and scientists, and I've been saying this, they mean well. I'm not saying that the world is evil, that doctors are out to kill people. They just truly believe what they're being told in medical school. They truly believe what the CDC is saying in the FDA, and even scientists the CDC and the FDA keep repeating statements that were handed to them throughout decades. But what if inside of those decades of scientific papers,

there's really just a couple of real jerks like Anthony Fauci that are in there and they're doctoring it? They're saying, well, inside of the study and what we found, a lot of the times is when you actually read the study, it tells you one thing, but the conclusion says something completely different. So we've gotten the habit of not just reading the conclusions, but actually reading the whole trial and study and saying, wait a minute. The exact opposite of what they said the conclusion was is what's in here. So now you have a problem. These scientists and doctors that are alive today

have no idea what lies were told before their time. And so as they keep trying to get the computer to load up and just tell the people the truth, when the computer does tell us that, truth. It's what I can has been telling you and not what the CDC's been telling you. I think this is going to be a real quandary moving forward and that's just the pharmaceutical industry. Can you imagine if you start looking at oil and gas and banking and all those things and load in all the data as it actually happened? You see, this is the problem. I don't think we have a totally contaminated system. We have really bad actors that somehow rise to the top and they do a really good job of sort of isolating the people below them so that they're doing good work, they're doing good work, they're doing good work.

And if you put it all together, you'd realize this is a disaster, this product, or whatever we're working on, but they never see the bigger picture. Only those people on top. But AI is going to see the big picture, and what's it going to tell us? Anyway, I'm not promoting AI in any way. I just think it's a funny glitch that may actually stall their evolution. Anyway, talking about evolution, talk about, you know, other perspectives on how we look at these issues. We have a lot of scientists on this show. World-renowned scientists have been gracing this stage and, you know, for over three years now. But there's one particular voice that's looking at this entire conversation from a very different perspective. And I find it really refreshing.

And at Ron Johnson's hearings, which was just last week, this voice, I thought, hit on a note that nobody else can. Of course, I'm talking about the former Black Rock financial analyst, Edward Dowd. This is what he had to say at the Ron Johnson hearings. He'll turn to Mr. Edd, currently a founding partner of finance technologies, a global macro alternative investment firm. Ed has worked on Wall Street, most of his career spanning both credit markets and equity markets. And Ed is, in terms of his financial background, he's looked at financial information to identify a safety signal that is pretty interesting. Ed. Thank you, Senator.

Denmark and the UK have already stopped their vaccination program. Denmark under 50, they've now said no vaccine for anyone that'd rather to get COVID. The Denmark data, if you look at that, that was a disaster and excess mortality. So they saw something clearly that our U.S. health authorities should be seeing as well. The UK stopped the vaccination for under 12. So my question, Senators, why are our health authorities still pushing this vaccine? if other countries are backing off. That's a good question.

What I find interesting and curious is this excess mortality continues, the disabilities continue, and our health authorities have no interest in trying to figure out what's going on. This should be a national story in my mind. Well, you know, I think Edward Dow is right. This should be a national story.

This is a crisis that's taking place. I am honored, and it's a pleasure to actually have Edward Dowd joining me right now. So Edward, we really had to truncate everybody's ability to sort of give their talking points to get through all the great speakers that were there in Washington, D.C. But what you had to say was so compelling. I was wondering if you would just sort of take us through the long and short of it with a little more detail on what you're looking at. And why were you looking there? I was just thinking you were here the beginning of the year back in February.

And a lot of this was you were starting to see the beginnings of this, but so much of it seems to. to be predictions coming true, which is a huge part of being an analyst, I suppose. Correct, Ellen. Thank you for having me on. The punchline is this. We have a national security issue going on. And what do I mean by that? The data, the metadata, the insurance company data, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the

CDC data, the data from across the globe that my partners have collated, it says one thing. Being employed in 2021 and 2022 is detrimental to your health. The bottom line is this. In disabilities, we saw since February and May of 2021, disabilities took off. We call it a three sigma event. That's Wall Street speak for something changed that normally doesn't change. We started a new trend, a new slope of the line.

We added about 3 million disabled Americans pretty quickly into September of 2022. And when we break down the data, we can analyze it by population cohort. So the punchline is this, the employed of this country who are generally healthier than everybody else in the country experienced a rate of increase in their disability rate of 26% versus the total population of 11%. That's database number one. Let's now go to, let's go to deaths, the separate database, the Society of Actuaries. And I got to just describe this population. this population. It's group life policyholders. Okay. And they generally speaking are employed in Fortune 500 and mid-sized companies. This is a benefit you get when you onboard to one of these

companies. Your first day in human resources, you sign your health care forms, pick a plan, then you sign your death benefit that's provided to you by your company. And the insurers provide that benefit. And you sign your beneficiary and you sign the form. And it's usually one to two times, salary. It's kind of one of those throwaway benefits no one ever expects to get. And insurance companies make a lot of money on this. It's low risk because they've done studies on this subgroup of the U.S. population and they die at a mortality rate of a third that of the general U.S. population in any given year. So this is a good business for them. Well, in 2021, something happened. This group between the ages of 25 and 64 experienced 40%

excess mortality. And the general U.S. population, which is not as healthy as proven by previous studies, experienced 32%. And my conclusion, using the simple deductive reasoning is what changed in 2021 and 2022. Only two things changed. A mass vaccination program and employee employer mandates. And the numbers are stark. Those are huge increases. And, you know, to think, I mean, again, we've been looking this from a science perspective, but are there, are you the only one in this space? Because it just seems to me that insurance companies should be paying attention to where their money is going. And then all of the different spaces in which people invest, you know, investors,

is this something that you're all alone or is there a movement to start looking at? at what should be the most obvious problem the world has ever seen, a rise in, you know, as you said, disability and excess mortality, and especially amongst those that are working? There is movement behind the scenes. So we, my partner, Josh Sterling and I, Josh was at the hearings as well. He was anonymous at first, but he's come forward. We analyzed the insurance data.

And behind the scenes, you know, he used to work for Wall Street. knows a lot of the CEOs. He wrote letters notifying the insurance company of what we've discovered. We sent out 100 letters in the April time frame. Only about 25 people showed up and no CEO showed up, but they sent some of their underlings. And out of that group of people, five are working behind the scenes to make the insurance industry wake up to this issue. And the problem is a lot of people are in denial. We're still in the denial stage. especially in the insurance industry. These people move slowly and they always need more data. But there are plenty of actuaries that reached out to me

in the industry. You say that my thesis is pretty spot on probably. I'm of the opinion. I'm 100% correct, unfortunately, until someone can come forth with a better explanation. But there is movement there. On Wall Street, you know, I'm hearing people are quietly taking bets on individual,

industries to take advantage. And I say advantage, and I don't mean it in a way. They want to make money. So they've bought on to my thesis. They're not as public as I am. Right. You know, betting on stocks that will rise due to perhaps more blood thinners being bought. They're shorting insurance companies and they're going long funeral homes.

At my firm, we're not doing that. We're a global macro alternative hedge fund. We're betting on the growth rates of the economy. and general stock markets and bond markets and commodities. So we're going to have an advantage over everybody else, but we're not directly investing. It's something that we just, we're not designed to do, nor do we want to do it. Let me ask you a sort of an odd question,

because a huge population watching my show didn't get the vaccine. And then there's those that are watching and are not getting all the boosters, so they're limiting their sort of contact with this. And I think the question is always, will this, is an economy structure? Does this end up affecting me? Like this, will this have a giant economic effect on everybody? Or is it just insurance companies are going to, you know, have to, you know, pound sand or deal with this themselves?

Or what are going to be the sort of downstream repercussions of rising excess mortality, you know, fewer and fewer people in the workplace? Where are the places that you look at it? Because as you're talking about, you're sort of looking at the overall economic, you know, power of the country. Yeah, so that's why we've highlighted this as a national security issue. The numbers aren't small. The numbers are huge. The people that have been newly disabled in the employed segment of the population since February of 21 is about 1.2 million people.

You know, the global, the national unemployment rate is 3%, and there's 100 million workers, people who are actually working. So 3 million are supposedly unemployed, but you have 1.2 million disabled. And if you're wondering why you're seeing help wanted signs and why it's hard to hire people and why things are starting to get delayed or what have you, it's going to have knock-on daisy chain effects, I think, for years to come. I think we're going to see inflation at a sustainably high rate as we just effectively poisoned the most able-bodied amongst us. and college students. And so that's going to, you know, the good news is the disabilities aren't affecting everybody, but enough of the population has been injured or died, that these are real big

numbers. And we're predicting that we're going to see slow global growth for years to come. We're going to see supply chain issues and services and goods that you used to take for granted. They're going to become harder and harder to come by. It's already happening here on Maui. I live on Maui. restaurants can't staff so they close early my car was in the auto body shop but it never got there because there's park shortages and labor shortages so my insurance company ended up junking my car apparently this is going on all over across the nation so it's slowly it's like a glacial mad max and it's going to affect everyone in this country there's no one that's going to escape it even if you're unvaccinated wow i mean it's really

It's scary. And what I find amazing is, and as we sat on that panel, you just, first of all, the fact that we're in the middle of Washington, D.C., this crisis is going on. And there's no senators and congressmen coming. There's like one comes in to drop by and take a look at what's going on. And, you know, I think the sentiment we all had, you know, back, stay behind the scenes. We spent a day together just sharing where we're at. I know you and I was just in there thinking, Edward, how do they think they're going to get? get away with this. I mean, and not only, it's not only that they have made a mistake, which,

you know, is possible. Science is possible. They were rushing it. Even if you gave them the benefit of the doubt, in the middle of now just obvious, obvious questions that can only point to, I mean, look, even if there was 10 possibilities, if one of them all starts on the moment this vaccine enters the market and now we're seeing rises in mortality and disabilities, then you've got to be investigating it. Not only we're not investigating it here in the United States of America, last week, you know, a day or so after our hearing, FDA approves the bivalent booster for babies, I think, on the same eight-mouse study. I mean, not even human being. Like, just the level of arrogance combined with incompetence or evil. I mean, how do you, I mean, you're a logical person,

which is like why I like how you state things, where is your logic bringing to you on what is actually happening here? How do they think they're going to get away with it? Why are they doing anything about it? Well, so I've been on Wall Street a long time, and I've seen corporate frauds. And in corporate fraud, when they get caught or it starts to unravel, they don't say, hey, I'm caught, sorry.

They wait until they're stopped. And they continue to tell their lies in their story. they double and triple down. They convince some of the investors that are hanging on to their, you know, hope that they're going to gain back some of their losses. They talk to them and convince them that they're not lying all the way to the end. And that's why people will hold frauds to zero because they believe and trust these people. It's classic criminal behavior.

So if I take it to this horrific situation we have now, and like you said, whether they, it was accidental or on purpose, it doesn't matter. At this point, the data that I'm seeing and that my team has presented, the global health authorities are seeing. Denmark's already told us that they're seeing you, but they're not admitting it. So it's basically a cover-up, criminal negligence and crimes being committed right now, because that's what's going on. And they double and triple down until someone stops them.

The problem is, in my corporate fraud experience, there were regulators that would come in, the markets would punish the stocks and then the regulators would come in. So the problem here is we have a population that doesn't know what's going on. And there's a group of us that do know. And we need to get that information to the rest of the population. I call this the greatest asymmetric information gap of my career, meaning most of the globe doesn't know what's just happened. And we need to get them aware of this.

And once we get to a tipping point, like I saw in my career in financial markets you get enough marginal lines on board things will change we don't have anybody coming to rescue us and i i said on a couple shows early on when i got started that i expected them to triple and double down and i you know it was no shock to me that they approved the the vaccine for childhood uh schedules because they want their immunity so this is classic criminal behavior but it's it's on a i call it a metaphor it's not just a corporation it's got government players it's got media players. It's got big, it's got big tech players. It's a conspiracy of interests. And I think the momentum got going to go and they thought that they were going to be swimming in riches and

what would what they were looking to create, which was the COVID surveillance economy. Well, that doesn't appear to be working out so well for them. And the vaccine, as tragic as it is that a lot of people are dying and being disabled, it's kind of what has stopped what they're trying to do in their tracks. The evidence is growing. There's a people and resistance to this that it can't go on. And we just need to get everybody that isn't convinced yet that we're not crazy conspiracy theorists, that Wall Street is slowly starting to look at this. You know, we're trying to start a hedge fund, and the interest in our hedge fund is off

the charts, and money capital will flow to this space. And it's sad and tragic, but one thing I've learned is social proof can convince people who don't want to look at the data. And, you know, if you want to continue to go along with it, you know, if you want to continue to go along thinking everything's fine, just know that people are starting to wake up and putting money to work on this and that hopefully wakes you up. Yeah, I mean, what you said is so scary in all of these other situations where it's a Bernie made off for somebody ripping someone off or, you know, recently, FTCS were watching the same type of story unfold. You have a regulatory agency stepping in and

saying, wait a minute, what's going on here? In this case, the crime in my mind is most important. importantly being committed by that regulatory agency, by the FDA, by the CDC. And we find ourselves in this situation where they're invested in the products themselves when we look at NIH as making money off of patents. I mean, this whole thing is so corrupt and such a mess. And to your point, we really are all on our own. And that's hard for us. I mean, we trust our government.

We are raised believing this is the greatest country in the world. I have the greatest government. I'm free. The big problems are taking. care of and now it's just it's a hard pill to swallow and it's a hard one to sell both on your part my part and all of us that are speaking out now i understand you know you're looking at some international data and you have breaking news as of this morning what's that about yeah so uh we promised that we'd look at other countries we just dropped the australian data data on our uh finance technology's

website under the humanity project it's finance technology's phi uh at Nance Technologies.com instead of the app. It's the website. If anyone wants to follow all the work that they're doing and lay out these brilliant graphs, finance technologies.com, all right, what's happening in Australia? So bottom line, you know, look,

the Australians can go to our website and cut the data a bunch of different ways. We do weekly, quarterly, and yearly. And I just, as soon as the data was dropped, I just went into our website and clicked on excess mortality for Australia for yearly and you know I put in total population and there you go. So you can see in 2020 they had slightly negative excess mortality. In 2021 they had 4% excess mortality in 2022.

They have 18% excess mortality. So so this is Australia and let's ask this question. have miracle, supposed miracle vaccines, and the virus is now less virulent. Right. Correct? Yeah. Amacron, the big celebration of Amacron is that it's less virulent, less hospitalizations, more people are handling it well. That's what we're being told. Some people have even hypothesized that some great science benefactor out there put out a weaker virus to try and upgrade us. I'm not pushing that conspiracy theory, But that's how sort of kind Omicron has been, that there's like mythology being built around it.

Yeah, correct. So Amacron is a little more than a cold with some complications. But unfortunately, I think if you're vaccinated, there's lots of complications. And we know all the other health problems that are associated with the vaccination. So what's going on in Australia is very curious. At the very least, I don't hear Australian health authorities talking about 18% excess mortality. And it's across all age groups, by the way. You can see here's the age groups right here.

Blue is 2020, black is 21, and green is 2022. Excess mortality is taking off. Now, people might ask, why is it taking off in 22? I don't know what it went on in Australia. I focused on the U.S. I'm sure there's a story that tells a little bit about why we're seeing this and why the elderly are being more adversely affected than the young. In Europe and the US, it's mostly young, that mixed shift in 21 from old.

So there's something going on in Australia that needs to be explained. But again, we have crickets over there in their national media and their health authorities. But 18% excess mortality is a disaster because an insurance executive at One America, Scott Davidson, on the results of his company, not blaming the vaccine, of course, said that a 10% excess mortality in young folks, is a once in a 200-year flood, a three-standard deviation. 40% is off the charts. All of Australia is at 18%. And it doesn't look like it's leveling off.

It looks like it's continuing to rise. So Australia, we drop the data. You guys can use it for whatever you want to do. It's a force multiplier. And again, the data is the data. We haven't, you know, gone into it yet to analyze what exactly the particularities are. But excess mortality is up and to the right. So that's a story right there.

It's amazing. know, I say to people, I'm always just trying to figure out how to just simplify this. And I'll say to somebody, if you get food poisoning where you're, you know, sick all night, what is the first question you asked yourself? You ask yourself, what did I eat last night? Right? I mean, that's it. We all do that.

There's no question about it. It's amazing under these circumstances when you're seeing people die at skyrocketing rates after what was supposed to be a deadly pandemic has passed. And it doesn't appear that anyone in authority is asking the question, what did we eat last year? What did we do last year? What was different? And again, you could try to look at a couple of confounding issues. But as you're saying, when you look across all the data, there is one glaring issue,

which is this totally, almost completely untested product, a technology that had never been injected to human beings before, that alters, you know, could potentially alter DNA. certainly messes with the cells in your body and is, you know, prone by its nature to cause autoimmune issues and weaknesses. And yet that's the one thing for sure, all these people say, just put that in a closet, put that away, we definitely know it's not that. Even to the point where I'm starting, and one of the things that you're probably seeing, are these headlines now.

Like even the reporter at the soccer game, the World Cup, you know, the reports are now coming in that he had an aortic aneurysm or something, and they're saying, but it wasn't caused by the vaccine. I mean, in some ways that says to me, it's that bad now that you're even having to mention what you know is on everyone's minds and you're part of the propaganda stop. But now, I don't know if or not the vaccine had anything to do with it, but just the fact that it's becoming a part of the dialogue shows us that at least in reporting, they're realizing we're going to have to start addressing this because we can't look the other way, which is, I want talk about your book because that's one of the things I love about your good book. Your brand new book

coming out at, was it right now, today, yesterday? Where are we at, Edward, on this? It was the 13th, so it's available hard copy and e-book as of the 13th of December. Cause unknown, the epidemic of sudden deaths in 2021 and 2022. Folks, I'm going to tell you, we've had a lot of great books on here, great writers. I think this, for those people that are just, you're just having difficulty getting through to them. Or, you know, well, my doctor says, my scientist, the moment you sort of open this up and you just, you know, a couple pages in, what Edward, what you're doing is all of these headlines I'm seeing. Like, this is what I'm seeing on my Facebook page. This is like, died suddenly, died suddenly, you know, sudden death, dead in their sleep. And you are in your

book, just laying it out. It's so compelling. I don't know how. It's like a coffee table book. How does anyone put that down? You were doing something that no one's done in the book. They allude to it, but you're showing us, folks, here are the headlines. Do you, and you're asking the appropriate question here, which is, you know, when do we remember medical practitioners? When do we remember athletes collapsing on the field? And you sort of start in that space, which is so brilliant, and then take this book into, you know, if I'm a betting man, which is actually what I do for a living, here's how these bets start to go in the financial markets. Why did, you know, What inspired you to sort of approach the book that way?

Because it's very, is pedestrian write the word? It's so tangible to your average person. So, you know, I'm a metadata guy. I'm a Wall Street analyst. A lot of that stuff is dry. And but I do a fairly good job of trying to explain it and size it for people. But I was approached in August, mid-August of this year by Gavin DeBecker, who wrote my afterward. And he pitched the book to me.

And he said, your data is amazing. Your background is amazing. Not amazing in that I'm amazing, but it's a different perspective. Because there's a lot of scientists and doctors that have the narrative and their narrative, you know, the ones that we like are correct. But I'm looking at the metadata and different data sources. And Gavin suggested we start going into the sudden athletic deaths, which got me interested, by the way, in the first place in figuring out the vaccine had an issue. And we wanted to, through pictures and stories and QR codes, really bring the human element here.

Like, when you analyze metadata, it's a number in a spreadsheet. But these are real human beings. These are real families affected by the tragedy. And we wanted to highlight how abnormal this is and how rare it is, and how disgusting what's going on is, and put a human face on this and honor the dead. This is tragic. And the book is about 210 pages,

pages long but it's not it's a quick read because yeah the data analysis that I do is brief for a reason we want people to get through it quickly it's really you know conclusive as far as i'm concerned and i lay it out in the way that a wall street research report would be written and come to my conclusion that it's the vaccines the conclusion of everybody else is it's abv anything but the vaccine but none of those explanations make any sense so this book uh is basically was designed and written with the person who doesn't know and isn't convinced in mind. I mean, the red meat crowd and the echo chamber will like it, but this is really intended to convince someone

that first, this is true. It was not normal before 2021. It's happening. It's tragic. And at this point, it's a cover up in a crime. I conclude with that. And I purposely leave out the who and the why because that would assault people's worldview.

It's speculation on my part. I'm just presenting data and facts, and then I say this seems to me to be a cover-up at the very least. And I think, frankly, folks, this is a stocking stuff, right? I know it may seem depressing in some ways. Like, why would I want to give this to someone on Christmas? But if you think about what we're involved in here, if you've been watching the high wire, if you read this book yourself or look at any of the data that Edward Dowd is sharing on his website, you have to know.

We know what's going on here, which means this isn't going to go away. Right now, all of these things. things that you're doing, when you're communicating with your loved ones or giving them a book that really matters, you are putting a time capsule into their life that you will be able to say, as it's all going south, you know, at least I tried to show you this. They cannot blame you for not having warned them. And for those you get through to, you get to stop them from getting that next booster or moving deeper and deeper into this issue that is going to take so many lives. it's already historic.

And so that's why I think this book is so great. I really do think that this is a book that it's a page true because first of all, you're reading the headlines. And we live in this thought bubble right now. I think about this. I know that my family that are liberal progressives in Boulder, Colorado, their Facebook page is designed to show them everything that they believe in, not the same headlines that I'm seeing.

So if I hand them this book, then go, are you kidding me? Is this really happening? That's what we have to recognize. is social media has done such a great job of sort of keeping us in our own thought cloud, in our own community. This book, I think, breaks that. It immediately, you go, oh, my God, there's these headlines, and then you get an explanation not from some wackadoodle, a guy that Betts, you know, is known for working on financial interests and, and breaking this

down to see how do we make money off of it. You must talk to other financial analysts. Have you found that, you know, I'm sure a lot of them get vaccinated. Does money talk when in this conversation, when you approach it from that perspective? It does. I have an anecdote from several weeks ago, a friend on Maui who doesn't live here anymore came to visit. He got vaccinated. Thought I was kind of a kooky crazy conspiracy theorist. Then he heard I wrote a book and he kind of laughed about that.

And then someone showed him a video that I did with Steve Bannon about this problem. Then he started giving the excuses that we all hear, oh, it's due to suicide, it's due to drug overdoses. And I said, hey, listen, it's my day off by the book. And oh, by the way, I'm meeting with some gentlemen from the hedge fund community. They want to help us raise assets for what we're doing. And as soon as he heard that, his face turned white and he ran out of there because it became somehow that broke the spell. Right. It just broke the spell for him.

And I find that social proof sometimes a lot of people want to be liked by everybody. And that's what I think is the tragedy of this is a lot of people gut the jobs because of their tribe identity. Well, you know, you might want to get out of your tribe identity. If you know Wall Street's starting to focus on this. I want to give an example of what happened during the great financial crisis. Goldman Sachs was up to their eyeballs in subprime debt, and they were a big proponent of subprime debt. Then they noticed that something was wrong. And within a day or two, they went the other way.

They sold all their subprime debt. Then they started shorting subprime debt. And so Wall Street doesn't care about this. If Wall Street smells money, they'll turn. You know, you can understand something about money and cash. It has a life of its own. It's a force in nature like gravity, like the oceans. It flows where it wants to flow.

And these people will, you know, even though they just all got jabbed themselves, if they can make money, they'll do it. I think they're slowly waking up. And, you know, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, which led Wall Street and corporate America into vaccine mandates, they were the first premier investment banks to do this. They've quietly dropped their mandates this summer. So that should give you pause. pause. Something's going on on Wall Street. They may not admit it because they have legal issues. And I'm suspecting a lot of the CEOs and higher-ups all good job enthusiastically themselves.

But they'll make money if this is what they think is happening. Well, I think it's such an interesting perspective and it does shine light. And it is a way to talk to friends that maybe just can't get into the science. They've been jab. But when you start realizing, wait a minute, there's people actually now investing in the fact that this vaccine is a failure. That does turn your head. Edward Dowd, I want to thank you for taking the time. I know you're busy.

You're doing incredible work. You're so well-spoken on this. And it's one of those painful I told you shows. I mean, you were warning us early on. And, you know, so far, you're dead on with where this is going. We've been a part of that, too. It just seems so obvious to those of us that are looking at it. It's shocking how many people still are blind to it, but that's on us.

I think it be like our work is to get it out there. I'm glad you've made this book so accessible. So continue the great work, and we look forward to speaking again soon. Thanks a lot, Del. You know, it's really an honor to speak with you. You've been on this subject so early, so right. And it's just an honor to be able to present on your show. So thank you.

Thank you. All right, take care. We'll talk to you soon. All right. Well, I mean, that is, as I said, in some ways, that voice is a breath of fresh air, a new way of looking at this. Really, go out and get that book. You should have all of these books. Peter McCullough, I think Robert Malone's got a brand new book out.

And then, you know, Edward Dowd, these books are great. And you can decide, you know, which one works for this friend. Hey, just take a look at this. What I love about Edward Dow's book is they don't even have to read the whole book. You can literally be staring and they'll be like, what? you know, within seconds, they're going to figure out what it is they're looking at. All right. Well, we have tons of show coming up.

I've got Aaron Siri in studio going to give us sort of the last legal update for 2022. And it has been a triumphant year for our legal team, the informed consent action network. But first, it's time for it, the Jackson Report. All right, Jeffrey, what do we got this week? Well, Del, we make an effort here to report on poor public health. policy, bad science, really so it doesn't get woven into the fabric of society and cause suffering, like we have seen with the masking of children. And we're seeing now a push. We're seeing an official attempt to normalize masking. Philadelphia, Boston, New York City, Los Angeles. The headlines look

like this. This is out of the LA Times. Health officials are urging masks again amid high COVID and flu levels. And you look into this article, it says, we quote, we also encourage you, to wear a high-quality, well-fitting mask to prevent the spread of respiratory illnesses. This is Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said in a briefing with reporters. So now respiratory illnesses, colds, just common colds now. You're going to be wearing a mask. That's the recommendation from the CDC. And so we look, and, you know, they're starting to loop it in there. So now it's just, it's high COVID. We have surging COVID. People have that memory of the last couple of years. Oh, yeah. And cough, cough,

flu too. So we look at the CDC's own in-house journal. We go back to this just to inform this decision from Rochelle Walensky. This is the Emergent Infectious Diseases, their journal. And this is the title of this article here. Some 2020, non-pharmaceutical measures for pandemic influenza and non-health care settings, personal protective and environmental measures. So you go into this study and you go down under masks, under face masks, and it says this. In our systemic review, we identified 10 randomized controls. trials that reported estimates of the effectiveness of face masks in reducing laboratory confirmed influenza virus infections in the community from literature published during get this 1946 to july 27th

2018 so kind of a big duration there in pooled analysis we found no significant reduction in influenza transmission oh my god use of face masks now they go on to say there is limited evidence for effectiveness in preventing influenza virus transmission either when worn by infected person for source control or worn by uninfected persons to reduce exposure. Again, they repeat our systemic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory confirmed influenza. And now you're seeing the same headline coming out of the New York Times. This is a concerted effort here. This is the attempt. It's time to wear a mask again. Health experts say, which health experts? And you go into this article here and it says there is strong evidence that masks helped to reduce

the transmission of several respiratory illnesses. So no longer COVID. But that word, strong evidence is hyperlinked in this article. You click on one of those hyperlinks and it brings it to this study as this is supposed to back up their claim of strong evidence. Face masks and hand hygiene to prevent influenza transmission in households. You go into the study and you look at this. It says hand hygiene with or without face masks, it seemed to reduce influence and transmission, but the differences compared with the control group were not significant. Wow. Okay, New York Times, got it. This is exactly what I was saying at the top of the show, right? Somewhere in a conclusion, some clusures somewhere they cherry pick some spot.

But when you look at the study itself, it's saying, no, it didn't see that. Pumped that into an AI, then ask the AI, do mask stop the flu? And the computer says, no, yes, no. There's lots of these studies in here, literally done by the CDC, that are saying, no, it doesn't do anything.

It's really amazing. Do you think they, I mean, when you think about this, Jeffrey, is this reporter read that study, or does that read that study or do they literally just read the headline zipping through and say that must be, you know, Michelle Wollenski once mentioned this, this must be a great study. I'm just going to put the headline in them. It's just amazing that they would make that mistake. Well, we've reported on other outlets, Washington Post, Sacramento, B, purposely making mistakes,

purposely making errors to support a preconceived conclusion that they want to put forth in the article. So hard to know what's in this author's mindset. But really, I mean, if it's if it's not purposeful, it's a basic mistake. It really is really interesting. But you're seeing the same effort in the UK as well. So it's going, you know, the United States in Europe, you're seeing the same headlines. And in the UK, they're having a strep A outbreak. So you're getting headlines like this in the UK piggybacking on that.

Schools should be bringing in pandemic measures to protect children from strep A. And it says in here, can we not learn from the pandemic? surely the best way to avoid unnecessary harm is to set a new normal. They're talking about face masks. They're talking about ventilation systems. And what did we learn from the pandemic? Well, when it comes to masking children, this is a headline. This is actually a study.

It was the New England Journal of Medicine. And they looked at Sweden. Sweden did not mask the kids. And they kept their early education schools open. And here's the headline, open schools COVID-19 and child and teacher morbidity in Sweden. And it says here, despite Sweden having kept, to schools and preschools open, we found a low incidences of severe COVID-19 among school children and children of preschool age during the SARS COVID-2 pandemic. And so there's a study,

but if you go into the literature into the media in Sweden, you're seeing articles that look like this. They're actually, they're in horror what the rest of the world did. Imagine if our children had it like this. And they show a picture of a kid with a, this is the head picture on this article. And they're basically saying, you know, Germany locked down. They masked the kids and they had they had higher incidences and they also have all the harms that came with that when it comes the education loss, the verbal communication, the connection with these kids. So this is the headlines. It's basically a gas from Sweden saying, imagine if our kids had to go through that. Oh, my God. I can't help but think, you know, over the years, you know, as we've all been traveling

in, you know, airplanes here and there and buses, you know, when there would be people from another country here wearing masks everywhere they go and they're sort of standing out and I don't know about you but I was just saying God that's really unfortunate their government or somehow they're oppressed to a level believing that the air they're breathing is dangerous to them. We've been doing just fine here in America since I was born and you would just look at them and now they're trying to turn us into that like I guess now we're seeing what it was like to live in those countries a government that is telling you every virus out there that you're you know everyone's been surviving since the dawn of man, now you need to be afraid, be very afraid, and mask yourself on a

constant basis. We told him this was happening, Jeff. We told him there you're lowering the bar so far with this fear around COVID, with a death rate of 0.026, 0.035%, somewhere in there. If they lower that bar, then as I said early on, every flu, every, you know, upper respiratory infection is going to have the same crisis. We lowered the bar too far. Now they can lock us down at any time and be justified. Exactly. Exactly. And what we saw from the CDC during this time, they came out with a study looking at the effects of masking in schools and pediatric cases of COVID-19. And they found a link. And this was the CDC study. And so what happened was we see an interesting deviation here of the social structure when it comes to looking at

the studies coming from the CDC are really believing. them. We have Tracy Hogue. She's an epidemiologist, physician, clinical researcher, and her and her co-authored took that data from the CDC and did an even more robust study to check it out. And this was just released this month. This is in the Journal of Infection, lack of correlation between school mass mandates and pediatric COVID-19 cases in a large cohort. So here you have basically independent scientists and researchers challenging the CDC's data with their own data sets. And what they did was they looked at, they took the CDC's data, but they basically took three times as many counties they looked at in a longer duration. So the CDC only took this little window snapshot and said, here it is, ran to the mountain top.

We found a correlation between this. And this is what Tracy Hogue writes. This is the summary in the summary, expanding upon a widely cited CDC study in employing the same methodology, but with a larger, more representative data set over a longer period of time, we fail to find the same evidence that school mask mandates are associated with a reduction in county pediatric COVID-19 cases. We demonstrate how observational studies can be misleading when used to guide public health policy. So there it is. We have independent scientists challenging the CDC, and that brings us to our next story here. Not only our scientists doing that, but entire states and governors are doing it in a big way. This is what happened in Florida, Governor Ron DeSantis, and people are really asking,

is he trying to start his own CDC down there? Take a look at this. He had a roundtable forum discussion and this is what it sounded like. Good morning. This is Governor Ron DeSantis from Florida. We're creating what we're calling the Public Health Integrity Committee. It's a committee of expert researchers that will be able to assess recommendations and guidance related to public health care, but particularly being able to offer critical assessments of things that bureaucracies like the FDA, CDC, and are doing. We have just a fantastic, fabulous cast of scientists who were not only terrific scientists but also terrific individuals and have been willing to stand up and

speak their truth despite all the pressure that we know individuals who don't stick to the script face. We know that there's been a lot of faith destroyed in public health and I think that it's important that we have folks who people actually can rely on when they're looking to answers and when they're looking for guidance on some of these really, really important issues. The illusion is that there was a scientific consensus, that everybody, all the smart people agreed.

But actually, that was never true. The censorship was used to create that illusion of consensus. Science is a very slow building consensus from a lot of different actors, and I was seeing that when the consensus changes pretty quickly, There's usually some political reasons and not science reasons. In 2020, together with Jay Baraksharia and Dr. Senata Gropta Gopta at Oxford, I authored the Great Pryne Declaration where we argued for a different approach,

with better focused protection on older high-risk people while keeping schools open and not locking down the rest of society. Florida and Sweden were two exceptions to the strategy, and both Sweden and Florida has come out on top. on top when it comes to both COVID mortality and even more important to all cause mortality. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that all told the decision-making surrounding COVID amounts to the largest blunder in human history. At this point we have millions needlessly dead, we have trillions of dollars of wealth that have

been destroyed and the vital systems that humanity depends on have been stressed to their very limit. But worse than that, we have now made this virus into a permanent fellow traveler of humanity. Based on the science, it's now clear that we cannot anticipate to know the full effect of any vaccine. If we've only studied its effect against the target disease, we also need to study its effects against other diseases. It's effects against overall mortality and overall morbidity. In the Pfizer trial, the first First vaccine to go through, it was a 37% increase in the number of serious adverse events. That was never reported, not by the FDA, not by Pfizer.

In fact, Pfizer says the incidents of serious adverse events are similar in the vaccine and placebo group. 37% increase is not similar. In December of 2021, we got the Pfizer COVID booster. From that day on, my life has been turned upside down. People are suffering in silence, or they're suffering alone, because they're in an environment where other people are telling them that the things that they're experiencing aren't true. Working in healthcare, you would think that you would get the best care and the best resources available to you. I was being ignored, gas-lit, and abandoned.

It's time to start taking stock of what was wrong and make reforms so this doesn't happen again. These vaccines, which I regard actually as a technological achievement, they're a prototype that should never have been injected into people, in my opinion. We effectively turned the world into a gain of function experiment. We gave this virus a evolutionary puzzle that was very easy for it to solve. Because the vaccines were so narrowly targeted, we effectively drove this pathogen to diversify. The California Medical Board through their bill AB 2098 that was just passed basically giving,

you know, telling physicians what they are and aren't allowed to say to their patients and that's specifically related to COVID and they actually in the bill have information about the efficacy of COVID vaccines against mortality that is no longer true, which they're expecting their physicians to say. You can't have good public health policy in this kind of environment. People are afraid to speak up because they're afraid to speak up because they're that they're also will get called friends. They'll lose their ability to make a living,

they'll lose their reputation, and they stay silent as a result. We are bringing common sense back to public health recommendations. Today, I'm announcing a petition with the Supreme Court of Florida to impanel a statewide grand jury to investigate any and all wrongdoing

in Florida with respect to COVID-19 vaccine. We are initiating a program here in Florida where we will be studying the incidents in surveillance of myocarditis within a few weeks of COVID-19 vaccination for people who die. It is a question that I am sure keeps the CEOs of Pfizer and Moderna up late at night, hoping no one ever looks, but we're going to look here in Florida. Folks here today as well as others like-minded who've been willing to stand up and offer some truth in a very crazy and dark time, you know, have made a big difference. It's important and this will really formalize an ability to speak the truth, which is in short supply these days. What an amazing time we are living in. I said it last week. I mean last week we had the Ron Johnson hearings and you're watching some of the biggest experts in the world's standing in a Senate hearing laying out these issues. Just a couple of weeks ago, we had the EU gathering together and discussing all of the problems

with this vaccine. And now the state of Florida under Governor Ron DeSantis is putting this vaccine, this program, and I think ultimately will be proved to be these criminals under a microscope. This may be the biggest breaking story yet. I mean, there's only so much. Ron Johnson's awesome, but he can. only get the amount of information coming into him. Florida sits over databases. They have the databases of the patients. You've got Joseph Lattapo is able to run studies of a controlled group,

and they get to make decisions in that state that may not mirror what the rest of the country is being forced through, and you're going to have this comparative space, and then to imagine, as we look at these polls, the idea that there's a chance this could be the next president of the United States of America. I don't want to put that on him. I know he hasn't said anything, but holy cow. We are watching an incredible, incredible set of developments just in this last, like we've been pinching ourselves. This last 10 days has been absolutely outrageous. And we've seen throughout the pandemic response, governors challenge some of the edicts coming down and the recommendations from the CDC, but this really put some teeth into it, because what

emerged from this roundtable meeting are three really big announcements by both desantis and lotopo and the first one was that as you heard the public health integrity committee and that's that's their logo right there and it's basically going to look at the edicts coming from the federal government and do their own evidence-based analysis on them to see if they want to implement them within the state of florida which is i mean if you're if you're someone in the state of florida you have like almost a double insulation there if you're looking at that from making sure you're getting evidence-based science in the recommendations here. But this is what the media really chomped on. This is CNBC in that whole roundtable forum. DeSantis seeks grand jury investigation of COVID-19 vaccines. As we know at the informed consent action

network, when you start talking legal actions, people pay attention no matter if they're in the CDC or pharmaceutical companies, wherever they may be found. And so this is the actual petition here from that same day as a roundtable, 1213, December 13th, Supreme Court of Florida was petitioned, petitioner Ron DeSantis, and it says here, petitioner has determined that there are good and sufficient reasons to deem it to be in the public interest, to impanel a statewide grand jury to investigate criminal or wrongful activity in Florida relating to the development, promotion, and distribution of vaccines purported to prevent COVID-19 infection symptoms and transmission. So he's going after three levels there, development, promotion and distribution.

So if that grand jury becomes impaneled, look out, because that's going to be a big, big headline. And then we have the Surgeon General there in Florida, Joseph Lodapo. He's basically having a research initiative collaboration with the University of Florida. And they're going to look at these deaths after the vaccine, especially young males. But here's where this started about three months ago. Press release from his office, state surgeon general, Dr. Joseph A. Lodobo issues new M RNA COVID-19 vaccine guidance. Something really interesting happened.

The Florida Department of Health did their own research and conducted. It says here an analysis through a self-controlled case series, which is a technique originally developed to evaluate vaccine safety. And remember, we reported on this when it happened. It was shocking. It says this analysis found that there is an 84% increase. in the relative incidences of cardiac-related death among males 18 to 39 years old within 28 days following mRNA vaccination. And this caused Florida to withdraw the recommendation for that age group,

so going against the entire country and the federal response. And literally, as I pointed out, just weeks before the election, the Cajonis on this guy, can't imagine how many terrified assistance and secretaries and people around Ronda Sanders said, really you have to do this. We can't wait three weeks. Let's just get through the election. You're looking great. Why I messed with this vaccine issue? And still, he just dove right in. It's really, really impressive if you want to ask yourself, how committed to this investigation is he? Right.

And, you know, states sitting on the sideline governors waiting for it to be safe. This is a cookie cutter approach. I would imagine this can be repeated in any state, these three pieces. And so we tracked that when he released that press release. This was the headline here at the highwire.com. Twitter censors Florida Surgeon General because he basically put a tweet out with that saying. So Twitter censors Florida Surgeon General Dr. Lodipo then backtracks after public backlash. So this was before the Elon must takeover.

But that was what was happening there. And as we know, the Twitter, the Twitter files have been released. We're at number five to date. So five, I guess, tranches of files have been released. And we have journalists reporting on that. And we've been really looking diligently for evidence of, suppression of the COVID vaccine debate, the lockdowns, anything when it came to the COVID response. So far, it's been very political. We have the Hunter Biden laptop. We have the President Trump removal

from the platform right before January 6th. But we now have evidence of that. Thanks to Barry Weiss, she was the journalist that reported these Twitter files. And she found evidence now of a secret blacklist. And this was the headline here at the Highwire, Twitter's secret blacklist, is great Barrington, Declaration, author, and others. And this is what she writes. She writes on Twitter. Twitter once had a mission, quote, to give everyone the power to create and share ideas and information instantly without barriers. Along the way, barriers nevertheless were erected. Take, for example, Stanford's Dr. J. Badacharya, who argued that COVID lockdowns would harm children. Twitter secretly placed him on a, quote, trends blacklist, which prevented his

tweets from trending. And you can see a picture of this trends blacklist. This is the back end of Twitter. They have a picture of this. This is what the censors within Twitter saw when they pulled up Dr. Bada Chari's account. You can see there he was put on a trends blacklist. Other people had search blacklist where you couldn't even search them. They wouldn't even pop up on the searches. Obviously, lots of censorship going on there. The author, one of the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration would have been extremely valuable to have his voice along with Martin Koldorf and others as a part of this conversation over the last almost three years to really help to really help shape this but we did not really have that because it couldn't trend and so what was

happening though when he was put on a trends uh trends blacklist we have uh Francis Collins he was uh the former head of NIH but at the time he wrote an email to dr Fauci Clifford Lane Lawrence Tebbach these are the head deputy directors at NIH this was on October 8th is right the Great Barrington Declaration was published. He says, hi, Tony and Cliff, see at great Barrington Declaration.org. This proposal from the three fringe epidemiologists who met with a secretary seems to be getting a lot of attention and even a co-signature from Nobel Prize winner Mike Leavitt at Stanford. There needs to be a quick and devastating published takedown of its premises. I don't see anything like that online yet. Is it underway, Francis? And so just to pause here,

we read that many times. I mean, it's so disgusting. You have world scientists, what you would expect in the United States of America is good scientific interaction debate. You would expect that Francis Collins calls Martin Koldorf and Jay Bada Charter says, come on in, let us look at how you're looking at this, to at least put this on the table. Instead, I don't care, I hate, there's a Nobel laureate signing on to this. We've got to cut this right away. I mean, that's insane. It's totally insane. And the mission statement of the Institutes of Health is to seek fundamental knowledge to enhance health and to enhance health and lengthen life and I'm reading from the from the actual

website and so where in there does it say to destroy with devastating takedowns of people who oppose one piece of science that really turned out to be wrong so at that same time so that email goes out right Acharya is being basically censored on Twitter from getting the voice out in a big way and meanwhile who's not censored who's taking this devastating takedown to the next level fouchi and ashish ja he's the current covid czar at the white house he takes to twitter just a couple days after that email strangely enough and he says this heard about the great barrington declaration calls for herd immunity while protecting the vulnerable

it's junk science and like junk food tastes great but zero nutritional value don't take my word for it here's the great dr fouchy explaining why it's utter nonsense he goes further he's talking about florida's response Florida banning mass mandates and doing far less testing than California. Why? Because Florida, listening to the Great Barrington Declaration, let it rip clowns, which has thus caused enormous unnecessary suffering and deaths for people of Florida, which a historical case now shows that wasn't true. And that brings us really to the present with Twitter. We have Dr. Robert Malone, has been reinstated on Twitter on December 12th. And then we also have Dr. Peter McCullough. He has been reinstated on Twitter, December 13.

So welcome back to those two in this conversation to really have a greater, more robust debate around public health, around the vaccines. This is how we're going to defeat this, is have more voices talking, more experts, more people at the table, not less. Some really unlikely heroes stepping up here. You got Senator Ron Johnson, amazing, you know, out of Wisconsin. You've got Governor Ron DeSantis. You have Elon Musk revealing so much criminality, I think. think really inside of Twitter, but really mostly in that connection to our government and so much is being revealed right now. You just get this sense that though there is a massive carnage by these fools, really, let me just say they're fools. And what's beautiful is unlike any other historic time, we do have Twitter and we do have the ability for you. And even ICANN has won these

emails and gotten these emails. So these folks, the story, the history is going to tell the story correctly because there's too many of us. When I think of that wall in Ron DeSantis is all of those people that are now bearing witness, all the people encircled with Ron Johnson, and then all the people in Europe and around the world, all the specialists that are now stepping forward and just think this tiny little group of people, and really I think is the minority in this world that drove this thing. We know who you are. You were writing about. it you were tweeting you were censoring you were blocking and guess how you will be remembered in history we will never forget Jeffrey love the work you're doing amazing amazing stuff

just keep it coming all right it will do all right talk to you soon all right see next week all right well there's um there's something i want to share with you from the ronde de santis you know it is a great and very exciting moment in florida but there was most Multiple comments made that I just would be remiss not to address at the high wire because of the amount of legal cases we've won and investigations we've done in this space that would prove that there was still some misinformation going on and I'm going to call that out just to be totally fair and balanced and this is what that looks like. There's been a tremendous loss of trust in public health and I think you can see that

in the decreased uptake of vaccines that have been traditionally used in other states. This isn't just anti-vax people. This is people who have really lost trust in the system. And I think in order to restore that, you have to restore that trust to get those people to believe in the efficacy of these vaccines that have been used for decades without problem

and that have been very effective. The other vaccines actually are quite effective, quite safe. The fact that the public health authorities in the United States have destroyed confidence in public health should not extend to the other vaccines as well. The people who said that everybody should get vaccinated are just as unscientifically wrong as the people who say that nobody should have vaccines.

So we have to try to get away from these two extremes. Do not take this information that we are saying here about the COVID vaccines and spread that across all of these other vaccines that we've been giving with very, very nearly none, nearly no side effects. We have one in a million. Okay, these are, these are safe. One in a million. That is an incredibly rare side effect.

So please, parents, do not spread this into other, other vaccines that have been used safely. One in a million. That's all there is that's, you know, and so look, I have to. call this out because long before the COVID pandemic, the high wire was. And we were doing incredible research and bringing that to you. That is why we created this informative educational arm of the informed consent action network, which was the nonprofit I started after making the documentary Vaxed. We have sued where no one else could and won against government agencies,

NIH, CDC, FDA, Health and Human Services. I'm going to be talking about some of that and our recent lawsuits with Aaron Siri here in just a moment. But here's the problem. And look, I think there's multiple reasons why these statements are being made. First of all, almost everybody that's come on this show over the last three years, the greater body of them are all pro-vaccine, pro-immunology, you know, all of these scientists that have just been shocked and dismayed at how the COVID vaccine had almost no trial. And I think most importantly was being mandated. I'm not a lot of the COVID-vaccine. on them themselves, not on some baby, but them. Like, oh wait, I'm gonna have to take this totally untested

DNA possibly transforming product that's never been injected to any human being ever. Sorry, hell no. That's where they're coming from, but they are all, you know, they start out in this place and, you know, Peter McCullough, doesn't matter who it is, Robert Malone, it sort of starts in this space of, look, this is an anomaly, this was a terrible vaccine,

it was a rush process, shouldn't have happened, It should have gone like all the other childhood vaccines. But the problem is they're making that statement, and shockingly, really, without actually investigating it. You would think they would say, geez, if this type of anomaly is possible, if this level of orthodoxy is so capable of shutting, you know, Badachari and all of us down on the Internet, is so capable of looking the other way when we have signals on bears, death, highest rates of death ever reported from a vaccine,

highest rates of myocarditis, all of these numbers through the roof. How is the orthodoxy so strong that no one seems to care about what we're seeing here as though it's never happened before? But the issue is that there have been scientists all along the way with every single one of the vaccines that has spoken out. It just didn't happen to be that the whole nation or the whole world was given that vaccine at the same time. It sort of trickles in and slowly starts having problems and then nobody looks into it. They just trust Pfizer did a good trial, that Moderna did a good trial or Sonovia Ventus did a good trial,

and the science proves there are no issues. But what we've been showing you is staring us in the face are the very red flags that should keep you from ever saying something as ridiculous as vaccine injury is one in a million. Let me just point out some of the headlines that should have grabbed one of these people's attention. This is what we've been reporting through the years. These are old. This is where we started May 7, 2013. U.S. has the highest first-day infant mortality out of the industrialized world. This article would go on to say, we have more babies die, actually 50% more babies die in the United States of America on day one than all of the other industrialized nations combined.

All right, let's look at the next headline. American babies are less likely to survive their first year than babies in other rich countries as we're injecting them with an incredible amount of vaccines. that have no liability. And then this, American kids are 70% more likely to die before adulthood than kids in other rich countries. These are deplorable stats. These are horrifying headlines, especially when these doctors and scientists are telling this, wow, we're the best doctors in the world.

We have the best hospital systems. God forbid we ever socialize ourselves like everybody else. I mean, you know, and so we've been celebrating a medical system where we're literally at the bottom of the pack. And yet no one here seems to care or will look at. vaccines. Well, we looked at vaccines. Here's some of the things that we found. You bring it up. Placebo Pyramid. None of these vaccines ever was tested against a saline placebo. There was no placebo group, not in one of them. And so this idea that the COVID vaccine is an anomaly that

got rushed out, none of these products, if you look at this, they all tested against each other. Well, we tested against that vaccine. That vaccine was never tested against placebo. Literally, they act like the safety was established by the former vaccine. or a vaccine just like it. And by the way, they're about to do this with MRNA. They're going to have an MRNA blue shot and just say, we don't need to do a safety trial because the first MRNA COVID vaccine was such a success.

Remember that one that we skipped out of the safety trials and never finished up with? Well, that non-existent safety trials what we're basing the safety on and a new RSV vaccine MRNA based on that. This is how this whole shell game works, and it's why we were able to predict exactly where the COVID vaccine was going,

before everyone in the COVID vaccine was going, everyone else. We weren't psychic. We knew they were playing this game exactly like they always do. So I want to say this. In some ways, I think these guys have got to say this. Number one, to try and leave any potential guilt that they might be a part of one of the greatest disasters in human history, but also to hold on to their job. Maybe if I just say it's only this anomaly, we can package it up, fire it into space and get back to business as usual, back when the good old days when we had autism rates that were what? I mean, look what we're at here. Look at autism right now. This is from the CDC's website. We were at in the year 1992,

one in 150 at autism. Now 2018, year 2000, oh, that's year 2000, birth date, right. Year 2000, one in 150 in 2018, one in 44. We're now hearing numbers about one in 44 children's been identified with the autism spectrum disorder according to estimates from CDC's autism and development disabilities monitoring system. One in 44. I'm sorry, that is a hell of a lot more than one in a million. Now, I know, I know some of you are brand new to the high wire like I'm with you on COVID, but I thought that autism thing was pretty much figured out. Guess what? You're wrong. It is a giant pile of bologna, and we've sued to prove that. The CDC's website says vaccines don't cause autism. They go out of their way to make that statement, by the way.

They don't mention like every other illness, but this one really bothers them. And so we said, well, look, our modern technology is making that we're able to diagnose autism within the first six months of life. So if there is some connection with vaccines, certainly those vaccines given in the first six months of life could be the culprit. So we sued the seat. First, we asked the CDC, can you show us any studies you've done of the first six vaccines in the first six months of life, proving that they don't cause autism? Show us those studies. Show us how you're making that scientific statement.

They didn't answer, we sued. Guess what? We won. And what did we win? We won their answer. And their answer was, we don't have a single study or piece of evidence to show you that helps us make the statement that vaccines don't cause autism.

For those six vaccines, no studies have ever been done that disconnect them from autism and the correlation. So there you have it. This is a house of cards that COVID is starting to crash down. They're going to try and hold. this whole thing together, but it's not going to work. Now, does that mean we write them off? Does that mean we start calling these doctors and scientists that they're really controlled opposition? They're trying to distract us. No, they're just human. They are who they are. They're in varying

places in this conversation, which is what we all have to accept here. How many of you are watching the high wire that got a COVID vaccine? But now friends of yours are having real issues. Maybe you've had some health problems. You're looking for answers. And friends of yours said, man, you better check out the high wire. They're the only ones that are capable or not afraid to talk about it and bringing on specialists discussing all those issues. Whatever the case may be, we're in different places in this conversation. That's what's going on here. But we have got to learn that we don't have to just take a whistleblower, which is what these people are, and make them the head of our movement, hand them our keys and say, whatever you say goes, you were right about

the danger of the COVID. So I'm going to follow you now, like I followed all those other doctors that lied to me. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. slow your role. Slow your role. What we have to see these people are, are simply more voices in a very important discussion. They don't have higher priority than anyone else, and they certainly shouldn't be handed the keys to our movement. We don't know how deep their healing is. We don't know how much they've been able to sort of cleanse themselves of their ideology and their orthodoxy that has been pounded in them by a pharmaceutically funded school system. We've got to be very careful here.

Let's take what we can use and then watch out for the rest of it. I'm saying the same thing about Elon Musk. I love that you're standing for, you know, destruction of censorship, freedom of speech, but if you bring Nerilaker around my neighborhood, you better look out, okay? So we can cherry pick here and we should be. But I want to say this. Instead of labeling people bad guys or trying to figure out exactly where each other are at because I think that's just going to be a distraction.

We're all going to get slowed as we try to charge the gates of scientific malfeasance. What we have to say is, is there one point we could all agree on here? I mean, I get it. You still think measles vaccine is okay. You think the Gardasil vaccine is okay. The hepatitis B vaccine that had a trial that lasted five days. You don't know that, but I do. But here's the thing.

It's a free country. If as a doctor or anybody, you want to believe in the system and give these products to your kids, you're allowed to. If you want to give it to yourself, you're allowed to. That's the way this works. I know. I'm sorry, but you're also feeding your kid Cheetos and I don't. You're handing him Coca-Cola and I don't do that with my family. I'm not going to arrest you for that either. You get to live your life the way you want, and your kids will have to deal with the consequences of how you raise them. That's true for all of us. But here's where I think we should agree. Can we all agree on this panel? The only thing I really want to hear is that we're all about ending mandates. Because the problem in this country and around the world is having a product that can be forced to, on us by an industry that clearly is not being held in check by a bunch of regulatory agencies that are as corrupt and maybe is directly involved as the industry that is poisoning us. So under those circumstances, can we end all mandates because you people can't be trusted? At some level, those of you that rise to top, you made such a huge mistake with COVID, and so many people have died, so many have gotten sick because you were allowed to mandate it.

So how about this? We all agree. Let's end the man. The rest of the conversation, we can have it if we want, but as long as we're saying that, I think we can say we're aligned. All right. I want to make sure that you, you know, I want to point that out because I do want you to watch this Ronda Sanchez hearing. You just go to Ronda Sanchez's Twitter if you want to check out how to do that. It's really brilliant.

Also, I think his Facebook page has it. So go ahead and watch this really incredible conversation that took place in Florida. but just take it with a grain of salt. Remember, not everything these people are saying is based in science. If you want science, you're going to have to come here to the high wire. All right, all that being said, how do we make sure we got it right? How are we getting information where no one else has? We're doing it because we have one of the best attorneys the world has ever seen.

And he's about to join me for the last legal update of 2022. to. All right, Aaron, welcome back in studio. You are flying. We actually landed together in D.C. and actually got to speak in the same panel for like one of the first times ever. Usually we're just passing each other. You're in, I'm out, you know. That's true. All those types of things. So it's been really cool. I wanted to kind of lay out really what all we've been up to this year. And but really quickly, just reflecting on what we're just talking about. This idea that the vaccine was totally safe. It's just the COVID vaccine. Are you running into this in sort of legal circles? There's a lot more lawyers now and stuff that are getting into this conversation.

It was only you. I mean, it was, I can, funding you out there by yourself. Now there's a lot of others around you. Is this something that you're hearing this sort of statement? All the time. Folks who are dealing with COVID vaccine have a great understanding about the issues with that vaccine and and and those lawyers who I deal with who are just dealing with a Gardasil vaccine for example they see the issues with that product but they compartmentalize those vaccines that they see issues with from all other vaccines and I think part of why they do that is one there's cognitive dissonance right they probably vaccinated their children right they don't want to think and most people don't want to believe that they might have done something to

their own children that may not have been on net balance beneficial. The other thing is that there is a stigma in some circles. That is gladly lessening all the time. Yeah. That anybody who says anything negative or raises concerns about any vaccine is labeled an anti-vaxxer or some other label that for many folks, they want to avoid. And so for that second reason, a lot of these folks, they don't want to go there. They don't even want to know about the other vaccines, really.

They'd rather stay ignorant. I thought you made a great point about how adults now are, when they were going to be mandated, all by the sudden they're a little more in tune to it. You know, there's a simple point that, you know, we've talked about many times. In 1986, there were only three vaccines that were routinely used in this country. That's it. Two of those are already gone. And since 1986, there has been a whole bevy of shots added, and the rates of all forms of chronic

illnesses and children have gone through the roof since 1980s as well. Autoimmune issues, atopic issues. There's a lot of studies out there that show a potential causative relationship between certain vaccines and certain of those issues. The CDC itself just put out a study, as I think you could cover recently, about asthma. Right. And certain vaccines, otherwise been denying that for forever. Interesting the CDC would do that.

And so there is reason to be concerned when you look and you say, wait, what's changed in the immune system of children over the last 30 years? Shouldn't the place you start be the very medical product? You're giving a day one once at two months, five to six times, at four months. five or six shots six months five or six shots that would seem where you would start your investigation and I'll just I'll wrap it up by saying when it comes to autism that's exactly what we sought to do they say vaccines don't cause autism okay great show us the studies that show that for any of those shots given in the first six months of life yeah for D-tap for hip for the rest of them

yeah and they didn't have a single study and we even sued them in federal court to make it as you know and they could not provide a single study that's supported at any of those shots. So essentially all their studies are comparing just basically for the most of their wisdom of thinking. Yeah, they're comparing kids who got 16 shots. Right. Versus those that got 17 shots.

Right. My five-year-old understands that's a stupid stuff. I always joke. It's like, okay, we did a study. We had 16 shots of vodka in the control group, and then 16 shots of vodka plus a shot of Jack Daniels in our test group, and both ended up having trouble driving. therefore Jack Daniels does not cause sobriety issues. That's right. That's right.

You know what I mean? Like it just like there was no difference between the control group and then that's how they do these studies. That's right. All right. So just lasting, one more point. Because how is it that COVID suddenly grabbed as much attention as it has? I mean, it's been pretty impressive. Sitting, you know, I said to that group the day before we were all on the public panel, this is, I am, you know, representing scientists like Angie Wakefield. that was all alone when he came forward, you were all together. We have never had a moment like this.

Why did COVID? And I think that's somewhat what these doctors think. If there was other vaccines that were like COVID, we would have received a panel of 25 doctors like this, and I don't see that happening. A major difference is that most other vaccines, and I presume you're talking about safety of the COVID vaccine. And how come with COVID vaccine,

the safety signals are being picked up, looked at study, still not by the public health authority. There's still, many in the scientific community are going, whoa, this is too obvious to ignore. Yeah. And I think it's this, for this reason. For most other vaccines, they're rolled out to a smaller segment of the population, and the uptake increased over many years, decades. People think about, you know, if you look at most vaccines that are out there, it wasn't like it was rolled out,

and then we had 100 million Americans get it like we did with COVID vaccine. It's rolled out, and there'll be 20. 20% uptake, then 40, and that happens over decades. So slowly the uptake grows. And if there's issues that they cause, they recede into the background rate and they become, quote, unquote, the new normal. They become the new normal. Now, 1 in 6 kids in America have asthma. Right.

That's the new normal. Right. That's the baseline. Because we went back over the last three years and there's been a gradual increase. It didn't just happen upon the entry of this vaccine or something. It's been a gradual growth. Whereas had you just started giving 72 vaccines, which is where we're at prior to COVID, to every kid all at once, all around the world, we would have probably seen gigantic signals that slammed us in the face and been able to compare them to the year before where they got none. We don't have that.

We have the year before where they got the 16, not the 17. We have two years ago when they only got 15. We got, you know, and so they can say, we've always had Azra, at least for the last 10 years. That's your point is it sort of hides in that gradual uptake. your data gets corrupted and your ability to do a decent comparative study. It's possible. And you and I both know there is a large data set out there that has a very well-conducted study has been done. Yeah. It may never see the light of day. It will never see the light of day. Yeah. Putting that aside, exactly right. Those rates become the background rates that become the new standard.

And had COVID vaccine been rolled out slowly over the course of, let's say, you know, 40, it was just for kids, So only one birth year got it of two months old, four, you know, four month old. And so, you know, you got a limited set that got it. And then over the, you know, so it would take a decade before you even get to 10-year-olds getting it, right? So by the time, you know, 20 years past, you still don't have any adults getting it, just starting to have adults. And if myocarditis during that period and children started slowly rising, right, it would happen like that. Yeah. And then all of a sudden be like, oh, wait, there's a.

There's just increased myriaditis in children, and it becomes the new background. And what causes it? Maybe it's, you know, some other changing the environment. Drinking too much tea. But it's something in the environment. Genetics don't change that fast, putting epigenetics aside. And, you know, and at the least we should, at the least, our public health authorities should rule out vaccines.

And as you know, and I know, because of the endless boyas and the con badgering, they haven't. Right. We have tortured them at this point to get us the studies showing that vaccines given to children don't cause autism Don't cause these atopic issues don't cause these immune issues don't cause these neurological issues And we've never seen those studies that you know getting that these doctors are making those statements They believe they're there I mean as we've one by one we pick them off we pulled them in the you know closed doors and said hey let me show you the data Yeah, they kind of turn white and go oh my God. It's just not there. Yes, yeah it's All right, well, let's get into. We've done so much this year. In fact, we won't be able to cover it all, but I wanted to give our audience a sense. Because I think a lot of times people watch the high wire. They know there's ICAN, but they think, you know, high wire is like the media part of, you know, sort of this vaccine investigation. But this investigation really, you and I started ICANN and you were there right at the beginning when I started it. Part of why I did it was, I had a problem. There was a brick wall in trying to get

the investigation is done. As a journalist, I want to understand what they know and what they don't know, but there's this liability protection. And when I met you, you know, we talked about it and you said, well, you know, they put liability on the government. Now, most lawyers want to go and make money off of some class action lawsuits against pharma, so they're never going to go near it. But if we could get funded, we could actually go after the government and start, you know, unraveling what they know and from there figure out what's going on here. So it's been a multi-year process accelerated by COVID. But this year in particular, you know,

you brought some things that you really sort of want to dive into. So tell me about it. Well, you asked me to give a summary of all the legal work for 2022. As you know, we've got over 20 legal professionals at our firm. Is that where we're at now? So we're helping you employ 20 legal professionals to do the work that we're doing. To do the...

Because I know a lot of people think there's one guy out there running a couple of cases, it's taking a lot more than that. Oh yeah. You cannot do the... You know, as you know, we've got dozens of lawsuits. We've got hundreds, over a thousand FOIA requests. We've got over a hundred-something appeals. You know, we attend almost every one of the...

of the FDA-CDC committees, hearings. We send them pre-letters off. We send them post letters. We are sending, we do, we've done dozens of petitions to the FDA. I mean, they, we are a known quantity when it comes, I can is a known quantity when it comes to the, to these programs. I'll give you one example where, you know, we sued the FDA again recently. We've sued them many times.

And the DOJ attorney, a very nice young man, was like, hey, you know, you know, the DOJ represents the FDA, their lawyers. Department of Justice. And said, hey, look, you know, before he's. do the FDA again, why don't you just bring the issue to me? I'll take it. Is this kind of like a new, like they keep handing you, the new DOJ attorneys come along, so he hasn't really worked on this before?

It's not the same DOJ attorney on every K. Okay. So we get, you know, and they're not always in the same jurisdiction, so sometimes the local U.S. Attorney's Office, and sometimes they'll send an attorney from what they call DOJ, Maine, from Washington, D.C. when he thinks it's important of case. Like, you know, a certain number of our cases are like that. Well, they send the attorneys from D.C.

So, and we thought, oh, this is... So he says basically, you know, instead of like using FOIA, like, why don't you just... Instead of suing, if you have an issue, because the DOJ attorneys who are assigned to these, the government, the federal authorities are extremely opposite. And I think to the point where, and I'm speculate now, that the DOJ attorneys are put in a bit of a tough position. They have to defend sometimes position that, frankly, I wouldn't want to have to defend. And so we said, sure. We sent over the next issue we were going to bring a suit for, sends it to FDA, the head of the FDA FOIA, one of the FDA officers, I'll put it that way,

sends us an email and essentially says, the solution is just stop appealing and stop suing us. Just sum up the email and then gripe that over 30% of the FDA's FOIA pellet docket, our ICANN matters. So we are 30% of what they're having to deal with when it comes to request coming in from all of the different issues. FDA is covering all sorts of food substances, all of the whistleblower, I mean, you know, groups out there that are working on this and trying to get the truth.

ICANN is doing 30% of the suing of the FDA. Well, in terms of the appeals. In the appeals. Within the FDA for the FOIA, which is really as we've talked about, the main tool, to get to the truth. If you want to know what the people you're paying are doing, you've got a company and you've got people, and that's what the FD is. They work for us. Yeah. They take our tax money. They are servants to the American people. Right. And FOIA is the legal tool to see what they're up to, to get their emails, right? To see their meeting notes, to see the proof for the claims they're making. Right. And that's the tool that we use. And I think we've put to good use. Let's jump into mandates, because I think mandates is where most of us are focused. I mean, you know, great, you're fighting for this lawsuit or that, but how does it affect me?

So many people are concerned. So when it comes to mandates, what are some of the things that we got involved with over this last year? Yeah. I know we like San Diego, for instance. Yeah, so with San Diego, and, you know, that is, if I can make one general comment, And that is at the heart of it. You said it before, which is at the end of the day, you know, the work that we do and that you have us do is never about preventing anybody from getting a vaccine. It's about making sure that everybody has a choice.

Right. An informed choice that they can make. Before we get started, you sort of what we talked about, this is sort of three pillars, I think, to why we take on a case or why, you know, we discuss what we're going to do. I'm going to sort of read these folks. This is sort of how we look at it. Our number one, one of the number one reasons is influencing public opinion. Will this case or working on this FOIA influence public opinion? Number two, we see ourselves as watchdogs over public health.

So that's all the regulatory agencies were there, as you're saying, going to their meetings, checking them when they're making misstatements, and then also the pharmaceutical industry and beyond. And then three, safeguarding civil rights. And I would say, in many ways, this is becoming a massive constitutional issue, rights issue and I said to you I think you're going to go down as one of the great constitutional attorneys of all times because this was the biggest attack on our constitutional rights in many ways. I view it as as a pivotal civil rights issue of our time. If you cannot leave your home, go to church, go to school, get on a plane, have a job without engaging in a medical procedure

you don't want, you don't have any rights. So great, you can practice religion home alone, you can assemble at home alone, you can have your speech by yourself to the wall, you don't have any rights. Right. So it is a critically important civil rights issue. And yeah, those are, I mean, those are the three, you know, every time we talk about a potential case, those are the three things we think about. And, you know, what will be the impact on public opinion? And that's critically important because judges, for better or worse, and legislative bodies, again, for better or worse, are often. than influence by what the public thinks about an issue. We think about gay marriage, for example. Gay marriage was unlikely to be held as a constitutional right

at any point in the 1800s, or in 1910, or 1920, or 30, or 40, or in 1950, and then what changed? Public opinion. Constitution didn't change, exactly. Right. The cultural perception, or at least the perception that the judge has as to what the public, the cultural cognition that the judge has. Let me put it that way. I'm not saying the judges do things based on what the people believe,

but the judges are part of society. They have to just be aware of these are the times we live in and this is an antiquated thought system now on some level, right. Right. And so influencing public opinion is critical to one getting the legal outcomes in court that we would like. And two, getting legislative houses to pass the laws that we'd like. Because at the end of the day, when we're talking about mandates, those are really the two avenues to affect change.

Obviously, we don't directly work with legislation because you're with regard to how you can't because you're a nonprofit, and we don't do that because of the restrictions. So I want to make sure. IRS, if you're watching. And so that's, and then the second is acting as a watchdog. And that's really, that's also critically important because really I think for decades, the FDA and the CDC and NIH, they, you know, there's been nobody there just acts as a check.

There's lots of industries where... That's why that doctor's saying what he's saying. Nobody ever called that out before. Nobody was ever presenting, look, we foiled them. They made a statement that they cannot prove her back up. Had they been being done all along the way, we might not have doctors still blind to the actual reality around this vaccine program. And there are, and there are a organization that there, for example, are watchdogs over the auto industry.

Yeah. But there really has been none when it comes to mandated medical product. Right. And I can really, in my opinion, is at the spear tip of doing that. I mean, there is, and this is one of the great things I think about how I can, how you have structured the legal work that you have given us, in that you give all pretty much your legal work to us. And so we are a constant. You are our only law firm that we work with.

Right. Are you doing work for other nonprofits? Regarding vaccine policy work, no. No. So we are... ICAN supports all of that work pretty much, almost exclusively. Yeah. Either where ICANN is the client directly, the plaintiff, or ICANN is supporting it financially. Right. It's pretty, it's all I can. There is no other... And I want to just say we say I can, but what I can is the informed consent.

consent action network and we have such an amazing network. I mean, this is a moment to point out that the work that you're doing is being made possible by just regular people out there that are giving us $5 a month, $10 a month, $20 a month. It's allowing you to march in. And as you said, you are the singular law firm that is doing this work. Is there anyone else, any other nonprofit that's sort of doing that way where they're using one law firm? I'm not aware of any. I'm not aware of any that does it in that way. I know that some other nonprofits, they will hire different attorneys for specific cases. But by having us do all of it, there is an efficient economics and efficiency of scale where we can handle a thousand FOIA requests and constantly appeal.

We see the same issues over and over and over. And, you know, we basically have a really efficient process where, you know, they do the same things over. And then they start changing there. And so we adapt. We know the game. We know exactly how it works. So we're able to do handle the volume. And you know who at your law firm's best at this type of conversation, this type of letter, this type of thing.

Like you really have got a team that's like. Yeah, we've compartmentalized it to this. This is the people that attend every, every, you know, Verback or ACIP meeting. This is the team that does the FOIA. This is the team that does the FOIA appeals, then the FOIA litigation. These are the folks that handle the serious policy litigation lawsuits. These are the ones that do the petitions. These are the ones that, I mean, it goes down the whole chain.

All right, let's get into some meat here for the folks that are watching. because it's been outrageous, you know, what I think has been achieved. Some things that I think are setting precedent that in some ways don't think I don't think anyone thought was possible to really be able to strike down law, like existing laws. Yeah. All right. All right. I want to go through some of the lawsuits from the pandemic.

Yeah. So San Diego was one of the lawsuits that we filed and we filed it in California. And we picked San Diego because it was the San Diego School Board decided to mandate the COVID. 19 vaccine to attend school. And what we needed to do is set a precedent that no local authority can mandate the COVID-19 vaccine. Otherwise, we'd be playing whack-mull. You know, there's a, there is only so much funding and resources.

Right. We cannot go to 50 counties and 100 school boards and challenge every one of them in California. Right. So we picked, you know, one, we challenged it. And we challenged it on a basis that is transportable. That decision, it makes it. so that you can't know local entity in California can require it.

Let's read that decision right here. Yeah, here we go. Sure. The issue here is whether a school district may require students to be vaccinated for COVID-19 as a condition for both attending in-person class and participating in extracurricular activities. The Superior Court determined there was a statewide standard for school vaccination, leaving no room for each of the over 1,000 individual school districts to impose a patchwork of additional vaccine mandates.

On independent review, we reached the same conclusion and affirm the judgment. of course, this isn't just the judgment. This is the appellate decision that's looking at it and saying we're upholding the court's decision. We agree this would be a disaster. We're shutting this down. So we got the injunction long ago, and we just won the appeal. Wow. And that appeal, and that's, you know, one of the things that's great is we got that continuity. Winning that appeal is huge, because right now that appellate decision renders it that nobody in California can require co-vexie, no entity, no school board other than the state legislature. Now we only have to deal with them.

And if the state health department requires it, which is the only other entity that could, there has to be a personal belief exemption. That was added in SB 277 when they first decided to sort of mandate vaccines. They said, well, all the future vaccines, we will have a personal belief exemption, right? Yeah, and that precedent from the appellate court in California, there are many states that have a similar legal structure for the vaccine requirements. It wouldn't be binding precedent, but it would be persuasive precedent for other states as well, which makes it nice. So we don't have to play whack them all across the country.

Right. We could just, and as you know, he told me that ICANN is going to support the, and fund challenging any state. Any state. It requires a COVID-19 vaccine. And with this appell decision, we hopefully, local jurisdictions will be deterred from doing that. You certainly already have the way to write the case. I mean, you can start sort of, you have sort of started a boilerplate, if you will, here, to know where you're structuring or the foundation of this argument is.

Yeah, well, because this is not the only mandate we've challenged on behalf of I can. We've challenged, you know, in a, I made a short list here, which I challenge the OSHA mandate as well, that the CDC, excuse me, that the OSHA required employers of 100 employees or more to get the COVID-C. We weren't the only firm that did it. All right. here's what that came from that once the significant percentage of the american adult population was fully vaccinated the total deaths in the united states have not declined the following table provides the CDC's weekly total deaths in the united states for 2019 through 21 starting on week 30 when at least 60 percent of american adults were fully vaccinated reflects that despite this high and increasing level of vaccination total deaths per week did not return the level seen before the pandemic in 2019 hence according to cdc data even after over 60 percent of adults were fully vaccinated in the united states the overall mortality did not return to the level scene in 2019, nor even below the level seen in 2020 when the pandemic was ongoing, and there were no vaccines.

Here is that death data, and it's basically showing you that if anything, it's going up or it should have gone down. This was our appellate brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in that OSHA case. There were a number of other cases. If you recall, there were two lawyers that ended up arguing for the plaintiffs. He chose only two of the plaintiffs' attorneys. unfortunately they did not choose our cases to argue, though our case was one of the cases on appeal.

The main argument OSHA was making is they have to require the vaccine to reduce mortality. Right. But that's the CDC's data. And we're the only firm and the only case that presented that data to the Supreme Court. We're proud of that. Yeah. And it showed categorically with the CDC's own data,

overall mortality has not gone down since the vaccine rollout. It's gone up. Right. And the argument being CDC didn't really have the power to make this point. But beyond that, even if they did have the power, this vaccine's a dud, why would you even be mandating it? It's going nowhere, which is one of the things I've loved. When we've gotten involved in legal cases, when we first got it, and people have said to us, you can't argue science in the courtroom. You've got to just keep the science out of it.

In many ways, even when our argument isn't science, we try to get some science in there. Yes, because, again, because we do this all the time, we have a very very. very firm grasp of all the science, typical literature, all the clinical trials. We know all the primary sources, and so we do. We bring that to bear even when our case is about separation of powers. Because judges also want to feel like they're making the right decision, that they're doing the right thing, not just the technically right legal thing. All right, what do we got next?

So the other, so we also, we challenged the mask mandate on the planes. We brought a lawsuit first for you. There it is, Del Big Tree, plaintiff. I was traveling so much. I was pissed off. I got off a plane and said, Aaron, file a lawsuit for me. I'm tired of wearing this damn thing on a plane.

This is ridiculous. So we challenged that, and then using that knowledge, using what we learned in doing that, a short time thereafter, we had interactions with members of Congress. We brought the same law suit on behalf of 17 members of Congress. Oh, fantastic.

Including Rand Paul, Thomas Mastey, and those are 17 members of Congress. Love it. As well. And right now, as everybody knows, knows a judge has enjoined the CDC from enforcing the mass mandate. It's on appeal on the 11th Circuit, and we've filed an amicus brief in support of keeping that injunction in place and striking down that mandate.

Next case? Yeah, let's keep it going. Next case, so we brought in Massachusetts, the state of Massachusetts Health Department decided it was going to require the flu shot for all not only students, school, preschool, elementary, high school, and university students in the entire state of Massachusetts. And so we challenged that, and they withdrew the mandate after we sued them. In fact, we filed, and on the day that their opposition papers were due to oppose our injunction, they dropped the mandate that day.

Wow. So sometimes just the threat and the lawsuit, they just back away and pull the mandate. Yeah, I mean, you know, there were two issues they had in that case, just, you know, one is they didn't have the authority to do it, and we showed that very clearly. Yeah. And two, we actually had a great opportunity to work with some good, really great scientists and put in the declarations in the literature that clearly shows that flu vaccine, like COVID vaccine, there is no good science that shows that it prevents transmission in the community setting. There's no data. In fact, the, the Corcoran collaboration, you know, that basically is a review of all the list science out there until it did a meta review and concluded there's almost, there's pretty much no data to show that it reduces not only,

transmission, but also hospitalizations and the other things that the manifold for most age groups. So there was no point. Right. Anyway. So with that, but we also, we also challenged a mask, a school mask mandate in New Jersey on behalf with ICAN support. Yep. And we sent this demand to the school board and three days later they dropped the mandate. There it was. You know, Newark was the school district was requiring the Board of Education saying mask are now optional. bailing out in a lawsuit. I love we see the comments here. Great news.

Good about time. Enough of this mask wearing. People love it. They probably even know who we are. They even know who's doing it. But it doesn't matter. Well, part of the reason we did that, as you know, because we talked about it was,

and Newark's the biggest school district, and it's wonderful. But we spent a lot of time working on that particular letter as the foundation for that lawsuit because we were hoping that other firms, other groups would take that letter, use it as a template in other places around the country. Again, we can't be everywhere.

Right. And we promoted that letter and we sent it around so that it would be recycled by others. So the idea of sort of setting present, but then also like really drawing up a very nice case and saying, hey, you go ahead, read it, use it, copy it, we don't care, it's yours, go make this work. Yeah, I mean, we spent an incredible amount of time in that letter and, you know, anybody wants to take the time to read it, you know. Yeah. They can use it as a legal. All of this is that I Can Decide.org, by the way, anybody that wants to take a look at this stuff. All right, let's keep it going. We've got a lot to get through. It's been a busy ear.

And you asked me to do a grab bag. Yeah, yeah. So I'm going to random grab bag of stuff. Another as just another example of just kind of something we do is where University of Miami decided that in contravention to Florida law, they were no longer going to provide an exemption for hepatitis B and meningitis vaccines. Yeah. That students need to receive. So we, again, we interacted with their general counsel's office.

And, you know, after some interaction, they dropped. Sent the letter, and this is their response after that letter, basically saying, get out of it. They said, yes, undergraduate students may decline to hepatitis B and meningococcal meningitis vaccines. Our processes will be updated to reflect this option, best regards. You win. We're out. Don't go any further. Right.

Our process will be updated. So they updated their process to do it. And I think part of what lets us be effective when we send those demands is because we take a paragraph to point out all of all the lawsuits that we bring in this arena and that this is not this is not an empty threat. Right. We will sue you. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. We're not just sending a letter. These people, this I can, this law firm, they are litigious and they mean business. So we get, so we have that. And ICAM makes that possible because we do so many of these suits. So we get to, and that was an example of another quick strike in another part of the country. Also, when the COVID vaccine was emergency use authorized, I can't support it as sending literally hundreds of letters around the country to employers, universities, threatening to bring legal action if they require the COVID-19 vaccine because it was not a license. It was only emergency use authorized at that time.

And, you know, as the Washington Post reported. Yeah, here's the article. I love this. Resistance to vaccine mandates is building. A powerful network is helping. A New York firm has filed suit or sent letters to employers in several states as part of an effort spearheaded by one of the largest anti-vaccination groups in the country. I just want to say, you know, to everyone watching right now, this is for you. This is what you're fun.

I'm like, this is the end of the year. In some ways, just like, you know, the FDA works for us, TDC. works for us. We're showing you how we're working for you. This is what, when you are supporting the work that we're doing, this is the kind of headlines we're making. We are not playing around. We mean business and we are winning because we have a winning track record. Slowly, but surely, what was interesting is we wanted a good case to really sort of challenge us, right, so that we could have a case that could get to the Supreme Court potentially and then make sure that this never happens again. But they all kind of just high-tailed it so easy.

easily just you know early on yeah yes most of the best cases we have they just they go away pretty quickly yeah but you know that's not a bad thing no it's good it's good not a thing either though there are there as as you know there are cases anyway yeah so so that's so that Washington post article I remember we I can't blast and highware you remember blasting out like look at this the same we're winning yeah totally admitting it's a compliment right we've also sued you know the air force and we've obtained a class wide and against the entire Air Force from engaging in any type of adverse conduct against any of the over 2,000 service members in the Air Force that have filed for religious exemption against the COVID-19 vaccine. That's so amazing. I remember when you came outside the courtroom, I think we still have it on video. Can we play that video? This is fantastic.

Oh, sure. It's a shame that to stand up for a constitutional right we need to engage lawyers, but at the same time, no longer we have lawyers, they're fighting for us. It means a little. These members of the Air Force, they swear an oath to the Constitution to uphold it. And the first freedom under the Constitution is the right to religious freedom. They're asked to lay down their lives to defend that right. And so the first people whose rights are legal freedom we should be protecting are the maple standing behind me who do so, swear an oath to do so, and are sworn duty-bound to pay the ultimate sacrifice to defend those rights. And we're proud to be here today, co-counsel, all of them coming out to stand by that right,

to stand firm in that right, because by standing up for their own right to religious freedom, they stand up for that right for every American, not only in the battlefield, but here at home, every single day in this country. It's amazing. I mean, it feels so good to know you're out there doing that work for the military because it's one of the things, that I wasn't sure that that could ever be touched. I mean very early on when I was traveling in the back so many military would come up and I'm just like you know you signed your life away. I mean that's I don't know how we deal with that yet you've gone in there and managed to

really have success. And we're proud also to have brought a case against the Army as well. Yep. And we're also seeking class certification and protection for all the members of the Army. Yeah. So. Well I love you know funding cases like the Army because it really, These are our best and brightest, and it's amazing that they're fighting for liberty and freedom, you know, the right to assembly, the freedom of religion, and then the very group that they work for is trying to not give them all those same rights. It is the first freedom under the Constitution. It's incredible. I mean, when you think about just the few examples we've gone through, you know, it's a It's really great knowing that we've been able to really protect millions of Americans, literally millions, just between the San Diego case, which really affects the millions of children in California, the Massachusetts case, which protected millions of children from in Massachusetts. our participation in the OSHA case, which obviously extended to 100 million employees in America

and the various other cases. That really, the net result is truly millions of Americans have their freedom, their right, to say no to a mandate of medical product. Not preventing anybody from getting it. You're in Massachusetts and you want six flu shots? Right. That's freedom. Just your right to choose.

Right. But if you don't want them, you can now participate in civil society without it. Great. Well, I mean, I know that's just a smattering of sort of those cases, but let's sort of drill down on COVID-19. Okay. And the examples there. What else we do in that space? Right. The actual vaccine. Well, I mean, yeah, we talked about being watchdogs, right? We've sort of talked about all the FOIA requests, all the letter writing, all that stuff going on. So you asked, you wanted to just do a little bit of a deeper dive, unlike the very quick hits on the various lawsuits. and show how we, with one particular product, meet all three of those objectives.

Yeah. And you can see in the lawsuits we just went through that each of those has a different level for each of those three. And so, you know, when it comes to COVID-19 vaccine in particular, you know, there's a number of things that we've done over the last year and a half. One of them is we had the opportunity to actually depose the vaccinologist that sat on Pfizer's data safety monitoring board, which was initially a five-member committee that oversaw the safety of Pfizer's clinical trial. This is the data safety monitoring board, an independent group of experts who monitor patient safety and treatment efficacy data while a clinical trial is a data. going on. The name of who you're talking about Catherine Edwards. She actually, right? Dr. Catherine Edwards. We've talked about this book right here. This is literally the textbook on vaccinology. It's called Plotkin. Plotkin's vaccines. You have deposed Stanley Plotkin. We may play a clip a little

bit later. For those who've been watching the high wire for some time, it's one of our great claims of fame. But one of the things that we're doing, right, is, and I've said to you, there are a lot of cases around the country that will bring in these super high-powered experts, sometimes randomly with the Plotin situation, who's the godfather vaccine program. You have a divorced case where the dad wants to vaccinate the kid, the mom doesn't, and for some reason they bring in literally the most powerful witness they could. And that overpowers most lawyers.

I have said we will fund. If we can reach out or somehow they reach out to us, ICAN will fund you to go in and do the depositions so you get that done right so this is one of those scenarios that took place this year with Catherine Edwards right Dr. Catherine Edwards is Dr. Stanley Plotkin is the godfather of vaccines and she's the godmother of vaccines. I mean currently in the country I don't you know those four folks on that book are they're it yeah and so the other ones I think being Walter Ornstein and Dr. Paul Offaul Offutt Right. And I, you know, if Dr. Offutt would like to sit for deposition, I'm very happy to go to talk. Yeah. But I have the same offer standing offer, by the way. Every year I send him an email and say, if you would want to come on the high wire, I guarantee you I'd be pleasant.

I'm really curious. Love to have a conversation. He's always really polite. He's like, thank you for the offer. I think I'll pass. I mean, it really, it need not be. It could be a substantive discussion. It would be a very interesting. I would be fascinated by it. But all right, so let's get to it. So in this case, there were going to be three experts, Dr. Edwards and two other experts who were going to testify about a vaccine issue. And so I got a phone call asking if I would agree to handle that piece of the case. The case was a lot larger.

There were 15 other witnesses and extras. And I was just going to deposing and cross-examining those three experts on the, you know, because they were related to the vaccine issue in that case. Yeah. So Dr. Edwards at the time was sitting on the data safety monitoring board for the Pfizer clinical trial. I think this video pretty much speaks for itself. Let's take a look at this. Isn't it true that you've also been an advisor to Pfizer?

Yes, sir. I've been an advisor to Pfizer, and I've been working very, very closely with Pfizer, particularly their COVID vaccines in and going over lots of reactions of adverse events. So yes, I am working and being paid by Pfizer for my assessment of vaccine safety. You're part of the Data Safety Monitoring Board for the FISA code vaccine. That's correct. That's correct.

You're one of the only five members of that data safety monitoring board over the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, right? Yes, sir. And that's supposed to be an independent data safety monitoring board, correct? It is an independent data safety and monitor. That's the board that all of us in America are hoping on in relying on, is going to independently make sure that safety is properly assessed as the clinical trial for that Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine is ongoing, correct? That's true, and let me tell you that we have worked very hard to, for the clinical trial for the first of the first,

over this and they're very hard to do that in the E as comprehensively as we possibly and since it's supposed to be independent it's critical that the members of that independent data safety mining board are in fact independent of the pharmaceutical company whose product is being evaluated correct that's correct but isn't it true that directly before becoming a member of the independent data safety monitoring board with the fISA and COVID-19 vaccine you were an advisor to fiser fiser pays me to evaluate the safety of their vaccines because i'm an expert so i do get paid to do the work that i've been doing but i've been doing the work conscientiously and

My question was, before you became a member of the independent Data Safety Monitoring Board for the Pfizer-COVID-19 vaccine, isn't it true that you were separately, before you held that independent position, you were an advisor to Pfizer? Yes, sir, but I think what you're presuming is that because I've been an advisor makes me on their dole or makes me going to say what they want me to say that head is not and has never been a part of my being. I say what I believe based on my expertise. So you don't think that financial incentives can sway people's judgment at all? It does not sway my judgment, sir. Why, while we're having an independent data safety monitoring,

Why doesn't Pfizer just have some of its employees on it? Because we are independent. Meaning folks who were never advisors to Pfizer. We are independent from Pfizer in this assessment. Sorry, but what I love about that is like the, it's like the sort of the slowest movie, you know, you just like slowly pushing in. And she sees it coming, right? She sees the conflict of interest that you're, and she's trying to work away. remember, there's no way out of it.

You just, in the end, you cannot call this an independent, you know, advisory committee if you were literally, as she described it, on the dole with Pfizer. I mean, her words, not mine. You know, there's something I just saw in here that was really funny as it went by. She says, yes, I've been looking at lots of reactions and adverse events from the COVID vaccines in the trials. You know, it's just a part of like, that's what I'm doing. And I'm thinking lots?

We're being told there were none. I mean, I just found that like interesting, like just, I'm just wondering what she's actually looking at. But anyway, that's besides the point. It's not what you were there for. Yeah. And the even crazier is that Dr. Edwards is the principal investigator of one of the four vaccine safety systems. The CDC says it has monitoring COVID-19 vaccines. SISA, the clinical immunization safety assessment, CISA project.

So this is right there is. So here's the four. Yeah, VERS, the vaccine adverse events reporting system, the one they say that is underreported, we can't trust it. You have the vaccine safety data link, which they hide from the public because it would be useful, but they buried it in a private company so we can't get near it. CISA is being run by a woman that's on the dole for Pfizer in her own words. And then you have essentially the B-safety data. B-sake database. Yeah. Right. And this is, and it's not there on the blowout, but this is the page on the CDC's website where it says it is the most thorough, you know,

safety assessments in the history of vaccines. And here are the four systems. systems. VERS, I mean, if theirs didn't provide already signals, I don't know what would. Yeah. The VSD, as you pointed out, was moved into the private HMO, a trade association so that it cannot be subject to FOIA so they could hide that data. Right. And there aren't any real good studies coming out of it anyway about COVID vaccines.

Then you got CISTA run by Dr. Edwards, which also has not produced anything. So the only real system out there that they've got, the premier system for COVID-19 vaccine safety is V-Safe, which is why, you know, you had us go. had it so hard to get the data from the system. Huge. Yeah, let's talk about it. We're right there. Let's just go V-Safe.

Okay, sure. So the V-Safe system is pretty much the only, if you're gonna find, if you're gonna see whether or not the COVID vaccine is safe or not safe. Yeah. In any of the safety systems that the CDC has, it's gonna be in V-Safe. V-safe, as we talked about, in a prior issue, is a CDC program, smartphone based where they had over 10 million people sign up. These are folks who signed up early on right after it was rolled out and right after

they got the shot and they were provided daily and then weekly check-ins to answer certain questions. One category was certain symptoms and they answered that for a week and those symptoms are the ones that CDC say are normal after the vaccine. Meaning that data was pointless. Second category asked three questions. The only place that might actually provide useful data. Did you need medical care after the shot?

Did you miss school of work or were you unable to perform normal daily activities? And as I think your viewers probably know, 7.7%. So they needed medical care. It's huge. And if that's not enough, I don't know what the CDC. But what was amazing is this was a database. They said we're going to be transparent. They hit it.

We fought them for over a year. I love that this made a lot of news. This is what that looked like. My firm has over 20 individuals that exclusively work on vaccine-related matters to do vaccine injury, vaccine, exemptions and vaccine policy work and almost all that vaccine policy work has done on behalf of the informants and action network. I can. The reason I tell you that is because I can't ask us over a year and a half ago to please get the data from the V-Safe system. I just want to point out that it was

463 days you tell us from the time that you requested this V-Safe data. V-Safe as a CDC program where you just kind of report how you're doing after you got the vaccine. Four hundred sixty-three days to get it. There were 10,008,273 individual users. These are folks that actually signed up and registered to use V-Safe and to provide health check-in. 7.7% of these users, they reported that they needed some type of medical care, being a doctor, emergency room, or hospitalization. Now that we have the data, we could see that getting the vaccine caused 25% of people within this data set of 10 million people

to have some of serious event affecting their normal life functions. I mean, amazing. Huge news, that was huge news. And so many people are using that database. I mean, I just think about all the scientists around the world now are checking in with it. And it checks all three boxes.

Influences public opinion, watchdog over the agencies, and is going to then help result in affecting whether or not there are mandates. And it's free on our website. to anyone that wants to check it out. We're not charging for that. So if you want to go to the website, I Can Decide.org, that's the dashboard for all that information. All right. And then Maddie DeGarry. Yeah, the personal cases. There's a lot of those we get involved in. And so this is, you know, this was, she participated in Pfizer's clinical trial. And I think it was in the

news too. Let's take a look at that. Our firm is inundated with individuals calling us after COVID-19 vaccine injuries, but I think, Shannon, that you're referring specifically to a young lady named Maddie who's 12 years old, participated in the Pfizer clinical trial for 12 to 15-year-olds, a trial that only had about 1100 children, and she suffered a serious adverse event right after the vaccine. She ended up in a wheelchair. She has a feeding tube through her nose. People get injured from vaccines. It happens, But the most troubling part of this story is what Pfizer and the FDA did after she was injured. They tried to brush it under the rug. Pfizer reported it to the FDA as an abdominal pain.

She's in a wheelchair. She has a feeding tube, and that's how it was reported. And despite the fact that the DeGarry family has gone public with this, months ago, the FDA has not once to reach out to them. You would think that one of our major health agencies would want to dig in and find out. That's one of the reasons that the Gary family has contacted our firm. They want to bring all that information public, and we are in the process of gathering and doing that. First of all, the Maddie DeGarry's story, you know, I don't want to sort of brush aside. It's such an important story.

She's been so dedicated to getting her story out there, her mother, her family. We had her on the show and her parents. But just to be able to help in cases like this. I mean, this is just such a horrific cover-up in an important trial. The FDA doesn't even seem to care that there's a lie inside of the data that they're counting on, which, again, just shows corruption, I think, at a whole level. But one of the things that's beautiful is, you know, here we have the high wire, and people think, oh, the high wire is just, you know, is like the media for this thing.

But we're creating media that in some ways mainstream news there doesn't even know, really, that behind it. And I don't care. I don't care that we're not getting the credit. The people, and this is important for our audience right now, you are funding through us the legal cases that make it possible to make mainstream news. And so there's so many arms to what is being achieved through the funding through us

and then the work that you're doing. It's expansive. And it's... Well, look, I'm bound by attorney-client privilege not to disclose things. You don't authorize me to disclose. But as you, as you know, there are instances where I go on the news to discuss them. And there are instances where we do work. And the person who's going on to discuss them is neither me nor you, somebody else. And nobody knows that ICANN's really one supporting that work. I think about that with the Fauci emails when Tucker

Carlson. Let's just run that because I think that was an interesting point. Like, you know, again, Tucker Carlson covering work that you did funded by I Can't. Take a look at this. Last winter, a group of well-known scientists publicly dismissed the lab leak theory in a letter to the Lancet as absurd and categorically untrue. And yet at the same time, they wrote emails to each other conceding that actually the virus did look engineered by human hands in a lab. Meanwhile, Tony Fauci worked on censorship. Fauci made certain that the self-appointed fact checkers who control the flow of information in this country shut down anyone who dared challenge the official story, which again, we now know was a lie. In the final days of the last administration, the State Department finally began a serious investigation into the origins of COVID, into what was happening at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. But almost immediately after the election, Joe Biden shut it down.

So in all, the lying went on unimpeded for a year and a half, and we're just learning now how deep it went. The informed consent action network, a group that advocates for transparency in vaccines, has just obtained thousands of new emails to and from Tony Fauci. They show, among other things, that Fauci knew perfectly well that his own directives often had no basis in science. You know, we were cheering when we finally got Tucker Carlson to sort of mention ICANN and the work that we're doing. That was really important. But people don't know that we've been sending Tucker Carlson our scripts. We've been, you know, others at Fox saying, you should be checking on the science.

You should be checking on science because I think a lot of people will say, well, I mean, it's conservative news, but they don't remember back when nobody was talking about. There was no conservatives. There was no Tucker Carlson talked about this. There was no Lori and Graham. You know, it was the wins and the work that we were doing that started exposing this stuff that actually got, you know, at least some conservative media on our side. I remember in 2017, after you know, you wanted to do legal work, we went, we flew down to D.C.

For the first time, we attended an ASIP meeting. Oh, there's a picture of it. That's the first meeting. There we go. Yeah. This is before, this is when there was no barrier, no barricades. You could sit right behind the panel members. And then once, after this meeting, in subsequent meetings, we kept bringing larger and larger crowds to speak.

And then they started putting up barriers and security. Totally messed that country club up. But back then, but back then, yeah, there were no senators calling us, you know, to get to ask us, hey, what do you think of this bill or this approach or congressmen or state legislative houses or media outlets or, you know, go down the list of folks that have influence out there. You know, our firm, and I know on the media side, you're, you know, high wire, you can't keep up with those inquiry. I mean, there are, and we couldn't be happier for it. Yes, four years ago there was, you know, no party, no politic, no real body that understood the importance of not having mandates, of individual rights, the ability to choose your medical, where today probably half the country is really beginning to understand it. And I give a lot of that credit goes to you, Dow, and to the work that you've been doing and the six million of years, you are now here.

And that multiplicity of where that has spread out and the work that you've also supported has made a lot of that possible. It's really amazing. So you dug into the Pfizer data. This is something that they told us was going to be transparent. And then you tangle with the FDA all the time. It was amazing. We'll show the clip for in a second. But I am amazed.

What was it like to be in a room when your opposition says, we want 55 years or then ultimately 75 years to produce this data. I mean, do they say that with a straight face? Well, I showed up in federal court in Fort Worth, Texas. And I walked in. There was the DOJ attorney there from DOJ, Maine, Washington, C. Flew in. There was the chief FOIA officer from the FDA sitting there.

There was the head of the science life division of DLA Piper, one of the biggest terms in the world. They're representing Pfizer. There was Pfizer's in-house attorney sitting next to him. There was a representative from Pfizer. There was an army. There was an army on one side of the courtroom. And then, you know, I walked in. And my local, and the local, because I'm, you know, I was admit, I needed a local attorney.

who was sitting next to me, a wonderful gentleman. In order to be able to practice in that space. You know, it's two and a half hours, and they're going to concerns, and they had to, you know, argue to the court why that was appropriate. And luckily, the judge understood, he understood the importance of the issue.

As I said, I said, you know, this is not, it's not just any request. I said, you're talking about a product that's being mandated by the federal government, but to millions of Americans, where the company has been given immunity to liability, right? I mean, and the other factors we know about, I go, there could be nothing more critical than getting this data out to the public.

The judge got it, and the judge was amazing in the case. He really got it, and he was amazing. He was what looked like in the news. It is incredible. Let's go to the news. Yeah. Civil rights attorney Aaron Siri. To Aaron Siri.

Aaron Siri is a civil litigator. Aaron, you have been fighting for information from the FDA. This is one of the craziest things. I've ever heard. He's the guy that has been asking Pfizer to release the COVID-19 vaccine data. They did initially want 55 years, but then they up the number of pages at some point that they said they'd have to disclose, which brought it to 75 years. Why in the world would it ever have been okay for all of us to wait until 2097? It was never okay.

The FDA promised transparency when it came to the COVID-19 vaccine. This product is not just any product. It is being mandated on individuals across this country. Transparency is critically important when it comes to a product of that nature. The FDA shouldn't be hoarding this data. It should be sharing it so that all scientists in our country can participate in finding solutions. Pittman, the judge, ordered the agency to turn over 55,000 pages a month. That means all the Pfizer vaccine data should be public by the end of September.

We're very heartened that the judge agreed that it should be produced this year. And yes, we're confident that the FDA will comply with the judge's order and produce those documents as demanded. That was huge. I mean, that data is still pouring out. One of the questions that comes into the show all the time is what's more important? The Pfizer win and getting the Pfizer trial data or the VSAFE data provided by CDC. In your opinion, what's more important? I think the VSAFE data, and I'll tell you why.

Because just like a clinical trial, VSAFE gathered data by asking the participants to provide it. Yep. But unlike a clinical trial, that data is not filtered through the pharmaceutical company. Well, it's not coming from the pharmaceutical company. Right. Right. The clinical trial, the fight was done by Pfizer. So you could have something that says stomach ache and not know that you have a girl in a wheelchair with a feeding tube. We only know that because Matt and her family can't.

Correct. Right. Okay. Okay. Right. Yep. But otherwise we wouldn't know. So you don't have it filtered by the pharmaceutical company. It's standardized questions. And instead of 30,000 people, it's 10 million people. That's a huge group of people. So that's going to be the best data points you're going to ever get. And if that's not going to move our health authority, I mean, it really shows nothing. Well, and as I told you earlier today, we just got version one of the V-safe protocol from before V-safe was launched.

And it shows those 15 serious conditions. So where the myocarditis and issues, they knew those were issues. They were planning to put it into that database app or working on it as important. and then avoided ever, like, asking the questions about it. They label them in the VSAFE protocol, adverse events of special interests. Yeah. And then in a table, it called them prespecified, you know. And so you would imagine they were intended to be listed as check the box options, but they never.

Someone made it. Never were. Anyway, that's, yeah. And for people that are asking, that's still ongoing because there's still this open box, right? The open box data, which is if we didn't ask you the right question, Like, did you die? Did you have a heart attack? Did you, that would be written here.

We're suing for that written in open box data. Yes, the free text field. So that, you know, so basically CDC, they knew. They knew that if they left it off to check the box list, then they wouldn't have to worry there would be a rate. Because if they had to check the box with myricoditis, percaditis, you would just, boom, it would have had a percentage. Yeah.

300,000 people said they have myriaditis out of 10 million people, boom, you have a rate, you know. You can't do that with VARs, but you can do that with VISA, unfiltered by pharmaceutical companies. I bet that was a very scary proposition for the health authorities because they don't know the outcome. It means they sort of... Yeah.

Yeah. And so these free text fields is where that data was going to be entered. There's 6.7 million entries, and that's where people wrote what was going on with them. I went to the hospital, but why? And that's where they wrote... We're going to get it. We've got...

I know we're going to get it. I know we're going to get. I know there is going to be hard, but we will not give up. All right. Okay. This could start looking like gloating. We're never going to get to all this. I don't want to like people have got to get on the lives. So let's just select just a few more things of all that was done. Tell me about the FDA petitions. Okay. So wrapping up COVID-19 vaccine as one last example.

So, you know, there is a formal process in which you can petition the FDA to answer questions. And that's like, it's almost like a court docket in a way. it's where pharma files to get licensures. And we, on that same docket, we file formal petitions demanding answers to questions. So every time they license a co-vaccine, they authorized a co-vaccine, they're engaged in other conduct, we file the petition. I think a total of 15, you know, extensive petitions that were all had to be responded to in detail by the FDA under the law. We have those responses. They're signed almost all by Peter Marks, the head of the vaccine division of the FDA.

And part of the reason to do that, we knew they were never going to grant the petition. Of course not, but it locks them in. It is the proof and we taking for example those answers and DeSantis as you saw forming this this this grand jury we're going to be sending in that evidence for them to review we want to make sure they have that right all of these lawsuits being done by age they don't get to say well we never knew about that or well that was the science change no no no we have you signing right here you knew about it science didn't change it was doing that when we sent you a petition it is hundreds and hundreds of pages of signed responses in detail to all the critical issues that everybody talks about with COVID-infecties. They're detailed, they're boring, that's why they don't make it onto a show.

But they're there and important for lawyers. And we do that with many of the cases around the country, especially ones brought by AG. We send them any proof we think will assist them. Great. All right. And then what do we have over here in this category? Parental Rights in D.C. I know, that is a huge case.

To me, this is one of the biggest cases we've ever won. You had a law basically saying children could, you know, end up approving a vaccine for themselves. The parents wouldn't know about it. And what I loved is the 1986 Act that most of us hate that gives this liability protection is really grounds by which you fought this case. That's right. We chose a ground to fight the case that if we prevailed on it could then be used for any law, anywhere in the country, state law, that permitted a doctor to vaccinate your child without your knowledge or consent. Right.

And so under the 1986 Act, it provides that you must provide the parent or legal guardian a copy of something called a vaccine information statement before you vaccinate that child. Right. Federal law says parent must get that document before vaccinated a child. Hence, it trumps state law that says you can vaccinate a child without parents knowing. How can you do that? Right. Parents have to get that sheet.

They didn't hand the sheet. You didn't hand the sheet. Federal law trumps the state law. And that's what the judge held in the D.C. case we brought and joined the law. The D.C., the attorneys were up in the D.C. didn't even appeal the decision. And that law is another amazing judge, honestly, federal judge, who wrote an incredible decision. So smart. He was so smart.

A great decision. And that same precedent can be used. using Calli and you know we've also done this a lot of places across the country where health departments state health departments or even sometimes county ones put out information about vaccines, COVID vaccines that are incorrect we send them demands to change it and we've I love this I love that I can gets to sort of spank health agencies and say get back in line you've been doing that for us I think we have a couple examples let's take a look at this this was a false COVID-19 vaccine information

Michigan's Department of Health comply with ICANN's legal demands or removed misinformation regarding the COVID-19. What was it? Here it was all three vaccines are proven to be safe and effective. And then what we made them change the I can't barely read. Well, there it is. On the journey to FDA approval, each COVID-19 vaccine had to pass through the same thresholds of research and testing as every other vaccine. It's important to know that all three of the approved COVID-19 vaccines were proven to be safe and 100% effective.

effective in preventing hospitalization death in the clinical trials. You said, hello, nope, and they had to change it. The FDA has authorized emergency use of each three COVID vaccines after determining the vaccines meet FDA requirements. And it's important to know that all three of the authorized COVID-19 vaccines were proven to be safe and effective in reducing the risk of severe illness. Hospitalization death has caused by the virus 100%. But still misleadied.

Right. Still had misleading. And actually, there's a follow-up we sent them that then had them change it. One more time. Yeah, to further correct misinformation they had about the vaccine. And so, you know, we've just done that in New York, Arizona, and other places. We've also done it to federal health agencies, too, who are putting out false information and not in compliance with it. And the reason we're able to do it is because there are federal laws that actually do not permit certain statements about products at certain intervals.

And that's what we use as our, as our cudgel to get them to comply with our demands. One of the, you know, as I said before you came on, before COVID, we were bringing lawsuits and there was a lot going on. And I think the hepatitis B lawsuit. We've been at it for a couple of years now. It's leading to, it has a, there's a lot to it that's going to lead us in the future. But we're also learning a lot about how we're going to fight COVID. I think of the D-TAP lawsuits, which is the argument being this doesn't stop you from transatlantic. mission this is going to be a big part of the cases with COVID we know how to do that but take me through hepatitis B sort of where we're at where we're at

working you know Stanley Plot can talk to him so tell me about how that's setting up yeah I mean prior to COVID we were doing basically the same work we're doing now we just did it as to all the other vaccine yeah vaccines which by the way you know folks look at the COVID clinical trial and they say oh that's rush that's not so great as the best clinical trial almost ever I've been saying that people think I'm crazy. So all these doctors, like, it's an abomination of science and said, it is, no doubt. It is, but it is, you know, a hundred times better than virtually every other trial done of that childhood vaccine program. All those vaccines that you're claiming really did

stellar science. They have no idea when they're saying that on these panels that, no, that that science was even worse. Right. I mean, there are three metrics you typically judge a clinical trial. One, how many participants did it have? Pfizer and Majority each had third. 30,000 participants compared to most clinical for the adult trial compared to most clinical trials for children There were sometimes only hundreds or even or just thousands because without enough people you can't detect signals to The second metric is what how long is the safety review and for most child the vaccines? It's maybe up to 42 days Yeah typically not that long and then finally it's what was the control group because you don't have a control group Receiving a placebo and a nurse substance you can compare it to right and a lot of times you're either comparing it to right and a lot of times you're either comparing it

it to another vaccine that also was not licensed based on a placebo control. Which I said earlier, yeah. Or, or no control. So what is your baseline? I love this. You actually take this to Stanley Plotkin. Let's play that video and then we can speak to it. This is the godfather of the vaccine program that's the living godfather and being grilled by Aaron, Siri.

This is priceless. This is an old one for somebody who's been watching for a while. But if you're new, watch this. Dr. Plotkin, earlier you testified that there are two, B vaccines in the market, one by Glaxo, G.S.K, that's Enderix B, and the other one is by Merck, recombavax, HB, right? Yes. This is the product, the manufacturer insert for recombavax HB, correct?

Yes. And the clinical trial experience would be found in Section 6.1, correct? Correct? Dr. Plotkin? Yes. Okay. In section 6.1, when you look at the clinical trials that were done pre-licensure for KamaVax-HB, how long does it say that safety was monitored after each dose?

Let's see. Five days. Is five days long enough to detect an autoimmune issue that arises after five days? No. Is five days long enough to detect any neurological disorder that arose from the vaccine after five days? No. no control group, correct? It does not mention any control group, no.

If you turn to section 6.2, under immune system disorders, does it say that there were reports of hypersensitive reactions, including anaphylactic, anaphylactoid reactions, bronchospasms, and utacaria having been reported within the first few hours after vaccination? Yes. Have they been reports of hypersensitivity syndrome? Yes, that's what it states. Reports of arthritis? It is mentioned.

It also reports autoimmune diseases including systemic lupis, erythematosis, lupus-like syndrome, vasculitis, and polyteritis, nidoza, as well. well, correct? Yes, that's what it states. And also it states that under the nervous system disorders, it states that after that there have been reports of Guillambore syndrome, correct? Yes.

As well as multiple sclerosis, exacerbation of multiple sclerosis, myelitis, including transverse myelitis, seizure, febrile seizure, peripheral neuropathy, including Bell's palsy, Radiculopathy. Radiculopathy. Thank you very much. Muscle weakness, hypopathy, and encephalitis, correct? Correct. These are events that are reported after vaccination.

And as we've just discussed, in order to establish whether it's causal between the vaccine and the condition, you need a randomly, a randomized placebo-controlled study. But that was not done for this hepatitis B vaccine before licensure, was it? No. Okay. And given that the vaccine now appears on the CDC's recommended list, isn't it true that it would now be considered unethical to conduct such a study today? It would be, yes, it would be ethically difficult.

I just want to let you know that if you have not seen all of the plots, deposition pieces. It's a nine-hour piece. It was amazing. We've cut it down into a bunch of small videos, the highlights. It's one of the most mind-blowing depositions ever done by, as you can tell, one of the great attorneys of all times. You just have to go to the highwire.com. Scroll down to our watch page and you will see there it says Plotkin on vaccines and boom, you can watch those. They're each a couple minutes long. Some of them grab some popcorn and have some fun. You can even make a drinking game out of it. But it's amazing. It was amazing when we came out of that literally what this guy is considering is acceptable science well no we never actually

did trial well yeah it was only four or five days well no we can't do a randomized controlled trial now that it's been approved and all of that and it's just he's sort of like doesn't know what to do it doesn't know where to go it's clear I think you see in his eyes he knows wow I'm losing this this does not sound very good I don't know how to make this sound good it part because it's what we talked about earlier dr. Plotkin and all these folks at the federal health authorities, nobody challenged them on safety really for decades. Other than one or two narrow issues, nobody challenged them. They challenged them on mercury and they challenged them on autism.

And even there, as we saw, they didn't do the studies for autism. They did it for MMR and they did it for the Marisol and that's it. They ignored the entire first year of shots, incredibly. And here he is, he shows up, he thinks he's going to parachute and I've, you know, I've created six vaccines. Do you know who I am? You know who I am? And he's like, oh, dang, you know.

And somebody's actually pulling out the primary sources showing it to me. That's all I did. I mean, if I could take that video and play it to all the people that were just on DeSantis' panels saying, oh, it's the one in a million, say, really? Are you aware that this is the guy that was involved in making those, say, four or five days is acceptable to you on a hepatitis B vaccine? It's incredible people still say that. You know, you know we also do vaccine injured case.

You represent people injured by hepatitis by vaccines. all the time. Serious injuries. There are numerous studies that show, for example, there's sleep apnea. Children that got happy vaccines versus those that didn't. Those that got the heavy vaccines,

they monitored their breathing during the night, and those that had the shot within a few days, within a 48-hour period were having sleep apnea. I mean, they stopped breathing for extended periods of time in their sleep. Wow. I mean, this is the science. And that's that day one old baby

when I put out that headline. We have more babies dying in the first day of life. This vaccine is giving an incredible aluminum load, which is one of our suspicions and why it's problematic. You're also getting an aluminum load in the vitamin K shot, but we're having babies dying in the first day of life more than every other industrialized nation combined. It's really quite horrific. And you can't, and why give it? I mean, this conversation is always, before there was COVID, my conversation always started with hepatitis B.

You are tested as a mother whether you have hepatitis B or not long before this baby is delivered. So the only point of contact for Hep B would be the mother not happening. So then why this is a disease that is, you know, using needles or having promiscuous sexual interactions? Why on the first day of life and why won't you just for the sake of it say, we have more babies dying on the first day of life than everyone else. Let's stop giving this vaccine the first day of life. I don't know, first six months or a year since none of these kids are going to be at risk and see what happens. They'll never do it.

It's because there's basically effectively regulatory capture. The people that sit on the FDA's advisory committee on whether to license shots, Verback, and the people who sit on the ASIP, the CDC's committee, ASIP, especially during the 90s when most of these vaccines were licensed and put on the schedule, often had very serious conflicts. Dr. Catherine Edwards, who we saw during that entire period for 10 years, sat either on ASIP or Verback. And during that same period, as we uncovered in her deposition, she's being paid. She has been working for the pharmaceutical companies, the very companies who either as a, you know, a speaker or other capacities, and yet she was given the ability to sit on these committees and decide whether they should be licensed and then authorized children. We also hear about, you know, there's tons of stories where we won't get into detail.

but whether you're a trial site or you're an investigator like she says she is that do point out problems, they don't get hired again. Like they suddenly go, wait, I was just fired. I was doing a perfectly good job. So the truth is, if you're maintaining that job with these pharmaceutical companies over years, they like how your responses come in. Look, let me say this. I don't think most of these folks, including Dr. Edwards, I don't think that she's, you know, I think that she genuinely believes she's doing. God's work. And I think most folks who are public health officials, doctors, they believe they're doing the right thing. I don't think that they think they're doing what's wrong. To the extent that they're exposed to issues like Dr. Edwards during the clinical trial,

I think that the rationalization is that, okay, but on balance, this will do more good than bad. Yeah. But they should not be getting to make those decisions for our children. Right. For your children, for my children, for anybody's children in this country, or for any adult in this country. Yeah. We should all have that right and ability to make those choices for ourselves. So the hepatized bee case has continued. You have foyered.

We've gone in in multiple ways and demanded that they, there's like, oh, couldn't possibly be four or five days. They've basically had to concede that in many different ways, right? We've got nothing else. We foyer for the clinical trial reports that were submitted. I think that, you know, we've talked about this once a while ago. It was like, really? Could it really be? And then you get the clinical trial reports, and yep, they monitored safety for five days after each shot. That's it.

And that's in the actual documentation, you know, the summary of the basis of approval within the FDA's own records. We also then separately said, okay, well, you know, not only is there's this really problem where the clinical trial was clearly deficient, there's a lot of literature that shows concern about the hepatitis B vaccine and its potential adverse effects. We also wanted to know Was there ever even a case, one case, documented case of Hep B being transmitted in a school setting? You're mandating for schools and you're protecting students.

Do you have a single incidence where a kid got Hep B from another student? Yeah. Do you have one documented case in this whole country, ever? And we asked the Hep B vaccine through the legal route to do it, and their response was no. A search of our records failed to reveal any documents pertain to your case.

They have no. So you've got a vaccine that was licensed. your baby's lives at risk with no safety trial and for no reason whatsoever. It's going to do nothing. Right. And it's not only five days in this trial, by the way. It was only a hundred-something kids and there was no control. As you heard, Dr. Block, what is the point of even doing a trial?

Like, don't even bother. Just say, hey, look, laissez-faire, caveat mTOR. Here it is. Yeah. If you want to take it. If you don't want it, don't take it. And here's the truth about what, you know, what was underlying its safety. There's so much you're doing.

Let's just wrap this up. But I just want to talk because our audience is making this possible. I'm not making this possible. It's not coming from my pocketbook. It's literally just people that have become recurring donors that are making this happen. We're staying rush in there, get this done. Look, if you want to donate right now, just go to the top corner of the highwire.com. It's coming the end of the year.

This is a perfect reason to get a tax right off. We are looking out for you. We're looking to make a difference. $22. dollars. Time is running out for $22 a month. We're going to start asking for $23 in 2023 so you better get on it. It really, I mean, I hope that it's beyond just seeing how, like, obviously, the enormous amount of work you're doing, but is being made possible by people that are trying to make a difference in the world. Do you feel like, I mean, I know

lawyers a lot of times they've got to question what they're doing, the ethics of it, or, you know, is it not really working for the right people? It's got to feel, good with these victories. Yeah. At the end of the day, even if vaccines are now to be the safest product known to man, the work that you have us doing, I find to be incredibly important because the studies, the science, needs to be done to confirm that. It should not be based on assumption or supposition.

Separately, even if that science was done, which is it has not been done or has not been done. properly. Still, nobody should ever be mandated to get a medical product. One person's quote-unquote facts, as we have seen during this pandemic, are different than another. And we have a product where the federal law gives the manufacturer's immunity for my ability. You cannot sue them for harm for virtually any. The court can't even fix this mess for the most part. So you've got to be doubly vigilant. Doubly vigilant. And yet, this is the product you're going to mandate the one product other than really the only product for the most part that has this type of immunity in the United States, it's mind-blowing. Even without that, people should

have a choice. Certainly with that, they should have a choice. And what's really great is not only do you have us doing these investigations like you saw taking Dr. Proctor's deposition and then chasing down the clinical trials and then chasing down whether there's transmission, we then take action on it. And as you know, we filed a petition with the FDA, the petitions we looked at earlier, the 15 on COVID, we did one for Hep B. And we're demanding, through the formal FDA process, that they rescind the licensure of these hepatitis B vaccines until, not forever, not forever, until you have a proper clinical trial.

Because that's what the mandate of the FDA is. Right. They're supposed to only licensed products have been shown to be safe and effective. That clinical trial can't do that. Can't qualify. I don't know what it is. Is it a year? Is it six months?

Is it four months? You could argue maybe. Five days? We know for sure it's not five days. That can't be enough. It can't be enough. Right. So that, to me, is already in the black zone.

Yeah. It's a lot of gray zone, but that's got to be in the black. And so we filed a petition, and it's been almost two years now, and we keep following up the FDA because they had six months to respond. I smell a lawsuit. Oh, it's coming. I love it. You know it's coming.

I know it's coming. I know it's coming. There's so many lawsuits next year is going to be very exciting. We have so much experience now. You have so much experience. You've built all of this precedence. You have all of these facts. You know how they play the game.

We know how the trials work. It was how we were able to be so successful. The high wire predicting where COVID vaccine was going to go. We knew where they were going to try and cut the corners. We knew how this whole thing was laying out. You know, Aaron, it is really, truly one of the greatest gifts of my life to have run into you and to get to work side by side with you and to send you in there. I've joked.

I've said it before. In some ways, I feel like I get to pick a fight with the high wire. when the real bully comes in, Pfizer is something much bigger than me. I'm like, Aaron, get them. It's amazing. So thank you so much for all of your brilliant work, and I look forward to what we're going to achieve next year. Thank you, Dow. All right, folks. Well, I mean, that was a lot of legal, and we'd even look at how many things we had to cross out here. That's what ICANN is doing. I just wanted to make that clear, because there's been a lot of confusion. What exactly, who does Aaron work for? What does ICANN do? What does the High Wire do? I hope you, I hope.

you get it now. If you really want to be making a difference in the legal space in the United States of America and we're helping in cases around the world, which we haven't even had the opportunity to discuss, that's happening too. All of these things are gigantic. You are making a difference when you are supporting us. Not only do you get the best news and most trustworthy, transparent news with a high wire protocol. We're putting all the information in your hands every Monday. As you can see, what other news agency brings up a problem and then sends the best lawyer in the world to go fight to fix it. That's us. That's ICANN. The High Wire. We need your support. We need your help. I mean, if you are out there, if you have friends, that can help us out. And for those of you, larger donors out there,

talk to your friends. Start looking at track records. It's really important that we know, you know where the winds are happening you should support who's working for you we feel like we're doing that i know erin is definitely doing that i also want to say to all of you out there if you want to get some merch for christmas this is probably the last week you can grab it definitely go to our website and check out the merge pages you've got some christmas stuff in there i guess they got my mug on a mug for christmas there it is the highwire dot com go ahead and uh and and grab uh some gifts there for Christmas. I just want to thank you. We can sit here. It's really, it's not my favorite thing to do to have to ask for funding. What I really love to do is tell you how grateful I am to all of you out there

through the years and especially this last year that have really gone out of your way to make a difference in this world, whether it was $1 or $5 or $10 or more per month. You are helping us live up to our dream, not only protect the children of the world, but just protect my own. children. Every one of us here has children, skin in the game, Aaron does too. That's what we're fighting for, for all of us. But those of you that became donors and got involved all year you've had the gratification of what that means. And I really hope you feel as we go through this giant list and you think, oh my God, my donation did that. My donation did that. Oh, in that case too, and that one over there. Look, there's a lot we're covering here. We don't get to talk about it all

the time, but if you really want to make a difference, join that incredible group of Highwire Insiders that has been with us. It's really easy. All you have to do is donate. Can text 72022 and just type in the word donate and we'll send you a link to make that happen. We're changing the world, folks. We have changed this conversation. We are not walking around with vaccine passports. I'm not got a tracking system yet. I don't have AI being injected in my brain without being able to control it. We are fighting all of those things. And luckily here in America, we have heating oil,

and hopefully we will have a warm winter, not like some of our European friends out there that are also watching this show. We're fighting an international battle against stupidity. And we're winning, slowly but surely we're winning. And I want to thank all of you for being a part of this incredible experience. I want to thank you, Aaron, once again, for the amazing work that you are doing.

has been an experiment, an experiment that's working out in our favor. So keep watching the high wire, keep donating to ICANN, and we'll see you next week.