The Highwire with Del Bigtree - CDC STUDY FINDS ALUMINUM IN VACCINES IS ASSOCIATED WITH ASTHMA

Episode Date: October 8, 2022

After nearly ten years of demands by top government oversight agencies and several legal correspondences by ICAN attorneys regarding the lack of safety studies comparing total health outcomes of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated kids, scientists at the Centers for Disease Control have decided to give it a whirl. Despite a poor study design, these study results cast serious doubts surrounding the safety of injected aluminum, which is present in abundant amounts in childhood vaccines. New results shed new light on the possible causes for childhood asthma and eczema.#Asthma #CDC #Eczema #Aluminum #FrankDeStefanoBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

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

Study tries to see whether child vaccines and asthma are linked. And it says here, the study released Tuesday suggests that young children who were vaccinated with most or all of the recommended aluminum-containing vaccines had at least a 36% higher risk of being diagnosed with persistent asthma than kids who got fewer vaccines. Wow. And that's a big one. Notice it doesn't say anything about unvaccinated kids in there. Now, it goes on to say the researchers found that for each milligram,

of aluminum received through vaccines, the risk of persistent asthma rose 26% in the eczema kids and 19% in kids who did not have eczema. Now, what's interesting about this study is it goes on to say this. In 2013, the Institute of Medicine, now known as the National Academy of Medicine, called for more federal research into the safety of childhood vaccines, including their use of aluminum. The new study is part of the government response to that call, Daley said. Daley is the lead author here. So let's do a little bit of math. The Institute of Medicine in 2013 called for more studies on the safety of the childhood vaccinations. And it's almost 10 years now. And we're just getting down to it. That's interesting. But the bigger story here from my point of view is not what the

study included, but it's what the study did not include. So let's go to that study and see what we're talking about here. So this is the study. If anybody wants to look this up, association between aluminum exposure from vaccines before age 24 months and persistent asthma at age 24 to 59 months. Notice they're just looking at asthma. Before we go any further, I just want everyone that's been watching the high wire for longer than COVID to just bring that back up. And I want you to look at the last name on this paper, Frank DeStefano. This is what puts me behind this desk right now. A major player in the documentary I made called Vaxed, looking at the MMR vaccine in the cover up of the autism connection in a study headed by Dr. Franks de Stefano.

This has been a guy that's been covering up problems with the vaccine program for a very long time. He's been fairly, I guess you could say good at it since, you know, we have worked so hard to reveal the problems and COVID has now helped us with that. But so this guy is an author on a paper showing what we have said for a very long time that vaccines do permanently injure children. They cause autoimmune issues and people might be saying, well, it's just asthma. Folks, this is the beginning of the end, man.

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

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

the harm as a result of a vaccine. So you have that. So if you're going to a VSD site for a well baby visit, obviously you're involved in the vaccine program. And then if they're not even allowing people that just didn't go inside the VSD site, went to an outside doctor or something to do that, they're excluded. So you're excluding a huge, huge group of children right there. And by the way, you basically have to be being vaccinated, right? Isn't that what that's saying? Absolutely. Well, child visits. are a visit with a pediatrician where immunization is a major reason for that visit. Each well-child visit at markers throughout their birth through, you know, their early childhood

has vaccinations associated with it. So if you're unvaccinated, a lot of times people aren't going to those well-child visits. So, you know, essentially they're excluded. Now, let's continue. What else did they exclude? Let me just, I want to put it out there because we're in the weeds here a little bit, Jeffrey. But to be clear, we have analyzed with Aaron C. our legal team when we get data back and we're looking at trials and saying, well, this trial proves this is a very common technique they use. It's one of the scams they use, which is they exclude anyone that didn't have at least too well baby checkup business. See how they, we've been

asking, remember folks, we're asking for a vaccinated versus partially and completely vaccinated study to be done. We want to see if the vaccines are making you healthier, you should be able to compare to the unvaccinated. So when they finally do it, the times they do it, the times they do it. This is one of the scams they're saying, okay, well, we'll look at all the unvaccinated kids, but only the ones that went to a doctor twice during, you know, for a well-baby visit, which usually means you were getting vaccinated. So you're getting rid of all of those kids that never had to go to a doctor. Literally all those healthy, unvaccinated kids you want to be comparing to, they're immediately removed from every trial using this exact trick, okay? Just making that clear.

Right. Yes, absolutely. And then furthermore, this is what the study says. children were excluded if they received a diagnosis of asthma. Remember, they're studying for asthma, of asthma in any setting prior to age 24 months. So basically if the child developed asthma after the first, I don't know, 26 vaccine doses they received between zero to 24 months, they don't want to know about it. The researchers want nothing to do with you. And oftentimes that's the more serious asthma. So it appears that the study was designed to eliminate as many healthy unvaccinated kids as possible. But in the fact that they still found this high of percentage of kids with asthma that were vaccinated is really telling. But now, let's go on to a next part of this.

They're looking at aluminum. We've covered aluminum a lot, but let's just bring it up. So in the study, they go ahead and say it without us having to say it. A recent report concluded that, quote, little to none of ingested aluminum appears to be absorbed through the gastrointestinal tract. And we are unaware of any studies demonstrating an immunologic response to ingested aluminum in humans. Clearly, more research is needed on the health effects of aluminum, including immunologic effects of injected and ingested aluminum. All right. Let me insert it again here, Jeffrey. We have a giant audience that is just brand new to all this. So here's what we do at the highway. I'm going to try and make this make sense. For those of you've been watching for five years, you know this.

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

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

you don't need to have to be a biologist to imagine that injecting something directly into the bloodstream is probably going to be more toxic than eating it, allowing to a drug scientist, eating it, allowing it to a digestive system where obviously it has a way to leave your body. In this case, it's stuck in your body. I don't think it'd be a rocket scientist to say that 25 micrograms would probably be much more toxic if it was injected. They never ever did that study and they've admitted that multiple times to us in our inquiries. But get this, that one hepatitis B vaccine, right?

Now imagine if you found out that the hepatitis B vaccine given to your six pound infant, or maybe there are a premium at three or four pounds, maybe they're 10, Hounds, same shot doesn't matter. Can you imagine if you found out that they took the load that they said was the maximum dose to be eaten and they gave that same dose to your baby injected, you'd be like, wow, that is crazy. Well, guess what? Don't worry about it. That's not what happened. They don't inject your baby with 25 micrograms, which would be the toxic level if they ate it. No, it's more than that. It's not double. It's not 50. It's not 100. It's 250 micrograms of aluminum injected into your day one old baby with a hepatitis B vaccine, 10 times the amount

of aluminum that was approved in an eating study. And so when they're saying here, well, we kind of used an assumption based on eating, and as it turns out, it might actually be, you know, more dangerous injecting it. Really? You need to be a scientist? We need to 20 years to hear you finally say that. All right, I've interjected. That's how the science works, folks. This is why Dr. Mahaltra and those that start out with saying, well, I really believe in the, childhood vaccine program. Trust me, they're on a long, hard, deep, very fast, slippery slope going down a rabbit hole that you can't stop once you start looking at this stuff. And by about a year and a half, a child that's had all their vaccines is looking at anywhere

between 3,000 and almost 5,000 micrograms of aluminum injected, which the FDA has not set an injection limit, a maximum limit there. And as you rightly said, we actually ask, I can decide the lawyers for informed consent action network, actually asked NIH, show us all of your studies for assessing the safety of injecting aluminum. And they came back and they could find no studies showing that. And that was in 2019. And here is the headline for that. Now, what happened before that?

ICANN in 2017 asked HHS, Health and Human Service. This was the agency directly responsible for virtually every aspect of vaccine safety. And we asked them to do this, among other things, please advise whether HHS intends. because up to that point, and now it still hasn't been done, to forthwith conduct adequately powered and controlled perspective as well as retrospective studies comparing total health outcomes of fully, partially vaccinated with completely unvaccinated children. They still have not done this. We're getting these milk toast studies. They're whitewashing the studies. They're excluding kids, less than two well child visits. But as it turns out, other people have independent doctors,

independent scientists, pediatricians are doing the studies. And this is a lot of what we found that same year 2017 we have anthony mosen has done this study it was a pilot comparative study of the health of unvaccinated and unvaccinated six to 12 year old children so these were about over 600 homeschool kids they asked their parents to complete an anonymous questionnaire and they looked at the questions respect pregnancy related factors birth history vaccination vaccination um schedule physician diagnosis of illnesses and so on and so forth and And this is what they found. This is their results. Vaccinated children were significantly more likely than the unvaccinated to have been diagnosed

with the following. Allergic rhinitis 10.4% other allergies, 22.2%. Exema, atopic dermatitis, 9.5%. A learning disability, 5.7%, ADHD, 4.7%. ASD Autism Spectrum Disorder, 4.7%. Any neurodevelopmental disorder, meaning learning disability, ADHD or ASD, 10.5%. And finally, any chronic illness, 44% compared to 25% in the unvaccinated. These are shocking numbers that, of course, that study was attacked. But we do have pediatrician Paul Thomas from Oregon. Now, he went out in 2020. He did a study in-house at his own practice with his own patients

that were born into his practice. And we have this clip in our vaccinated series. Take a look at this. In 2008, Dell, I left my group practice and started Integrative Pediatrics. And about a thousand patients joined me. We grew that practice to over 15,000 active patients over a matter of just a few years. And it was in around the time, oh, 2016, I wrote the vaccine friendly plan. That's when I created the data set that became the publication published in a peer review journal, this Vax-un-Vaxed study that's based on real-world data of over three

thousand patients all every single patient born into my practice from the day i opened my door to the day we closed this data set was included no exclusions like you see done by the pharma studies that right cherry pick who they're going to look at this is every single patient born into the practice i was a pro vaccine doctor trained mainstream and when i started hearing patients telling me and i started seeing it for myself all these medical chronic conditions that are clearly more prevalent in the highly vaccinated i thought wow, how do we ever get the world to see what I'm seeing? And what we did to really make sure we were comparing apples to apples was there were 500 and some unvaccinated, no vaccines at all. We age matched those 500 to 500 vaccinated kids. Now, realize these are variably vaccinated. They're

not CDC scheduled vaccinated kids. Actually, some wise person, it might have been you. I forget who said, why don't you do a quality assurance analysis of your data? I thought, yeah, Why don't I? I mean, in medicine, if you do an intervention, like any change to what's normally being done, a really ethical thing to do is to look at the outcome of that intervention. So that's what we did. On November 23rd, 2020, we published this study in a peer-reviewed journal in Dell. It was rigorously peer-reviewed. It took months to get it through that process. But the data that you shared, it's there. It's powerful. Even in a lighter vaccine schedule, you see this dramatic difference and all of these illnesses in just those that had this lighter vaccine schedule compared to those that didn't get the vaccines at all.

For eye infections, way up in the vaccinated ear infections, throat infections, allergies, and then you go on down for lung infections, take it to the whole body, ADD, ADHD, anemia, all significantly increased. I mean, the curves are just astounding. You'll see on the summary, the orange curve for those with vaccines just goes up and up and up over the years and it's almost flatline for the unvaxed. My unvaxed were never ill, but to see it in a peer-reviewed, rigorously reviewed journal article, the data which was blinded and then reviewed and brought to the public speaks for itself. I'm really glad you, you know, decided to show that video again because look what we're talking about. Dr. Paul Thomas has his medical

license under review for having done this study. Of course, we're talking about asthma, just one of the issues in that study, but it's what we've seen. I've looked at many of these studies, some that are in development right now that we're hoping will be released. And every time asthma is one of these, it's sort of like you can pin the whole problem there, but it exists in all these other, you know, autoimmune and neurological disorders we've talked about. So how is it? Is it possible that he got it exactly right with asthma, but not on the rest of his study? No. What, de Stefano, and I don't know how this paper, I mean, do we have any idea how this got out? It doesn't see. like something they would normally put out. I wonder if he was working on it and

somebody just leaked it out and he's stuck you know de stepheno being the he I'm talking about stuck having to deal with it but what it's showing us is even when you whitewashed the hell out of a study which is what the stephano tried to do kick off every healthy unvaccinated kid you can even when you compare lightly vaccinated to more more vaccinated they see a direct correlation and almost moving towards causation of this of aluminum vaccines and your health in asthma and, you know, eczema. What happens if they do the same study looking at neurological disorders in autism?

I truly think, however, whatever this came out, maybe DiStefano has found Jesus and has decided to come clean, but it certainly is a spectacular moment, and it's coming from the CDC saying exactly what we've been being accused of as being misinformation on the high wire. Now it's coming from the CDC itself. Absolutely, absolutely. And during that video, Del, I was contacted by the attorneys at the Informant Action Network, and it was brought to my attention that ICANN has sent an official cease and desist letter, just backing up to the top when we were talking about the travel restrictions coming into the United States to Rochelle Walinsky and to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Commissioner to end presidential proclamation 10294, which is keeping unvaccinated people or not fully vaccinated people out of our country. So this is now in the mail, and it's directed at those two officials. So we're hoping to get some movement there. It just goes to show you how live we actually are when our lawyers are contacting our lead reporter here, Jeffrey Jackson, in the middle of a piece saying, hey, make sure you let everyone know we're going after this travel restriction here in America. Jeffrey, great reporting, brilliant. Man, oh, how.

A couple years, the times have changed. The years are totally different discussions. and we were having five, six years ago. And I think you have a great part to doing that. Thank you so much for your work. Thank you, Del.