The Highwire with Del Bigtree - Episode 320: THOUGHT POLICE

Episode Date: May 19, 2023

Missouri vs Biden is the Biggest Censorship Collusion Case in America, with implications sweeping across the private and public sectors, and Almost No One is Covering it; Jefferey Jaxen reports on Elon Musk’s new Twitter CEO, Biden’s New Head of NIH; ICAN Scores Another Major Victory Against Pfizer and Moderna; Ireland’s New “Hate Offences Bill” is Disturbingly Draconian. Are The Irish Pushing Back? Guests: Tracy Beanz, Aaron Siri, Esq., David Thunder, Ph.D.Become 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 I Can 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. Well, have you been watching the high wire for some time? You know that we really started this program out using social media. This was a show that was placed out on Facebook and YouTube, and that's where we built our audience. But as things started to change, the climate around free speech was shifting, we recognized that our days were numbered, and we started telling all of you,

you need to come over to our website thehighwire.com in order to watch this show. At least know it's there in case we are ever cut short. Eventually we were. Within just about a month or two, we lost both of our YouTube and our Facebook channels. Lots of media. We're celebrating the fact that we had been silenced, which was a very interesting thing coming from media. Well, at the heart of this is really this conversation. What is free speech?

What are our First Amendment rights in the United States of America? and what power should the government use against people that they think are spreading misinformation? Is that really even something that should be in the hands of the government? What is misinformation? All of this is the heart of maybe one of the most important lawsuits in the history of the United States of America, especially as we think about all these things hanging the balance. Sure, social media is placing the world in a place that maybe our forefathers never thought about. Has news actually changed?

Well, this is the heart of this lawsuit, and it's Missouri against the Biden administration. This is what that has looked like in the news over the last year. The states of Missouri and Louisiana have just filed a lawsuit against the administration for colluding with big tech to censor speech. Since taking office, President Biden and his team have labored to suppress viewpoints with which they disagree. And in doing so, they have infringed upon the individual freedoms of millions of Americans. Jen Saki's admitted this that they're working directly with Facebook, for example, to flag particular posts that they want to label as disinformation and working directly with them to get that stuff taken down. The real misinformation operation was run by our government with big media, with big tech, to keep information from us, from the American people. We know it's the laptop from hell. We know it's the origins of COVID. We know it's the ineffectiveness of mass.

We know all of these things that they've been working with them on, and this lawsuit will help bring those to light and expose it, and that's why it's an important case. You start messing with the public square and trying to decide what's true. You are undermining the very process, the only process that we have to find truth. An individual has a right to determine what's best for themselves. The government does not get to make that decision for them. Tracy Beans is a contributing editor to Thehighwire.com, but she has been using independent media to stand. on top of the story in her investigations and follow, you know, what has really been going on here. We reached out to her to say, we really want to be brought up to speed on what is going on in this case.

So it's my honor and pleasure to be joined right now by Tracy Beans. Tracy, thank you for joining us today. Glad to be here, Del. This case is definitely a doozy. It has been wildly successful thus far. And, you know, we're excited because next week there's a hearing in Louisiana in the court to see if the, judge will grant a temporary injunction stopping the government from colluding with social media companies and also working through non-governmental organizations to stifle American speech on social media.

Wow, when you say wildly successful, how do you determine something successful? We haven't reached any conclusion. So what's happening in the case that gives you that impression that there's success? Well, firstly, Louisiana and Missouri asked for expedited discovery to be able to get to the temporary injunction phase. And I'm sure that if you speak with any attorney, when you're looking for expedited discovery of high level government officials and government offices, typically it's not granted. It was granted to them in this case in a limited fashion, but it was limited to major bureaucracies within the United States government. In addition, depositions of major figures within the government at a very high level were granted as well. And that's where we got the

deposition of Anthony Fauci, where he lied to the attorneys conducting the deposition, no less than 127 times. And that was corroborated in another filing afterwards. So they were, they've been basically racking up wins at every level with this case. It started with the actual judge. The government freaked out obviously because they don't want to be held accountable or have to show anything and they appealed it and the appeals court upheld what they were asking for. And even a judge as far away as Virginia in Jen Saki's district kicked the case back to Louisiana

saying, what are you doing here? And why are you asking me these questions? This isn't my jurisdiction and I'm not going to run cover for you, basically. And so they've really had nowhere to turn. They've been backed into a corner. So who are really, I guess, the defendants in this case? Is it just, you know, President Biden or is there a list of culprits involved in this, you know, scheme by the government? It's a long list of culprits involved in this scheme.

You know, the office of the White House is involved. SISA is involved. The NIH is involved. the CDC is involved, all of these major organizations that have been censoring people on social media who are trying to get information out about any topic. And you asked, you know, who defines what disinformation is or misinformation is? And I'd say the government defines truth as misinformation every single time. And that's what we've seen. We've seen that every single time about whether it's about vaccines, whether it's about the origins of COVID, the efficacy of masks. It's always

been the same thing. Yeah, I mean, it's really incredible. We look back at the entire pandemic. experience, you know, what we now know, or what most people now know, the high wire has actually been, you know, we're really proud of our record on how we reported on this and how the science we were looking at held up, but we were deemed as misinformation the entire time, yet all of the things that we were saying, and some of it we're going to cover today, has held up through time. Almost none of those things that were being stated by our government held up, not social distancing, not lockdowns. We now know that lockdowns were something that the, you know, the WHO had always said we should never do.

We know that masks never worked, never proved to work, knew that didn't work beforehand. And then after really looking retrospectively now we know through science, you know, great studies in the Cochran collaboration showing that they had absolutely no effect. And so how is the government, when you look at this now, I mean, it's almost, I mean, it's dystopian in the idea that most of us are like the lead character in these stories we grew up with, shaking our heads like, how is it that? that the people that are actually doing the lying are the ones that are trying to control what the idea of truth is. It's even worse than that, Dell. Like, one of the most significantly disturbing things

that came out of this discovery for me was seeing how there was an argument back and forth between the White House and Facebook about people who have been suffering from vaccine injury. And Facebook was fighting back a little bit against the government who wanted all of their stories just completely removed and the users banned from using Facebook.

And Facebook said, actually, you know, people are telling us it's, for their mental health, we need to let them say these things. They're also true. We can't debunk them and say that they're false. So we can't, you know, ban them under that rule. So we're going to let them say what they want to say, but we're not going to let anyone see it. So they can say what they want, but we'll make sure no one sees it.

And then we'll also start getting rid of some of these groups where they're gathering to share this information amongst themselves. And that's where for me it takes a step from just our free speech rights into affecting the health and well-being of millions and millions of people all across the world and in the United States, being able to share their thoughts, their experiences, their adverse reactions to what has now turned out to be an absolutely catastrophic gene therapy, in my opinion. We have one of those email interactions. Let's take a look at this now that's inside the case. The email where Flarity from the White House is writing back and forth to Facebook

talking about what they're going to do. They're outlining the policy. directives they're going to take and how they're going to tackle vaccine hesitancy. I'm going to read it here. I got it right in front of me, Tracy. Levers for tackling vaccine hesitancy content. As you know, in addition to removing vaccine misinformation, we've been focused on reducing the virality of content discouraging vaccines that does not contain actionable misinformation. This is often true content, which we allow at the post level because experts have advised us that it is important for people to be able to discuss both their personal experience and concerns about the vaccine, but it can be framed as sensational alarmist or shocking.

We'll remove these groups, pages, and accounts when they are disproportionately promoting this sensationalized content. More on this front as we proceed to implement. I mean, it's amazing that idea, right? It's true, and as you said, we don't want to mess with their psyche on this, so let them think that they're getting to talk to the public. We'll just, you know, basically shadow ban it. It's not the term they're using, but we're going to make sure that nobody else sees.

it. And, you know, I know that everyone doesn't want to make this comparison to Nazi Germany and things, but I just think about in that time, when we think about it, we're going to think about the slippery slope into a regime that starts trying to control the entire narrative, when we think about, you know what, there's a concentration camp down the road that I want to report on, and somebody says, well, it is true, but it's alarming to be talking about that. Therefore, we're going to make sure that nobody can hear it. Now, I'm not saying that these are exactly matched up, but this is the direction it feels like things are heading. And even if you have an altruistic government and is, you know, is maybe looking at things, do we really want them to have

that level of power? Because what happens if we ever get a corrupted official in office? If we don't already have one, I'm trying to be as objective as possible. But this is what I've said to my friends, Tracy, that, you know, that I talk to that maybe are pro-Biden or whatever. I said, okay, I know you have a big issue with Donald Trump. You think he's terrifying. You think he's the end. end of the world. Well, he might just get reelected. How would you like these powers in his hands? I mean, I think part of what we need to look at is turning the tables. We all have somebody we think would be the worst president in the United States. And what happens if that person has this level of control? This is where we should all be coming together and why I don't understand how this has

become so partisan. It's by design so that they can accomplish, you know, what they're looking to accomplish. Look, Del, Sissa, they've designated your thoughts as part of critical infrastructure. Okay? That means that they consider your thoughts and what you type and put on social media to be part of the United States critical infrastructure. Sisa is an organization that was started by, or a bureaucracy that was started by Donald Trump and his presidency. This is a nonpartisan issue. It comes to the fundamentals of our rights as Americans granted to us by our creator, not by a man. and we all deserve to have them, even if we disagree with each other. That's what makes beautiful ideas flourish, not the opposite.

Yeah, you're absolutely right. I think we have another sort of the email exchanges where the government official is reaching out to, is it Twitter and the social media companies? Can we take a look at that? Here we go. This is the one we're talking about from Flaherty. And this is what he says. And as far as your removal of claims, do you have data on the actual number of claims related

to post you've removed. Do you have a sense of how many are being flagged versus how many are being removed? Are there actions, downranking, et cetera, that sit before removal? How are you handling things that are dubious, but not provably false? I mean, what business is it

for the government to even be asking these questions? This is a private social media, free space of conversation and thought. They have zero authority, or they shouldn't have any inclination to be working as part of the trust and safety team at the social media companies, which is what Flaherty was doing. You know, this is an egregious, an egregious abuse of power from the government.

And it gets worse and worse as you dig into what was released so far, which is why this judge in this case is not having any of the nonsense. They basically, when the government responded to all of this after Missouri laid it out in the suit, they said, we are trying to keep Americans safe. And that's what's at the root of all this nonsense. That is absolute nonsense. Everybody with a brain in their heads knows it. And so does the judge, and so does the appeals court, apparently.

So we're going to go to next week and see if the judge puts the hammer down in this as we continue on to the full trial. You know, sometimes it cuts most ways. I think we have an email from Flaherty pissed off about something that's happened. Let's take a look at this. Are you guys effing serious? Flaherty exploded? I want an answer on what happened here and I want it today. A few weeks later, Flerity got his answer.

apparently after months of harringing by White House officials, Matt of the parent corporation of Facebook and Instagram ramped up at censorship of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Instagram deployed an algorithm that used posting far above normal vaccine-related content as a proxy for promoting vaccine hesitancy. So I think this is all about that Biden himself got censored because they had set the parameters so high that however he had put out his information, it got censored. This is how Matt is getting.

You've set a bunch of watchdogs out, Now those watchdogs are ravenous and attacking everything in sight. Yeah, this was an AI algorithm that got Biden and he sure wasn't happy about it. You know, they're also dealt. They're extending this into encrypted chat programs too. They were badgering Facebook's WhatsApp to censor in their encrypted chats. That's akin to somebody stepping into your living room between you and your husband or wife or partner and saying, you guys can't be having this conversation right now. It's really getting out of control.

And yeah, Biden was swept up in his own censorship net. Oh, bummer. Stinks to be him. I guess he knows how it feels now. But that was reversed really quickly. Those of us, like myself and you, who have been, you know, stripped of their ability to deliver valid information to the American people. Don't have anywhere to go to get that back. We don't have anywhere to go.

We can just keep forging ahead and hope that we attract people to platforms that are safe and free for us to speak. You know, I had a really great, a good friend of mine made such an interesting point this week. It says it's incredible the world we live in right now. We're being told that as adults, we are incapable of deciphering between, you know, different pieces of information, what's right, what's wrong, how we should move forward with our lives. When they're censoring everything, they want to just give us like one statement so we can handle it. Yet we're going to our children in third grade and presenting them that they may not actually be the sex that they were born into, and they're perfectly capable of handling these conversations.

So our children are being handled with, you know, an incredible amount of information and thinking that they can handle it, vaccinating themselves, what they should be doing, you know, outside of parental, you know, a vision or thought. But as adults now, we're a bunch of morons that are incapable of making any decisions and we've just got to be led on a leash wherever we're supposed to go. I mean, this attitude by our government, looking at us as citizens,

it just seems like exactly what our founding fathers warned us about, that you need to keep this government in control or it will eventually take you over. you know, when I look at the age, really, of those in making policies, I remember when, you know, Zuckerberg was before the Senate and talking to these people, and I just thought, you know, these people are from a totally different age, no concept, really, of the power of social media. Most of them admitted they barely know how to use an email. How dangerous is it that they are so out of touch with the power of what social media is, the fact that it is now the future of all media and news. And, you know, they're making decisions that could alter our freedom forever. You know, it's interesting that you bring that up because as this lawsuit progresses, if you remember the TikTok bill came out several weeks ago, the restrict bill.

It was maybe a month and a half, two months ago. And if you look inside that bill, it was not about restricting TikTok. That bill was advanced to do what the government's already doing without telling us. us under the guise of approval from Congress. And it was basically a shadow of what they're already doing that Missouri v. Biden is suing for. So they're looking to usher this in no matter what. And even if Congress doesn't understand the power of social media, which I think they do to some extent, the bureaucracies and the people who are kind of drunk with power do understand the power of it, which is why they're trying to silence those of us that are speaking truth.

So when we look at this now, you said you have a good feeling about the direction that this is going. So let's just talk about just very quickly, if this were to lose, if they are to get away with all that they've done, what do you think that spells out for the future of the First Amendment in the United States of America? If they lose, this suit is going to the Supreme Court. Yeah. And you think the Supreme Court will stand up? I mean, you obviously have faith that this is so egregious then that there's no way that they're going to get away with? with this i i don't have faith in our system generally i have faith in the progress that this lawsuit has made and the way the judges have handled it so i i really do feel very confident like for example

just yesterday the judge denied the government asking for a delay in this hearing and said no no more delays we're going right to trial on this i'm going to be there in the courtroom to cover that um and you know it's just it's it's it's too egregious it's too overwhelming the evidence is too you know out there it's it's really something if you take the time to read it, they can't. They can't hide it. So what is the relief that they're seeking? So if they win this lawsuit, what will be, you know, the result of that and how will it affect our lives? So it's a class action now. It was granted. They made a motion to amend the complaint to become a class action. So it encompasses basically everybody in the United States at this point. And the remedy is you're not allowed to collaborate with social media

companies to guide, coerce, threaten, or anything like that in terms of what they take in terms of policy and censorship and things of that nature moving forward. So it would stop the government from having the FBI embedded at Twitter and Facebook. It would stop the government from working through companies like the election integrity partnership in Stanford InfraNet Observatory to mess with elections and have SISA running, you know, operations. into social media companies with problem tickets that they need removed. It'll stop the CDC from working directly with social media companies or through a non-governmental organization to stop people from talking about their experiences

after medical procedures. And a lot of people say to me, Del, well, what happened? They're just not going to listen to it. And I say, well, then we're in a much worse spot than we even imagine if a government is going to just blatantly ignore a court order and decision. That's a much different animal we can discuss at the time. That's a really great point. Will there be any repercussions you think for those individuals that have been cited in this case as having been a part of this sort of authoritarian regime?

It's the government as a whole. It's not an individual party. So it's the offices. The only way I see like penalty is if people like me who had loss of income, loss of reputation, you could say and other things, Sue after this verdict saying, I was harmed by this. And here's demonstrably how. Pay me. That's where the harm's really going to come in. You know, I mean, even though it's really, we've been through dark times, and in some ways, I'm glad it was so dark. I'm glad it was so incredibly egregious. Because it appears to me that as we come out of this, more people are waking up, and the Constitution of the United States is being fortified, not broken down. There's an attack on our Constitution. But I think we're more aware of that Constitution and its power now more than ever. and we're seeing the walls of it being, you know, cleaned and resemented and re-grouted so that it can stand up, you know, for future generations.

There's obviously a lot of work to do, but this really is a very, very important case in my mind. Agreed. I agree with you. I've been covering it for over a year. I've been obsessed about it for over a year because it really is the most important civil liberties lawsuit of our lifetimes, honestly. It doesn't matter your color, your religion, your creed, your political persuasion. This affects you. it's being litigated in United States courts. So it's a good thing. All right. Amazing reporting Tracy Beans. I'm looking forward to sitting with you. We're going to be, you know, overseeing the red carpet event for Plandemic 3 is the stars and superstars that have really made a difference in our world are parading on the red carpet for that premiere events happening in two weeks.

Go to Plandemic3.com if you want to sign up and be a part of that historic event. Tracy Beans, keep up the great work and keep us informed. And thank you for helping us. us on the highwire.com. Love all that you're doing for us. It's my honor. Thanks, Del. Have a great one. All right. Take care. All right, there's a theme to this show, right? Government overreach, government lying censorship, all those things that are going on. They're literally, you know, we have watched an attack on the Constitution of the United States. And by the way, it is in that way, you know, nonpartisan. Donald Trump let this country get locked down. Biden continued on with it. So I'm not even choosing sides. What I'm wondering is how we ever got in.

this position. But when we look at the focus, you know, work that we've done at the high where and I can, at the forefront of that is our lawyer, Aaron Siri. He's had another major victory last week when it comes to both the Pfizer data that FDA was trying to hide for 75 years and now the Moderna data. I'm going to be talking to him. And then a really terrifying law that goes beyond just talking about, you know, censorship of what's out there. But what if they can censor what you're thinking. What if they can kick in your door? This is a law that it looks like it's about to pass in Ireland, which has also been a test ground space for authoritarianism for the World Economic Forum. I'm going to be talking to David Thunder, who's been reporting on this quite extensively.

But first, it's time for the Jackson Report. All right, Jeffrey, these are incredible times, you know, and I think that these are the incredible times that somehow miraculously our founding forefathers were predicting what happened. And we find. We find ourselves in those moments where I think as American citizens and as beacons of light and hope for the world, look, if we fail at this idea of liberty and freedom, so where the will, so goes the world. So a lot of that is what is really being decided in decisions that are being made right now. Yeah, I do believe so as well. And there's these ebbs and these flows and there's just small windows because things are moving very fast right now.

One of those windows right now is Twitter, and that is really at the forefront. And it's the largest social media company right now that has somewhat of a free open platform for people to disseminate ideas, open debate. And it's revolutionizing the news industry and the generation of this information technology age that we're in. And Elon Musk's got the head of that. It's $44 billion takeover of Twitter. Obviously, he made a lot of headlines.

But he did something really interesting shortly after the takeover. In December of 2022, he put up a poll on his Twitter. And this is what it looked like. He asked this, should I step down as head of Twitter? I will abide by the results of this poll. Well, 57.5% said yes. And you can see there, over 363 million eyes were on that poll. So that just gives you an idea about what type of influence this platform has.

So it took Musk about five months to find a replacement. And this is in the media now, his replacement. We'll go back to Twitter to look at that. He posted this on Twitter just recently. He says this, I'm excited to welcome Linda Yakiyake. as the new CEO of Twitter, Linda at Linda Yock, will focus primarily on business operations while I focus on product design and new technology, looking forward to working with Linda to transform this platform into X, the everything app. Linda in turn responded by saying, thank you, Elon Musk.

I've long been inspired by your vision to create a brighter future. I'm excited to help bring this vision to Twitter and transform this business together. Now, who is this woman? She has been the head of advertising at NBC Universal since 2011. During that time, during her tenure there, she generated more than $100 billion in ad sales. So you can see why Musk is choosing on that front to bring her in. Twitter needs money. Twitter needs ad sales. It needs to generate revenue. And it says so in this article here, it says Twitter's new CEO, Linda the Yaccarino, has a fearsome to-do list. In the article, it lists a couple of those, which is win back corporations and celebs, play nice with advertisers, and get profitable.

So that's obviously on his mind in bringing this woman in to head as the CEO. But what's interesting is they just had an exchange at a public conference of high-level advertisers just a couple months ago. And this is what it looked like. Take a listen. It's very telling. So after 3 a.m., you travel all over the world. Lord knows how you handle time zones in space.

Will you commit to be a little more specific and not tweet after 3 a.m.? People in this room would like to see that. They'll make them feel more confident. I will aspire to tweet less after 3 a.m. But I mean, it is important that, you know, I mean, if I would say, yes, you can influence me, that would be wrong. That would be very wrong. That would be a diminishment of freedom of speech.

But I want to be specific about influencing. more of an open feedback loop for the advertising experts in this room to help develop Twitter into a place where they will be excited about investing more money, product development, ad safety, content moderation, that's what the influence is. Yeah, I think it's totally cool to say that you want to have your advertising appear in certain places in Twitter and not in other places. But it is not cool to try to say what Twitter will do. And if that means losing advertising dollars, we lose it.

But freedom of speech is paramount. Wow. That was before she was chosen to be the CEO. So you can see how her messaging, she's saying, can we influence basically your speech? Can we have some content moderation, these soft kind of buzzwords. But at the bottom line here, we're talking about limiting speech, limiting information that's on Twitter. You know, watching that, Jeffrey, it reminds me of that, you know,

fable, I guess you would call it, with the frog and the scorpion. The scorpion wants to get across the river and says, we give me a ride because I'm afraid you'll stay in me. No, I won't. You know, I got to get across the river. Then the middle of the river, the scorpion stings, and they both drown, the frog says, what are you doing? It says, I'm sorry, it's my nature.

I just, I don't know. I mean, just looking at that, you can tell. First of all, I want to just take a moment to make this point. Folks, this is why I tell you at the top of every show, we have no sponsors on this show. When she says, we want to be friendly with the advertisers. We need to have the advertisers design what will make Twitter exciting. What makes Twitter exciting is human beings and conversation and truth, not what we're being advertised with. And by the way, it is the sponsors that creates the censorship.

It's the sponsors that decide, well, we're not paying if you talk about this. And do you not think pharma is going to be one of the biggest sponsors in there? Once again, controlling Twitter the same way it controls all of our news agencies? I mean, this is absolutely insane that this is even the conversation we're having. But this is why I'm telling you, the only way we can do what we're doing here on the high wire is by your help, by your sponsorship. You are our sponsors. If we decided that in order to do more legal work or do more of the things

that are helping change this world. We're just going to bring in a couple of vitamin companies. You know what? Maybe a water purification company. Oh, but wait a minute. The vitamin company doesn't want me talking about Ivermectin. And the water purification company, you know, doesn't want me talking about, you know,

the crystal clear water coming from my well or anything like that. Or, you know, all of these different things, they're going to weigh in. That's what sponsors do. I don't want to be next to that story. And now all of a sudden you're going down this slippery slope that ends in complete and total. censorship and nothing is exciting about it. So if you want to keep the high wire exciting,

if you want to keep us being allowed to even talk about the legal cases that are coming up right after Jeffrey Jackson, will you please become a recurring donor right now? Just go to the top of the screen, just hit Donate to ICANN. I want to stop the total control of language and censorship and my First Amendment rights by supporting the highwire. Not only are we allowed to speak and tell you what was happening when everyone else got it wrong. We're looking for $23 a month for $20, Not only we're telling you what they got wrong, we are suing and going to court to drive these things to protect our First Amendment rights, to protect our body integrity. It is so important and there's so much to do. You cannot tell that we are under massive attack right now, but we're winning.

You want to bet on the winning team? Bet on I can right now and please become a recurring donor. We plan on helping you change our world. All right, let's get back to this crazy story. It's so depressing because I had so much hope for Twitter and for Elon Musk. And I still believe as he's sitting there, I think he feels like somehow Twitter's going to survive this. I just don't see how. Tell me more about this.

Great choice he's made. Right. And perhaps he sees a middle road here. That's what his messaging would indicate. But, you know, also in that interview, Yaccarino asked if Musk would bring back at Twitter's influence council, which Twitter kind of 1.0 before Musk had and was kind of kicked out of there when Musk came in. And he gave a similar answer, not really committing to it. But you can see, I mean, it's really fascinating and helpful for the public to have that open debate for them to watch that debate as opposed

behind closed doors. But let's look at her a little further now. Let's look at some of her other things she's pushed for. So this is another article covering it. Who is Linda Yaccarino, new Twitter CEO, CBS News. In there, it says this, as chair of the, The Ad Council, a nonprofit that promotes public service announcement, she garnered support from various entities, including the White House to design a vaccination campaign featuring Pope Francis that reached more than 200 million Americans. What was that? That was for the COVID vaccine. And if you remember, here's some of the articles and the headlines at the time of that ad campaign is really the biggest campaign since polio. Ad Council Spearhead's $50 million education effort for COVID-19 vaccines.

Here's another one. Ad Council's challenge, persuade skeptics to believe in COVID vaccines. forget about the science we need persuasion she was a part of that she was on the board of the ad council but now you know okay so she's she's tried to get people to mask up so we can get back to normal she's behind the ad council to push the COVID vaccine great but she's in twitter now she's in the business end can she optimize this platform what does she think about the dissemination of this information in the news well this is her in 2018 at interestingly enough a world economic forum talk Take a listen to what she has to say about the news situation at that time.

I think the more complicated issue when it comes to fake news is that the younger generation really doesn't experience or consume news with the same filters that what I would call traditional news or older folks, maybe some of us up on this panel, were once raised, whether you had a news reporter or a news presenter, that you trusted and that you received your news from, those largely don't exist anymore. The younger generation does not differentiate. They're used to seeing someone's phone cam,

on site somewhere telling them what's going on, and they take that as real and news. So real news and education and discipline is very, very important. I mean, it's literally like the neanderthal's media trying to just cling to the relevance. We got to like just push social media back into what it was always supposed to be the media we can control, not the one we can't. And that's such a teachable clip right there because remember, that was 2018. So that was before COVID where I would argue the media and government health agencies lost the most amount of trust they've ever lost in such a short period of time. So she's saying young people don't have filters anymore.

And in her, there's no more trusted news anchors. Well, in her paradigm, within her paradigm of these legacy media companies, she's right. That doesn't exist anymore. And what happened was trust migrated, it open source, it decentralized to the people, if you will. So I would argue the young people do have filters that she argues they don't have. They just have filters of other people they trust that's outside these legacy medias. So, you know, another piece of this puzzle with Yaccarino is.

is part of her background. So if you go to her LinkedIn page under the organization she is a part of, you can see here, it says, World Economic Forum Executive Chair. And if you go down to that highlighted region down there, 2019, by the way, to present. She says, Yacarino is the chairman of the WF's Task Force

on Future of Work and Sits on the W.EF's media entertainment and culture industry, Governor's Steering Committee. She's also highly engaged with the value in media initiative. So, you know, arguably she, you know, She still is at the WEF and she's part of the steering the media culture out there as an influencer. How much sway does that have on her?

How much will Musk, you know, take her under the wing? Does she still believe in 2018 what she believed in that clip? So, you know, on Twitter, in true Twitter fashion, she was pushed by an activist. We've covered on the show before named Billboard Chris. And he put out a very, very long tweet with some of the issues. and he said she wanted advertising execs be part of an influence council. Basically, you can see here she's trying to push a woke ideology by limiting speech. That's a natural inclination.

Now it was seen by over 1.7 million people. And Elon Musk actually responded to that. He said this, I hear your concerns, but don't judge too early. I'm adamant about defending free speech, even if it means losing money. So this is where we're at right now. And Musk took to Twitter once again shortly after Yachterino was brought on as CEO. And he says this, as soon as Linda Yock is ready, we will do with spaces where you can ask us anything. And if people aren't familiar with that spaces, this is kind of an open, really just like an audio zoom call on Twitter that everyone can be a part of.

Obviously, everyone won't be able to ask a question. But I think at that point, you'll see at least there's an attempt for this open dialogue here. maybe you'll see some more transparency be shown on her position, what they're just, what they're trying to do on this. But everyone look out for that. If you want to be a part of this, get on that Twitter spaces. I think people should get to be a part of that, that may be the last moment of a free free speech that ever takes place on Twitter. I'm not hopeful at all. I mean, I just think you got to, you know, you judge a profit by their fruits. The fruits of this tree are horrid, they're rotten. There's nothing about it. That looks good to me. And I just want to say this. It's amazing. I think it was just a week ago or so that we were announcing that it looks like Tucker Carlson is looking to Twitter as a free space where he might be able to speak his truth. Tucker, I hate to say it, but I don't think that's going to last very long. So I'm just going to say this right now. Tucker, if that all falls apart and you give us a call. I have a bunch of donors out there right now that are signing up to make sure they're recurring donors so that we can offer you the deal of a century to keep speaking the truth. Anyone like that. I would love to be able to support.

And by the way, folks, one of the things we don't talk a lot about is all the technology we are currently building so that I've never, ever taken for granted that Twitter or any of these companies will be there for us, Facebook. We are continuing to work on technologies behind the scenes that we're going to be ramping in as they are ready so that we will always be a platform. And probably for more and more voices in the future, your donations make that possible for us. And it's really such an important story. Yeah, super exciting. and it's a rare moment right now for Twitter, and these things don't happen very often. So it'll be interesting to see what develops after that. And speaking of changes in leadership, Delo, we've covered this over the last couple weeks.

America's health agencies are in a major crisis. Just last week, we did a complete expose on Rochelle Wollinsky, the CDC director that will be stepping down within a couple weeks now. She announced that she's resigning. And this is what one of the headlines was mentioning. it wasn't it wasn't something that was planned cdc had resigned blindsiding many health officials so she is gone she got out of there but now let's talk about the fda the fda is also seen it's it's many issues and it has been struggling as well and remember in 2021 in january 2021 stephen

han resigned his fda commissioner he was kind of the the fda commissioner that sat under trump at that time and biden the biden did not elect because the president has to basically say, I want this, I want to appoint this person and then they go through a process to get appointed. President Biden did not do that for almost one year. So we really had a go ship of an FDA with substitute teacher and Janet Woodcock, if you will. And these are the headlines during that time. There was really, it was really getting pointed out. People are going, look, we're in the middle of a pandemic response here. Can we get some leadership? This is in August of 2021. Biden struggles to find a permanent FDA chief as agency nears approval of COVID-19 vaccine.

And then finally, they had Robert Caliph jump in there. We've reported on him before, but this is November of 2021. And remember, Caliph represented a mixture, really this, in my opinion, dangerous mixture of big pharma revolving door influence and big tech revolving door influence because he worked at Google in their health department. So you have this merger of this. And of course, what does he talk about as soon as he gets in there as we're reported? How can we really mandate censor speech a little bit more using AI?

Because that would be great. So this is the headline on November of 2021. President Biden nominated a new FDA head. Finally, that's Time Magazine. And it said Biden left the position open for nearly maximum time allowable by law. He had until November 15th to appoint a new commissioner, which some experts, medical experts say, have not helped public confidence in the agency's decision in the meanwhile. How many times have we read that?

you know, it's not the whatever anti-vax or misinformation people that are causing this lack of integrity. It's the agency's own actions, by their own design that people are not trusting them. And just really quickly, before we get to the really main point of this story, what happened during that timeframe when there was really no leadership within the FDA? Well, we had the EUA for Johnson and Johnson's COVID vaccine was pushed through. We had Pfizer's, the EUA for their vaccine extended to 12 to 15 year olds and also five to 11 year olds. We had the booster shots added, which saw two head officials leave. And then the agency muddled through the data on myocarditis on Guillambore syndrome,

thrombocytopinia for these COVID-19 vaccines, where they could have pulled them. They could have limited them in age groups that they were seeing this. And instead, they just updated the patient provider sheet and said with an asterisk, oh, by the way, it causes this a little bit while other countries were pulling them. And they lost their two heads stepped down during that booster push in 2021. Two top FDA vaccine regulators are set to depart during a crucial period. So it was a complete meltdown at that agency. That's Mary Gruber and Philip Cruz.

Those were the two heads no longer working there anymore. And so now we look to the headlines coming from the BMJ that are looking like this. And really rightfully so, the decline of science at the FDA has become unmanageable. And it says in there to amazing our article, the corruption of the FDA's scientific culture remains the primary culprit driving the deterioration of safety and effectiveness standards. Now let's go to the National Institutes of Health, NIH. So as we know, we had Dr. Francis Collins at the head. He stepped down after over a decade of tenure there. This was the headline that's CBS News. And at the time, you know, most of these health officials

that reign during this pandemic response have seen their career. careers tarnished because everyone fell in line with mandated medicine, mandated masks, lockdowns, and Collins is no different. This was really, this headline is, in my opinion, his legacy because he shut down the scientific debate. At a time when the U.S. needed COVID-19 dialogue between scientists, Francis Collins moved to shut it down. Of course, he's talking about when he and Fauci colluded to really create a devastating takedown of the premise of the Great Barrington Declaration of his authors. And that has proven historically damaging to America. But now we have the NIH with new leadership. So Biden has appointed a new leader. Here's the headline Biden Taps Cancer

Director Monica Bergenoli to lead NIH team. That's from the Hill. And if you're looking at regular reporting here, you're basically seeing the same regurgitated headlines. But we go to Substack here. The dossier reported this. Biden's new NIH director, who was selected by Fauci received $290 million in grant funding from Pfizer. We go into the article. It says that the Daily Signal, a project of the Heritage Foundation, reported that from 2015 through 2021, she received more than 116 grants from Pfizer, totaling $290.8 million, making up 89% of a research grant. It goes on to say, Anthony Fauci told the Washington Post that he personally advocated for her selection as the next NIH director.

Bergenoli has also received $17.4 million in grant funding from Jansen Research and Development LLC, a subsidiary of Johnson and Johnson. So let's back up for a second, Dell. We have the NIH. It's more than $40 billion in funding. It's the largest single public funder of biomedical research in the world. And we have basically a cancer expert sitting at the head of that who is heavily, heavily influenced by Pfizer, if you will. Well, running parallel to these headlines are also these headlines.

We're looking for kind of the next step in the pharmaceutical industry, look no further. Pfizer pouring COVID profits into cancer battle, CEO Borla says. Pouring profits into the cancer situation they may have just created. I mean, talk about, you know, a conveyor belt right now. I mean, outrageous. It's really, it's really concerning, to say the least. And, you know, this is how fast it's moving. This is the times of Israel, scientists behind Pfizer vaccine,

MRI shots for cancer coming in couple of years. Moderna, same thing, jumping on this bandwagon. This is investors. Moderna's revolutionary cancer vaccine sets investors a buzz. So there's a lot, I mean, this story has a lot of offshoots on it. And like you said, one of the biggest glaring issues is this rise in cancer we've seen after, really after the rollout of the COVID vaccine. So a lot of the media says, well, it's because the,

the hospitals were shut down and people really weren't getting their cancer screenings, but it seems to extend beyond that. So let's... Well, I mean, I just want to say, you know, when we look at this, this literally is the definition of the swamp. What you're watching is how we create swamp creatures. You're taking regulatory agencies and scientific bodies inside of our government. You're putting a Pfizer executive, basically, you know, worked the tunes of hunt, moved hundreds of millions of dollars for Pfizer and Johnson and Johnson to companies that have been in. court have lost billion dollar lawsuits for killing people, knowing their products were dangerous,

and now they're going to be running the NIH. At some point, we need a candidate or a president out there that when they go in and say, I'm going to clean up the swamp, don't hire the people from the swamp, all right? That's what has to happen, or it won't matter what is going on here. And so, as we all look to the future, you know, we've got to be thinking about this. This is what is wrong with our government. You have no freedoms when you have the people that are deciding whether or not to censor you being from the social media companies making those decisions. We decided whether or not a product should be forced on humanity. You don't want the people that made it being the ones making those decisions. I mean, this is outrageous. It's happening

right before our eyes. And nobody should be voting for people that want to continue to hire corporations to run our government. And one of the things we do here at the highway is we continue to write history because it's trying to be gaslit by government officials by people like Justin Trudeau who we covered who was said, I never forced a vaccine in Canada as the prime minister, basically showing these things. So the next story we're going to talk about is to write a piece of the history concerning the pandemic of the unvaccinated. So just to just to remind people how bad it was because sometimes people try to forget because

it was a pretty interesting time we just went through. Forget how bad it was. Remember how hard they try to mandate the force this vaccine on the American people. Take a look. You are the unvaccinated. You are the problem. It is the unvaccinated who are the problem, period, end of story. The only people that you can blame. The only people you can blame. This isn't shaming. This is the truth. Maybe they should be shamed or the unvaccinated. have to start blaming the unvaccinated folks, not the regular folks. Anyone you came into contact with will blame you, as will the rest of us who have done the right thing by getting vaccinated.

This vaccinated folks are going to start wearing masks to protect the unvaccinated folks. It's called a Christian value. People are not behaving honorably. The unvaccinated are basically saying, well, it's open season for me. I can do whatever I want as well. The unvaccinated are basically beating their breasts running around the country saying, we don't care, we're living free. The unvaccinated, a group that includes children and people acting like children.

And the rest of us are starting to get pissed off. We've been patient. But our patients is wearing thin. The anti-vaxers, they seem to have a thing for death and home remedies. The anti-maskers turned anti-vaxxers are not just putting their own lives at risk. If that was the issue, we could just say that we can watch. them compete to win place or show in the Darwin Award. The vaccinated feel the unvaccinated are making me upset or angry.

This is not about freedom or personal choice. Well, my freedom is being kind of disturbed here. No, screw your freedom. The other day Howard Stern weighed in with a much different approach. Take a look. When are we going to stop putting up with the idiots in this country and just say, you now, it's mandatory to get vaccinated. They're freedom.

Dr. Fauci said that if hospitals get any more overcrowded, they're going to have to make some very tough choices about who gets an ICU bet. And that choice doesn't seem so tough to me. Vaccinated person having a heart attack? Yes, come right on him. We'll take care of you. Unvaccinated guy who doubled horse goo. Rest in peace, wheezy.

Those who are not vaccinated will end up paying the price. The unvaccinated should be taxed. They should pay more for health care. We need to start looking at the choice to remain unvaccinated, the same as we look at. driving while intoxicated. We have to start doing things for the greater good of society and not for idiots who think that they can do their own research.

Because frankly, we know that we can't trust the unvaccinated. It's the unvaccinated for the threat. But you're treading on our freedom and you're making other people sick. And really, you're killing other people. You're basically punishing the vaccinated for the sins of the unvaccinated. Oh, you can't shame them.

You can't call them stupid. You can't call them still again. Yes, they are. Don't get me started. On the lunatics who won't take any of the COVID vaccines. Life is too short to be an ass. Literally, the only people die are the unvaccinated. And for those of you spreading misinformation, shame on you.

For all of you that avoided this vaccine, I am sorry for taking you through that. I'm sure it's PTSD. We got through it. For those of you that have joined us, I know there's millions of you that are watching now that realize it was a big mistake that you're lied to. But just take a moment to recognize those that stood up. against that because that was the assault on a 24 hour a day basis in every city virtually in the world that we had to put up with for proving to be right. We were right. The vaccine never stopped

transmission. It has only caused harms. It is one of the most disastrous products to ever be made. And everyone watching this show now knows this, whether you, you know, had to give into it or not. But let's take a moment. For those of us that did not go down that road, let's just remember what we were up against. That was an assault. That was an assault upon us, our intelligence, our integrity, our morality, our ethics, our families, our children, our businesses. But we have prevailed. Those were dark times. And our Constitution was trampled to mandate a vaccine that was rushed through safety testing, rushed to the market and put into people's arms with boosters. And one of the things that was a concern as we move on to this story,

framing it in that in that space was something that you talked about with dr ryan cole in 2021 and interestingly at the time he was talking about the rising cancers he was seeing these rapidly forming cancers you both covered a study at that time and this was showing Pfizer's vaccine the the bn t 162b2 the mRNA vaccine against SARS cov2 reprograms both adaptive and innate immune responses so what these researchers did was they took people that had two doses this vaccine and they stimulated, they externally stimulated their immune system, and they noticed something. This is what they wrote in this paper. They say, we observed a significant reduction in the production of interferon alpha, IFNA, secreted after stimulation with poly IAC and R848, after the administration of

the second dose of the vaccine. This may hamper the initial innate immune response against the virus. again, the actual virus that you're vaccinated against, as defects in tolite receptor 7 have been shown to result in the increased susceptibility to COVID-19 in young males. So they're saying it hamperes the immune system, it reprograms the immune system. Basically, they're saying it suppresses the immune system. And it suppresses it immediately. And it suppresses it, especially in young males, against COVID, the very thing that you're vaccinating against. And so enter at that time in the summer of 2021, we saw these headlines saying, it's is a pandemic of the unvaccinated. It's everywhere. 99% of people in the hospital dying from from COVID are unvaccinated. And at that time,

we really sniff this out really quickly. This is our reporting at that time on that subject. Take a look. This was presented at an ASIP meeting somewhat recently. And it says at the bottom, confidential preliminary data. But we're seeing in January, we have two colored lines. We have of the blue line, which is percent of in-hospital deaths who are fully vaccinated. Yeah. And the yellowish line, percentage of hospitalized who are fully vaccinated. We're seeing by May 15 percent, 15.1 percent of in-hospital deaths that these are hospitals that the CDC is monitoring.

Right. We're fully vaccinated. Now, remember, we're being told that this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated. Right. The 99% of the people packed in these emergency rooms and dying are unvaccinated. And this is May 15%. This was before Delta even took hold in July. That's the end of July, according to the CDC.

Wow, that's just alpha. They're having that failure with the vaccine and that issue. And by the way, when we look at those numbers, those also don't include. And something I'm going to, we're probably going to get into deeper next week because obviously I just want to sort of stay focused here. But we must remember when we look at these numbers, fully vaccinated means two weeks after the 14 days after the second shot. And what we're seeing in VERS and what we're seeing. in all the reports that the greatest amount of death and injury and illness from the vaccine or even getting infected is right inside that 14 days. There's something about your immune

system gets beat up and it's making people vulnerable. So everything happening there and that honestly from the first, you know, six weeks, first shot, second shot all the way to 14 days after your second shot, all of those people are being put in the unvaccinated category unfairly, especially when the vaccine clearly is creating a vulnerability. But when even when we look at their own numbers, everything to me, Jeffrey, says that we've been right. So, Del, you nailed it at the time. Are you about to tell me we were right? Unfortunately, yes.

And the data is pretty interesting to see. But, you know, so let's look at the CDC. So at the time, they actually have the definition on their own website of what fully vaccinated meant. And just like you said, it says here, this is for their travel mandate. It says fully vaccinated against COVID-19 means it has been. two weeks, 14 days, or more since a person's second dose in a two-dose series of an accepted COVID-19 vaccine. So now we have two things going on here. We have a vaccine that's being pushed and it only starts counting as a vaccine in the official records, whether it's for travel for medical records,

basically two weeks after your second dose in a two-dose series. So we have this study now. This is a new study. This was by Peter Abe, Dr. Christine Stable Ben or co-authors. It's in the journal, cell and it's titled randomized clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines, do adenovirus vector vaccines have beneficial non-specific effects? But in this study, it says this, in the principal findings, in the randomized controlled trials with the longest possible blinded follow-up, MRI vaccines had no effect on overall mortality despite protecting against some COVID-19 deaths. So you have two parts here. You have a vaccine now that we're finding didn't really have, didn't really show a change in overall mortality.

So what's happening with the pandemic of the unvaccinated? Are unvaccinated people really dying? And to be clear, I just want to point out to people that maybe are new here. We've followed Peter Abe and Christina Stablebent on this very issue. These are people that are pro-vaxxers that have been a really big part of vaccine programs for the third world or underserved countries. They started doing retrospective studies, especially of the DTP vaccine. and discovered that after 30 years looking back the programs they did,

they had kids that got the vaccine and did not get the DTP vaccine. And what they found was the children that got the vaccine ended up dying at 10 times the rate as those that never received it. It was a shocking discovery. And what they pointed out was every study up into that point was only looking at were the kids being protected from the diphtheria tetanus or pertussis. The vaccine seemed to block that from happening,

but created other immune issues where they were dying of malaria and everything else, riverbines, all these things, at higher rates. And so the mortality was 10 times a rate. So they've kind of been on this, you know, investigation now looking at a bunch of different vaccines because nobody is testing overall mortality. That's why it's interesting when they say, well, it looks like they block some COVID deaths, but the overall death rate amongst the group was no different in the unvaccinated compared to the vaccinated. So the vaccine ended up somehow whatever gains it made were reduced by the other problems that were killing people in that group. So it's interesting they keep finding this problem with the vaccine program. Very key points there.

And so now we go to the BMJ and they look at there's a cohort study in the UK, a very large cohort study. And this brings things into a little more focus here. Risk prediction of COVID-19 related death and hospital admission in adults after COVID-19 vaccination, a national perspective cohort study. And it says in here, and try to follow me on this. It says results of 6,952,44 vaccinated patients in the derivation cohort, huge, absolutely. And it says 5,150,310, 74.1% had two vaccine doses of 2,031 COVID-19 deaths and 1,9 COVID-19 hospital admissions. 81 deaths or 4% in 71 hospital admissions, 3.7% occurred, here we go, 14 days or more after the second vaccine dose. So follow me here. If you're not considered fully vaccinated for 14 days or more

after your second vaccine dose, and they only found 4% of deaths in that group and 3.7% of hospital emissions in a group. That means 96.96% of deaths are in newly vaccinated, which they call unvaccinated. Wow. That's the deaths. And the hospitalizations very similar. 96.3 are in this category. Let's bring it up so people can look it again, because we're doing some math here, and I think it's hard. We're not looking at it. So what we're saying here is they looked at the deaths inside of the vaccinated group. And what they found was those 81 of them, only 4% of them, took place after that 14 days after the second shot. All the rest, 96% of the deaths that took place of the 20131 all happened inside of what was

considered still unvaccinated because the vaccine isn't considered to be working until after 14 days, all of the deaths were happening before. And here is where we see evidence and proof in a way that we haven't had yet of what we were saying. This group was considered unvaccinated. So these hospital deaths and all these things, they're being caused because your immune system is being suppressed. Now you're more vulnerable to the virus.

You're dying from the virus or whatever else is going on or even a reaction to the vaccine. All of that was lumped into the unvaccinated category. So they're telling you, you know, pandemic of the unvaccinated. No, was that pandemic of the newly vaccinated. Right. And that's by their criteria. And it's what the study is not saying is what we're looking at here.

It's not what they're saying. We're doing that kind of subtraction of those numbers that aren't being represented. But by their criteria, like you just said, 96% plus, basically, of those deaths and hospitalizations are in the, would have been in the unvaccinated category leading to, you know, 99% of these headlines saying 99% of the deaths aren't unvaccinated. Well, it may be shedding a different light on that subject. Absolutely. Wow.

Brilliant, brilliant recording there, Jeffrey. And it's amazing. to look back, you know, at what we've been through. When we keep doing these stories, you know, we've been assaulted with, you know, tags of misinformation. And yet so clearly your investigation, the work that our international investigation team has been doing has kept us on point and really helped us deliver such credible and powerful information. Thank you for being a part of this. Because, I mean, you know, it's not something to gloat about. These are the The heaviest and darkest I told you so's that could ever exist, but we really haven't had to sit here and retract anything that we've said, even though we were assaulted and called anti-vaxxers and the reason for the plague the whole time.

Well, truth and history, we're going to make sure it's told correctly. Thank you so much for your work. You're welcome, and this is important for the public record. So thank you. Absolutely. All right. Well, you know, this is what we do at the Highwire. if you are not sponsoring us, then you're sponsoring liars.

I know you're paying for a cable bill. You have no problem paying that every single month, and you are just funding lies to come into your house. Even when you're not around, your kids are popping on that television, you're letting them get brainwashed. Well, why don't you put a little bit of support behind the work that we're doing? Because we're not only now just speaking to you through this show, we're actually reaching out to the readers that are out there.

And I'm pretty sure that we now, in this show, contain most of the readers, the people that actually do their investigations, do their reading, that's why you're here. You know, and it wasn't amazing? You know, we were told that, you know, we just went through three years where they basically said, you know, if you do your own investigation and research, you're an idiot. If you don't read anything and trust experts, you're a genius. Unbelievable.

Well, we're fighting back against that because we're starting a book company called I Can Press. We've been talking a little bit about this. One of the first books coming up right around the corner is Pierre Corrie's the War on Ivermectin. We're really excited about that. But of note today, one of the most exciting things is the children's book that we're putting out by Dr. Shannon Croner. I'm unvaccinated and that's okay. It is topping the charts of children's books right now where books can be sold. Go to Amazon, get your pre-ordered copy right now.

We're going to be talking more about this next week, but let's keep that run going. because this is an important book that is going to be there for your children to be able to understand, you know, how they should be confident about the choice that we made as parents and how they're going to handle the world that is going to try and tell them that their parents were wrong. All right. Well, you know, involved in part of what we do, not only do we have this great, you know, news organization and now a book company, our legal department, which really makes up half the work that our nonprofit does has been incredible. And at the heart of that is one of the great, and I think we'll go down as one of the greatest constitutional attorneys of all times, Aaron Siri. Well, you are all aware that he had massive success fighting the FDA. It's incredible.

The FDA tried to block the Pfizer data, the clinical trial date of the COVID-19 vaccine for 75 years. Think they have something to hide? Well, we didn't, you know, want them to hide it. And neither did Aaron Siri. He got in there and made a difference. This is what that looked like in the news. A request from the FDA is sparking some legal pushback. A team of scientists and professors want to publish the data behind the federal government's approval of Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine. There's just one problem, though. The FDA says it will take decades to process that paperwork. The FDA has been in the process of asking a federal court to give them somewhere between 55 years and 75 years to release all of their Pfizer vaccine safety data. The FDA says it can't simply turn over the documents.

records must be reviewed and redacted. That is standard procedure with the freedom of information requests. As soon as the Pfizer vaccine was licensed, in accordance with the FDA's own regulations that it be made, quote-unquote, immediately available, we submitted a FOIA request. Rather than producing 500 pages a month, the FDA's proposed timeline, 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 rather than the year 2097, the deadline that the FDA wanted.

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. Well, it's my honor and pleasure to be joined right now by the one, the only Aaron Siri.

Thanks for coming in studio today. All right, so originally, they wanted 75 years to release all the Pfizer clinical data. And then we got them to hand it off like inside of a year. What was it, 55,000 pages or something a month? What was that? Was that the number? Yeah, the FDA said there was about 450,000 pages to the court. Yeah. And so the judge ordered 55,000 pages under the assumption that we'd be done within last year. And then somehow this week you managed to lop in the Moderna trial. So how is, how's Moderna? I don't understand like you end up with the

same judge and everything that just did Pfizer, which seems lucky because you know how he ruled on Pfizer, how does Binderna end up in the same court? Well, the initial case where they wanted 75, at least 75 years, probably would have been longer, to produce where the FDA wanted to produce, that was for Pfizer's vaccine licensed for those 16 and older. Okay. You can only seek the documents under the relevant regulations from the FDA after it's been licensed. So, As soon as Pfizer's vaccine was licensed for 16 and older, we FOIA for it, we appealed administratively, went to court as soon as we can, and we had that big fight. Later after that, the FDA then licensed the Pfizer vaccine for 12 to 15-year-olds, which included

if you were, you know, Maddie Degari was within that group. And they also licensed the vaccine for Moderna for 18 and older. So we separately, again on behalf of the doctors group and this time also on behalf of the DeGari family. Okay. FOIA for all the documents the FDA relied upon for those two vaccines. And it was, so it was a separate lawsuit for that. We filed it in the same place as just, you know, it's the same venue because same first name plaintiff.

And it got assigned to the same judge, which makes sense. Yeah. We didn't have, you know. You don't have control over that, but it makes sense that they would just say this is. They're related. They're related cases. so they related the cases. Obviously, we didn't have a say in the first time around

because that's supposed to be random assignments. With that said, we went back, so this is take two. Right. And when we first filed the complaint in this lawsuit for the Modern and 12, 15-year-olds, we filed it at a time where we expected the Pfizer-16 plus data to shortly come to an end. And so what was requested was that,

and we assumed to be the same number of people, pages about another four and five thousand pages something right so when filing the suit the the request in the complaint was that the 50 that when the 16 plus Pfizer documents ended it would just continue producing at a rate of 55,000 pages a month okay right because the infrastructure is in there for that and the judge going to the next age group let's just get the rest of it and the judge in the first decision you know tried to strike a balance as the judge said between agency resources and transparency and we want to do a to the judge the guidance he had given us in the first case and not overstep too far.

Yeah. And so that is what was asked for, 55,000 pages continue when that was done. After we filed it, months, you know, there's a lot of stuff that goes on, you go back and forth to DOJ. Months continue to pass and we're not even, we're still not close to getting everything in the Pfizer-16 plus. And so we realized at some point, whoa, wait a second, this is, this is not going to end, this is not going to work.

And then we find out that actually for the Moderna, that is, they're FDA saying that's 4.2 million pages. I think they're learning their lesson by not being transparent about the other pages. And that it's another half a million for the 12 to 15 year olds, more than what they said for the 16 plus. So you're close to 5 million pages. And we realized that at that point, wait a second, asking for 55,000 pages a month when FISA or 16 plus ends,

that's going to be over a decade. Right. And what are they saying? Are they saying we're down to just give it all at $55,000 to stick with the rate we're at? No. No, they didn't, I think, learn from the judge's guidance the first time around. Where we tried to really take that into consideration. Clients did. They did not. And they actually asked that it be between one to 16,000 pages a month, depending on the type of documents you produced. So that would mean if they did all of it at 16,000 pages a month, that's like 23 years. But they clearly were indicating that we're going to do a lot of it at 1,000 pages a month. So again, we're talking decades and decades. And as the judge made clear, you know, he's in his 40s, but he doesn't want to be on the bench when this thing is still going on.

Right. So during all. So I want this out before I'm retired here. Yeah. And I'll tell you an interesting part of this. And I'll tell you what we actually ended up asking for. about two days of far. What's crazy about all this is it's not, I mean, I just want to interject.

Yeah. If it was Pfizer, okay, I would understand. If it's been, you're up against a drug company. Like they're obvious, but you're up against our, this is our regulatory agency. They work for us. This is supposed to be transparency with the people. Like, we got your back, you know. Don't worry, you know, Pfizer can be really scary, but we're the FDA.

We're taking care of you. It's the opposite. They're the ones like deceiving, wanting low output, trying to, I don't know if it's high data or certainly slow roll. I mean, it's crazy that your government is like protecting this data that way when it's corporate money-making data that the FDA should be saying, wow, we found problems here, we got issues. I mean, just nothing's working the way we all believe it should be. Yeah, you know, we've gone through this in prior segments, right, where since 1986, after the National Child of Exxin Injury Act was passed,

it removed the normal relationship that these regulatory agencies have with pharmaceutical companies. Once you made them liable, now they're on the team. The FDA, in my opinion, does not view itself as really a regulator. It views itself as a partner with these pharmaceutical companies. And one need looked no further than the homepage of the FDA website recently, which shows what's basically a promotional ad for the bivalent COVID vaccine. Not even licensed.

Think about that. The FDA is supposed to be, what's its job to review the safety and equity and decide whether it should be licensed? That's it. What the heck is the FDA? They've been done the job of licensing to themselves. And the scientists who's the head of their vaccine division, their biologics division, Dr. Peter Marks, is putting out these cutesy videos. on YouTube called Just a Minute, Wait a Minute, where he's promoting these vaccines and they're not even licensed.

Getting a bivalent vaccine booster dose is critical to help protect yourself against the most severe outcomes of COVID-19, including hospitalization and death. So please consider getting your updated vaccine soon. So do you really think that the FDA, after going out and telling hundreds of millions of Americans, go ahead, go promoting, telling them to go take a product that's not even licensed. yet. Could them be impartial in deciding whether to license them? Wait, my bad. It's not safe. Just found something out. Found a safety signal. Everybody hold on in a second. How many people did I make it that? How many millions have got? How many injured that's on me? It's never going to happen. But even it's not. And even, but even stepping further back from that, why is it the FDA doing that? Why is it promoting? They don't

promote heart medicine. Right. Why are they promoting this product? Because they view themselves as a partner with industry. Sadly, they should stick to their role, their minimal role of, you review the safety and efficacy to the standard that the FDA has for that, which let's not get started with that. Right. But meets that standard, say to the FDA standard, we have deemed it safe and effective, release all the daddy rely upon, and your job is done.

That's it. You shouldn't be pomp-pom cheerleading these products in the public. So anyways, and obviously there's a lot more to that. And, you know, I think one of the great documents out there, and I saw somebody recently, I think somebody, I saw somebody post this on social media, but ICAN did a letter exchange with Health and Human Services about vaccine safety,

and I think that really highlights and brings into focus what we just talk about in a bigger context. But with that said, they had been effectively telling us until relatively recently, they can't tell us exactly how many pages because we blew past the 4,000 to 50,000 pages. And we were like, whoa, wait a second. We don't look like we're close to done here.

So we went back to Department of Justice and we said, can you please ask your client, the FDA, to tell us how many pages are left? And they wouldn't tell us. They even told us at one point, well, we're still trying to figure that out. Well, we foyered them in a different case to get the copy of the contract that they entered into to actually fulfill the judge's order of 55,000 pages a month from a year ago. And guess what that contract says? What? It says that they need somebody to review a company to review 1.2 million pages. So a year ago, they knew it was 1.2 million pages. That's why they put out a request for bid.

Isn't that, like, perjury or something? Is that like lying to the court? Well, it's certainly not being forthright. And I think the judge has taken note of the fact that they said 450 initially and we're not there. I think when the judge ordered 55,000 pages a month, he made clear in that initial decision, the point was transparency. And I judge, I believe, expected that everything would be done last year.

In fact, he said as much in his most recent order. We had an opportunity to actually put that in our papers and say, Your Honor, look at this. They're basically telling us up to weeks ago, they don't know how many pages of it. But a year ago, they have a document showing the 1.2 million. million pages. Wow. And so one of the things we did is we changed what we were asking for in the lawsuit. You know, the plaintiffs in that suit, instead of asking 55,000 pages a month, when in our

papers and in our motion seeking a production schedule and then an oral argument, which was, you know, an hour or 15 minute argument, the other side and before the federal judge, we said some really I mean, really insightful, I made some numerous, extremely insightful comments here in the hearing. We decided, instead of asking for a rate, was to ask for just an end date. So, just say we want this per date, we're just going to set a date when we want everything. Everything. Because our argument was this. In every of the FOIA case, there's often a universe of documents.

You kind of know the universe and so you can set a rate. But here, clearly from the first go-around, start up. 450 ended at a 1.2 million. They're saying 5 million, but who knows where it really ends. And our argument was, look, Your Honor, the people that are in the best positions to know how many actual pages there are are the FDA. And the purpose of

the Freedom of Information Act, the purpose of FOIA, the reason Congress enacted that law is so that we can have transparency as to what our government is doing. The government that we pay for, the people who work for us, the

American people. Yep. And so we said transparency doesn't demand a rate. It demerons timely production. And what we asked for is that within six months of the order, all of the Pfizer 12 to 15, and within a year and a half of that, all of the Moderna. And the judge gave us exactly what was requested. The judge ordered that within 24 months,

all of this has to be produced, has ordered that we confer with the DOJ and submit a proposed schedule to the court by next week. So you go in, you're getting 55,000. FDA comes back, they want to drop that down to 1 to 16,000. So with that sort of 24 months to deliver all these millions of doc, how many, do you figure out how many pages that would be? It would be a minimum of 180,000 pages on average per month to produce the current number.

And, you know, I think that, you know, the, it's really good to listen carefully when a judge saying something. They've given you guidance, you should take it. Right. They should think about what it's saying and I think the FDA just again I mean they got backhanded. I mean I don't know you're probably not allowed to like sort of speak with any color but I mean this judge looks like he just well lowered the boomstick on the FDA. I have a copy of the decision here okay I'll read a few sentences from it the order begins this is the judge's order in which he ordered within 24 months and and he says

First words in the decision, democracy dies behind closed doors. To help prevent that from happening, Congress enacted the Freedom of Information Act. Frank, I couldn't have said it better. That's exactly right. And then he goes on to say, oh, he's got a footnote here where he points out. He says, you know, talks about the prior case. Under the rate of production ordered by the court, all documents were set to be produced by November 1, 2022. is what the court apparently expected.

Because the 450,000 page estimation provided by the FDA, however, is nowhere close to the number of actual documents, 1.2 million, only 64% of total documents have been produced. Judge Gowans, going back to Moderna and Pfizer-12-15, the judge says, plaintiffs have shown an urgent need to inform the public about the health and safety of the COVID-19 vaccines based on the massive push to vaccinate,

persistent effort to eradicate COVID-19. and continued government and private efforts to enforce these vaccines. Stale information is of little value, and the judge orders, all caps, bold, the parties to meet and conferrence submit a joint production rate that maximally reduces this burden by May 23, 23, and he orders the FDA to produce all data information relating to the approval of the two vaccines by June 31, 2025. So we have that there. And I will tell you this much. If on the FDA, and I want to show this court that actually I am for transparency, we are trying to be forthcoming with the public.

We have nothing to hide. We did a great job. In 108 days, we reviewed all this stuff. I think that maybe saying you're going to do 1,000 to 16,000 pages a month, it wasn't a great way to show that to the judge. That was a bitter pill for a judge to take. I will let those read into that decision. Do you ever leave these things and just wonder, like, what's happening in the back offices now as these lawyers come back in? They certainly are getting applause, like, well done.

Like, you just heard 55,000 pages and say to 180,000 pages a month. I mean, there must be heads rolling over at the FDA right now. You don't speculate. You know, in the first case, they brought in a Department of Defense. Well, they've tried different approaches. Yeah. Man, Aaron, it's absolutely amazing. And we love the fact that you are, you know, out there in front crusading for the things that we care about.

I just want, I think it's to take the opportunity in this moment to say all this is only possible because these amazing donors that we have that are funding this work that, you know, make these moments happen. But you're the one on the front line that is delivering it. And it is really spectacular to have you on our team. I've said before, this is historic moments. And it's showing how, I think I don't know if corrupt is the right word, but just like you said, just how our system, this government, how it has just been totally taken over by corporate interests, is moving for the corporation.

And it's only because of people like you and this work we're doing like can, that we can just pry this out of their hands and really get to the truth. And I look forward to seeing the end of the Spicer data and Moderna's coming down the pipe, but amazing work. I'm blessed to get to do the work. All right, well, keep it up. We're gonna keep you busy.

All right. Well, look, I mean, this is what all of you out there, I want you to take a moment. This is not Del Big Tree. This isn't really even the high wire what we are doing here in releasing this data, which is gonna be used by scientists around the world to figure out what happened,

in this debacle known as the COVID vaccine rollout. All of this is made possible by those of you that donate to I Can, the informed consent action network. Many of you get to watch the show and you ride along. You're probably pretty excited right now. But imagine how excited you be if you knew that you invested in this result for not only you, but your children and the generations to come. This is spectacular what is being achieved here.

And I want you to be a part of it. become a recurring donor. Just go to the top. The website, hit the donate button, and we're asking to just become a recurring donor so that we can know how many lawsuits and how many FOIA requests and how many challenges we can make on the FDA, the CDC, the NIH. And for those of you that are making that contribution becoming recurring donors, we have created a brand new magazine that is getting rave reviews. This is our gift to you. The informant has arrived. Our online monthly magazine. The informant curates the best from I can and the high wire, keeping you up to date and informed on our biggest news, science, legal actions, and more. We're doing that for you with really

great writers we're bringing in. This is really a gift to all of you that support our work. It doesn't matter how much you donate, if you are a recurring donor, then you get this online news magazine. We want you to feel what it feels like to be a part of the change, and the informant is going to be our gift to all of you that are doing that. Good, I can decide.org slash the informant. Get caught up, stay informed with the informant, exclusive to monthly donors. Good, I can decide.org slash the informant. Well, a lot of the focus of this conversations today is on censorship, who's controlling speech,

who's making decisions in the government, and are we going to be allowed to speak out and say, hey, I don't agree with that. Are we going to lose that opportunity? But all these conversations are censorship, which is after I've posted something. after I've put something out, but so many dystopian novels and books and, you know, movies out there have been about, what if you were being arrested for things you're thinking about or just looking at or reading or researching or what if somebody tweeted a question to you that somehow could be considered as capable of inciting violence? Even if it's hidden in the middle of your home and was never going to, you know, be out in the light of day, there's a new law that's being tested out in Ireland where they can, kicking your door and come and arrest you for things that you're reading and thinking about.

Take a look at this. The Minister for Justice is to strengthen the law against hate crimes and hate speech with the aim of making it easier to secure convictions in the courts. But some cautioned that they will be examining the published bill to ensure there is no impact on freedom of speech. What we don't want to do here is to have a piece of legislation that ends up criminalising the wrong people. Even to be in possession of material, without even sharing it, anybody can get a knock on the door, a warrant from the Gardee, they can come in, search my home, search everybody that's in my home, take all their devices, take all our computers, take any material that is relevant to them that they see to be relevant to the case. What you don't want to have is somebody in an altercation who says something stupid that is then labelled a hate criminal.

This is designed to cut public discourse. to shut down conversation about immigration, shut down conversations about a whole series of topics that the government don't want to talk about. I think this legislation that they're bringing in is certainly just to try and keep those that have dissent on government issues to keep us quiet.

It's going to catch ordinary people who have no painful agenda whatsoever, but just want to talk about things that they believe in normal scene and rational fashion. And they will suffer the most. Well, this bill, this hate bill in Ireland, is just passed the lower house and is moving its way into the Senate,

and many believe it's going to pass there. And it really may be a vision of things to come for other nations around the world, which is why I think it's important to have this conversation. And I'm joined now by David Thunder, who's been doing a lot of writing and reporting on this very very,

bill and the problems around it and I'm honored to be joined by him now. David, first of all, just is this a brand new bill or is this, you know, an adjustment to something that's already existed? What exactly is happening here? This bill, thank you for having me on. This bill is essentially an update of the 1989 incitement to hatred act. So in fact, there has already been hate speech legislation on the books in Ireland for a long time for many years and what this bill does is it expands the the categories of protected

characteristics to include things like gender and it makes some other modifications but in many respects this bill reiterates and repeats what we already had on the books in Ireland so so if people are worried about this bill they should be worried about the that's already on our books. Right. Now, when you say expanding, I know, like, there's these issues really all around the world that we're now dealing with, with, you know, gender, trans, all these new words for sort of sexual orientation.

Obviously, race is, you know, always been an issue, but has got a sort of heightened sensitivity around it. Are these the types of things that are sort of being folded in here now? Yes, there are two characteristics that are being folded in that are kind of interesting. One is gender and the other is sex characteristics, which I'm assuming means something like if you're a man or a woman. Maybe they also mean if you've had some kind of hormonal therapy. I'm not sure hormone therapy. But the gender category is particularly interesting because the way they define gender here is the gender of a person

or the gender which a person expresses as the person's preferred gender or which, with which the person identifies and includes transgender and a gender other than those of male and female. So what on earth does this actually mean? It seems to mean whatever someone wants it to mean essentially. You know, if I identify with gender X or Y or Z or I invent a new gender, then that becomes a protected category. So it's an extraordinary radical redefinition of gender. And what worries me about this in particular is that it may have,

have a chilling effect on speech because if somebody, for example, wanted to question the agenda of the trans lobby, if they just wanted to question whether or not, for example, trans men should participate in women's athletic contests or whether or not children should receive trans therapy, hormone therapy, they could be branded as purveyors of hate speech, as inciting hate speech and they could be prosecuted and put in jail for up to five years. Now in my reading of this, and if I'm stepping too far, let me know, but this isn't just things you're seeing saying in public. If I have a friend that text me, let's say, an article saying that, you know, transgender isn't real or that this is a psychological problem,

it's not a real manifestation, or let's say I'm doing my own research for my child in my house and I have books that are laying out you know a differing perspective I'm looking at different perspectives actually having literature that is not you know expressing the narrative that my government is supporting that could be considered hate speech could it not and I can be arrested for that for having those materials in my house yes there's one proviso that that is that they can if they reasonably assume that you prepared that you're preparing that text for publication But the problem is that the burden of proof, if they reasonably assume this, reasonably assume it, then the burden of proof is on you to prove that you did not intend to publish it.

So they've reversed the burden of proof and put it on the person who's being charged. So I now have to prove that I do not intend to publish something that's on my computer if the prosecutor is assuming that it is intended for publication. But the really worrying point here is what you're saying, which is that a text that I have never published that is sitting on my computer or on a piece of paper in my drawer could be a ground for prosecution and for imprisonment. I'm sure for an American audience where I know the tradition of free speech is especially strong, it's probably especially shocking to think that, a police officer could knock on my door and arrest me because of a piece of text that I have on my computer that I have never published. That's extraordinary and extraordinary attack on the private sphere, on the right of freedom of expression, even of freedom of thought, because the thoughts that are on my

laptop are essentially my thoughts. And the idea that somebody could arrest me because of this is extraordinary, is truly extraordinary and quite shocking. It really is. And, you know, look, I think the problem with this word hate is, I don't think anyone, any reasonable, decent human being, you know, believes in hate or allowing for hate. But what is the definition of hate when it comes to this law? How well defined is that term?

This law does not define hate in any place. It simply says that it defines as a crime speech act, a public speech act or behavior that would be likely to incite hatred or violence against the group. It never defines what hatred is. And the flaw in this act is a flaw that we find in all hate speech legislation all over the world, which is essentially that it makes me the speaker criminally liable for the emotional. emotional effect of my words on my on my listeners yeah so if somebody's listening to to a speech or to an article that I've published that is defending say man woman marriage or is you know critical of some aspect of trans education or the trans movement then if they if then if they feel in their

heart some kind of hatred towards one of these protected groups as a result of what I've published, then suddenly I'm criminally liable for that feeling that's in their heart. And to be more precise, I'm criminally liable if a judge deems that my text would be likely to incite such a feeling. There's no legal certainty there for the citizen. There's no real protection of citizens' rights in this bill, because how can I have any certainty about whether I'll be prosecuted or not based on this vague catch-all category of hate speech, of incitement to hate? It's a very woolly kind of charge that I've incited hate, and it's extremely subjective.

And there's really no way for a judge to objectively distinguish between hateful speech and reasonable discourse. Why? Because all discourse that is polemical and is controversial and is vibrant is likely to incite strong feelings in listeners. And sometimes it will incite hateful feelings. But are we really suggesting that we should shut down any speech that could potentially, you know, cause a feeling of hatred in someone? You're basically saying we should shut down public speech in general, political speech. It's nothing short of Orwellian, really, when you think about it, just this idea that language has to be, you know, washed before it can be consumed. Or that, or I even think, I mean, not to, you know, be too outrageous, but it's a bit of a minority report, you know, idea where I'm being arrested for something that's something on my computer may potentially cause harm or may be printed, or I have got to prove that I wasn't intending to. use this in some way like intentions and it really turns the political system on its head because as you've sort of described in many ways I'm guilty until I can prove myself innocent versus the the opposite

which is I'm innocent in the United States of America the way our system you're innocent until proven guilty these are accusational crimes around as you've pointed out very emotionally charged issues. You know, these are, and in some ways, they're being, you know, inflated by media, for whatever reason, so that anyone that goes near this conversation, even at our dinner tables, you know, even at my own home, you know, if I disagree with someone in my family, this, these conversations get, you know, very emotional, very quickly, which used to be okay. I mean, you're Irish, you know, I've, you know, I've got, you know, some German and name, American background and you know we were a loud family and we're you know emotional

intense it's almost as though if anything creates emotion then you could really be in trouble and how does journalism survive this how are journalists allowed to write you know articles and ask important questions about for instance the science which is so infantile when it comes to transgender drugs and procedures on children, so little is known, but is as a journalist my questioning the value and quality of the science there, you know, creating hatred towards this group that believes that it's necessary? I mean, there's a really, really slippery slopes.

Absolutely. I think that this is an important point that journalists will be particularly vulnerable because they regularly put out in the public sphere controversial arguments. and it's worth pointing out that this is going to politicize the criminal law because the criminal law will be aligned with certain political causes. And the way that works is that if you draw a boundary around certain categories, around certain characteristics, and you say that any speech that could incite hatred or hateful feelings

against those groups specifically, and not other groups, but those groups, then what you're saying is that some speech, is vulnerable to hate crime prosecution, hate speech prosecution, and other speech is not. Which speech is vulnerable to prosecution? Speech surrounding controversial issues like transgender operations, trans participation in contests, speech surrounding same-sex marriage or issues surrounding homosexuality and its role in society. So issues surrounding feminism and the role of men and women, these are all issues that could potentially land somebody in jail if their speech is perceived by others as hateful, or if a judge perceives their speech as being likely

to elicit or incite hateful feelings. So I go back to that point that really it's an entirely subjective category, this idea of incitement to hate, and in practice, it will be used in a way that, favors certain political causes and disfavors others. So, you know, Ireland, as we've reported, you know, a lot of the work that we've done on the high wire was, you know, looking at this pandemic, vaccine mandates. And in many ways, it seems to me that Ireland seems to be almost a test ground, some of the most draconian measures around vaccine mandates and limiting whether you could work or things you could do. And, and,

and how you moved in society, Ireland really sort of jumped on the bandwagon of really oppressing freedom of movement around the pandemic. And now this law is really going, I think a step further than where we've seen anywhere else in the world so far on the idea of speech, the freedom of speech, what is hate speech,

and the fact that they can now come in my house and look at literature I have or things in my texts. That's a whole other level. Is there something about Ireland that's putting it, you know, that's being used as a test ground or is it just one of them? Do you think about that since this is something obviously you've been focused on? Yes, I think that it's very remarkable that this particular piece of legislation is really not representative of public opinion in Ireland.

And for example, the submissions to the committee for this legislation were overwhelmingly against it, public submissions there was a consultation process and and they just decided to just go ahead and ram the legislation through anyway and so that really raises the question why why would the irish government be so eager to push through a piece of legislation for which there is very little popular demand and as senator ronan mullen suggested i think NGOs have a lot to do with it i think there's, even though I don't have, you know, direct documentary evidence for this, looking at the facts, looking at the fact that this does not represent public opinion, it's not politically advantageous domestically for them to push this through. So you have to ask the question,

what are they gaining from pushing this through politically? Were they influenced by lobbies, by NGOs? I suspect that they were. And I think the other act, the other factor is that in the psyche, especially in our political elite, there is this basically hunger for affirmation by the international community. So they really want to be ahead of the curve and pushing through all the most progressive, so-called progressive policies, which is what they did with the pandemic. So there's a kind of a psychological explanation about how our political elite thinks. They want to be ahead of the posse, ahead of the, you know, the rest of the community, the international community, in pushing through whatever they consider to be the latest trend in the international community.

That's interesting. It gives Ireland a bit of a celebrity or a power. It doesn't have. It can be a leader in the world. What you're saying is essentially it sees the writing on the wall and where is it going. So we might as well jump on this first so that in some ways we're asserting ourselves and showing the world that we led here. that's really an interesting issue so it's passed through the lower house what is your sense I mean now it's going to I'm going to the Senate is that correct and and is it expected to pass there or is it going to get some resistance there are a few a few senators who are vocally opposed to this bill but I believe that that I believe it will pass through the Senate and then the the press

President Higgins has the option of referring to the Supreme Court for judicial review. So it could potentially go for judicial review, and in that case, the court would have to review the legislation and strike down any parts of it that it considered to be unconstitutional. But my sense is that this will go through, and because many problematic parts of this bill were already on our books, statute books since 1989, I think it's very doubtful. that it will be struck down. I think this bill is likely to be legalized. Unfortunately. Do you have a sense? I don't know how much you track like World Economic Forum, this sort of as you call it globalists that are looking at

more of a sort of a global monitoring systems and dictating to leaders all around the world how we should all be handled as a society. A lot of these hate speech bills, the AI things that are coming, the analysis and tracking of information on our phones, you know, tracking systems when it comes to vaccines or talking about carbon credit scores, all of this. Do you think that this is a, do you see this from your perspective? You're on the other side of the pond, if you will. Do you have a sense that there's a sort of a global agenda that's affecting Ireland in all of this? Yes. I think that it would be foolish and naive to think that any country,

can escape the effect of tendencies within global elites, political elites. You don't need to be a wild conspiracy theorist to recognize that the World Economic Forum, the European Union, the European Commission and also key actors in the United States government would have, among others, would have an influence upon the general atmosphere in the world, especially in the Western world, but also in the non-Western world, but also in the non-Western. Western world. And an example of this trend is the European Commission, which is coming down hard on what they consider to be disinformation. And they've, they already have a framework that will allow them to find Twitter and private social media companies to find them very heftily if they're found guilty of, if they don't sufficiently police, uh, disinformation, what the European Commission considers disinformation, which is extremely worrying. Again, it just shows that the leadership, if you want to call it that, on suppressing free speech is coming from the very top, from the top of Europe. Right.

Well, we are aligned there. I'm really happy to meet you and have this conversation. When, you know, we're an international show, but obviously we're based the United States of America. Here in America, you know, I think there's some level of complacency that's wearing off, but is still there with this idea. have a very strong constitution. I think a lot of people were shocked, though, how quickly that seemed to be overridden by the pandemic and the lockdowns and, you know, really didn't matter what side of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats seemed to be locking down most of the nation, taking away our businesses. And so when we look at this bill, we can, I think there's a tendency

to say, well, that's Ireland, you know, that's going to be their problem. What would you want to other nations like America, like Canada, you know, Australia, countries around the world that once considered themselves to be free? Is this something that you think we should all be worrying about it? And what should we do about it? Yeah, I would say that people should not be complacent because cultural trends, trends in public opinion at the international level will eventually seep down to the ordinary citizen and they will affect the civic culture of the United States. The Constitution, the Constitution you know is as good as the civic culture that supports it and and so relying on the paper of the

Constitution without taking into a consideration the strength of the civic culture would be naive so so I think that basically people should remember that these kinds of trends do affect speech in the United States specifically they affect speech on private platforms like Facebook, YouTube and potentially Twitter. For now, Twitter is freer than it was before. Yeah. So that's very important. It does affect private platforms.

And so I think people do need to be aware that this is an issue affecting public opinion. And it could turn against them eventually, especially on private platforms, which in many ways are often just as important as public platforms for free speech. will you know should this bill pass when you look at the type of language you use when you write and the work that you do um will it change how you're approaching um and others like you do you think this will change how you approach it or will you stand your ground and take the risk to you know what do you feel like your position is here my position is that i will speak the truth and i will defend the truth and if the police come want to come knocking on my door because of that then so be it well it's it's nice to know someone that thinks i feel the same way uh if we count out to this if we

hide in the corners then there'll be no one left to stand up for anybody and and so i think really ultimately we got to stand together and so we stand with you this is i truly believe that this is just the beginning of of something that is starting to sweep across this nation it must be nipped in the butt and must be stopped immediately. What's the best way to follow your work and the writing and the things that you're doing on subjects like this? Yeah, they could follow me on Twitter, which is at David J. Thunder.

I'm on Twitter at David J. Thunder. They could also follow me on Substack on my blog, which is David Thunder.substack.com. Well, I want to thank you for your courage. I want to thank you for being outspoken and you were vocal enough that this, of popped up in our feed in our space to make us aware of it. So you're making a difference in the world and now millions of people, you know, through our

show are going to be aware of this issue and I know you're doing other, you know, media out there. It's people like you that make a difference in the world. I really want to thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with us today. Thank you. I appreciate that. All right. Take care of day. We'll talk to you soon and keep me posted on all the newer developments. I will. Well, this is, you know, it's getting real, folks. I mean, I'm not sure if you're, you know, if you've just tuned into this show for the first time

or maybe your friends told you about it, you've been here for some time. But we have a lot of work to do. We have had a lot of successes in this space. We should, as I said before, we should celebrate, you know, some of the successes that we've had. But we also need to get through to those that aren't awake yet because I still don't believe there's enough of us to stop this assault that's coming from. you know, this globalist, you know, system that is affecting our governments. And I think one of the biggest tools we have is media. And that is why I'm here.

That's what got me into this, is doing shows like this, making documentaries. But we have a tool that is going to be probably one of the most powerful ever made, ever made. And that is, you know, a documentary and a film that is coming from Mickey Willis. It is going to be premiering here on the high wire in just two weeks. Okay, in just two weeks, if you're signed up, you'll be a part of an international moment to watch a film that is going to be about all of these issues. The attempted takeover of our world, of our liberties, of our freedom by the governments of the world. You could call it Plandemic 3 or more importantly, the Great Awakening.

But if you haven't signed up for this worldwide premiere, this is what that's all about. Breaking news, the president declaring a national emergency. The new stay at home order. We will shut you down. Don't think you can get on a plane or a trade. This is a pandemic of the unvaccinated. And we will take you to jail. We've got to get them vaccinated.

Or we will keep you in a facility longer. As the world was descending into synchronized tyranny, I began to ask myself, how did they get everyone to go along with this? Obsessed with finding the answer, I began studying every moment in recorded history, where masses of people acted against their own self-interest. The only mechanism that could explain what was happening in society. Screw your freedom, your schmuck. Was what is usually referred to as mass formation.

Here we are now with an economy and crisis, but with an incredible opportunity. unprecedented opportunity for a reset. Your Royal Highness's, distinguished heads of state and government. The future is built by us. We need a great reset. When they say you'll be happy, what they mean is you'll be enslaved. Today we have the technology to hack human beings on a massive scale. Who masters those technologies will be the master of the world.

Those who control the data control the future not just of humanity, but the future of life itself. Every aspect of our life has been infiltrated by people that do not have our best interests at heart. There are forces using fear and isolation to induce mass psychosis. I don't want you to be hopeful. Firemenal doom. Fires. I want you to panic. Storms.

It will kill your children. I want you to feel the fear I feel every day. People are starting to wake up. I'm seeing people come together from all walks of life, finally saying enough is enough. We didn't come here for no reason. We have a voice and we're here to share it. We have to be the solution. We cannot rely on the media, the president, or whoever to fix these problems.

I would rather pick up cans on the side of the highway than to live out of alignment with my truth. We're all being driven back to the dream. As you see in the audience, Democrats, Republicans, white, black, everyone, everyone. all in between. This is the example that they do not want to see, but they have no choice. The masses of humanity have been slapped awake. Open your eyes. It's time to wake up. This is the Great Awakening.

People cannot go back into the Matrix now. A lot of people are trying to. They can't. Well, the Great Awakening only happens if you are a part of it. So let's make this one giant, thoughtful moment worldwide as we watch this documentary together. There's going to be a lot of fun right before, a red carpet experience. But just go to Plandemic3.com. It's June 3rd, which is about 16 days away.

It would be great evening. Grab your friends. Grab some popcorn. This is going to be fantastic. And I'll be honest with you, I haven't even seen the entire movie yet. I'm really looking forward to it. We're excited. You know, I want you to just, you know, as we look at these conversations, right?

Tracy Beans at the very top of this show, very excited that we now have politicians that are standing up, governors that are standing up for our Constitution, our rights to freedom of liberty. We have, you know, politicians that are now really having hearings on what happened here, you know, should we be censoring people. But you must know that there is a giant push globally and really even more than just as though it's some group. It doesn't need to be some tiny group. It is the sponsors of the world. It is the industries of the world that want to force you into compliance. Want you to believe that the only way to live in your world is to buy their products. Seemed crazy.

You were just locked down by the pharmaceutical industry. That's who did it. Pharmaceutical industry. They sold you a drug. They forced you to get a drug. And if you didn't get it, we would mock you and shame you in every news organization we could 24 hours a day. That's it. It's not a conspiracy theory.

It just happened. This is where we're at. And they're pushing even harder. They realize that you are starting to pull away, and they need to pull you back in. And really, I think when you think about, what is my position here? What do I do in this world? I would just think about this. They have a deadline.

They have a deadline to remove your ability to ever use your words the way you want to again. In fact, you may have a finite amount of words left that will actually be free. If you don't use those words now, then you are the one that has sealed your fate. It's up to us. This is a historic moment in the world, maybe one of the most important ever.

The most important cases are happening. Some of them are being brought by the informed consent to action network. But more important than all of that is the trial being held by the masses of people. looking in our world. You were a part of that. You are a witness to that. You are on the stand. It is your moment to speak your truth to everyone you know. Thank you for being a crusader. Thank you for being brave and sharing the truth. Without you, who knows? I'll see you next week.