The Highwire with Del Bigtree - Episode 321: THE WAR ON STUPIDITY

Episode Date: May 26, 2023

Del Officially Launches ICAN Press with ‘The War on Ivermectin,’ Set to Release June 6th!; Jefferey Jaxen Reports on the Transgender Movement Targeting Those on The Autism Spectrum, RSV Vaccine Rammed Through For Pregnant Women Despite Major Safety Concerns, and Corporate Media Rebrands as ‘Fact-Checkers’ Again?; Then, W.H.O. Now Says Non-Sugar Sweeteners, Used in Foods Since 1981, are NOW Bad For Your Health?! Guests: Dr. Pierre Kory, Dr. Russell BlaylockBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

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

Wherever you are out there in the world, it's time to step out onto the high wire. We're pretty stoked. I don't know if you can feel the electricity out there, but we're blazing a trail into a whole new venture for the informed consent action network, which is the nonprofit that makes this educational program, the high wire happen. That new venture is into books. for those of you that actually read, ICAN Press, is going to be launching his first book. We're totally excited on June 6th will be the drop of the war on Ivermectin.

A super important story, maybe the most important story in this entire COVID pandemic, written by Dr. Pierre Corey, who has been at the heart of this issue. I've said it before. I'm not sure that you can put people in jail over a vaccine that failed. but you can certainly put them in jail when they deny you access to a product that could have saved your life. This is a really important story and a true hero that has been standing in this fight in Dr. Pierre Corey. If somehow you've been under a rock and missed it, this is what he's looked like out there in the world. Dr. Pierre Corey, the godfather of Ivermectin.

Dr. Pierre Corey, an infectious disease specialist. Dr. Pierre Corey joins us now. Dr. Corey has traveled across multiple states in the U.S. to care for COVID-19 patients throughout the pandemic. One of the founders of America's frontline doctors, Dr. Corey, has twice testified in front of the U.S. Senate to promote Ivermectin and other alternative drugs. All we have tried to do from the moment this pandemic was coming to U.S. shores is to figure out how to treat this thing and to come up with the most effective treatment protocol in the world. We are fighting against big pharma. They have controlled and captured our heads. health agencies, every single policy that they have issued out of those agencies, the entire

pandemic, was written by the pharmaceutical industry. We have a solution to this crisis. There is a drug that is proving to be of miraculous impact. And when I say miracle, I do not use that term lightly. We identified this really powerful data signal around Ivermectin, and we knew it was one of the most inexpensive and most widely available drugs in the world. And it, it, it, it, presented itself as a solution to the pandemic. On average, a 62% reduction in death when you used Ivermectin from all of these randomized controlled trials.

So basically, you'd save two out of every three people that you treat. The CDC actually, in their memo, stated that the FDA has not approved Ivermectin for COPE. That is a misleading statement, deliberately misleading statement. Number one, the FDA doesn't have to approve it, Cotein Cove & FAA. We don't need the FDA for anything. It's called off-label prescribing. It's generally champion, and it's a very common practice in the system.

It's fully legal, and it's even encouraged when you don't have an effective medicine. In Mexico City last month, they adopted it throughout the city. Every testing booth where you get positive, they give Ivermectin. Their hospitals are emptying, and their death rates are plummeting. My dream is that every household has Ivermectin in the cupwork, and you take it upon development of first symptom of anything approximating a viral syndrome. myself into the middle of that war and I became an enemy and the world went sideways. I thought we were doing the right thing, putting forth knowledge of a drug that could help

millions and I started getting personally attacked and suddenly we saw censorship like we never could believe. We are tired. I can't keep doing this. Any further deaths are going to be needless deaths and I cannot be traumatized by that. This is corruption. Plain and simple. It's corruption.

Keep fighting. Keep spreading the truth. truth. I feel morally and ethically obligated to show up whatever asked to keep spreading truth. Enough with the medical tyranny. Live, free, or die has never meant more to me than it does now. We must live free or we will die. Live for free or die indeed. It's my honor and pleasure to be joined by Dr. Pierre Corey. You're, first of all, it's an honor to have you here. Just watching that, you know, montage, you are clearly all over the world right now trying to get this message out. So thank you for taking the time to join us.

Thanks, though. Honor. You know, speaking of around the world, just recently you and several other doctors that have all sat on this stage were speaking for the European Union. So let's just take a look at this really quickly. I'm going to talk about the global war on Ivermectin, which was a massive global disinformation campaign whose only objective is to suppress the evidence of efficacy of this life-saving drug.

Any medicine, no matter how many studies, if it costs a dollar or $2, it will not find regulatory approval in any advanced health economy around the world. And what happens as a result, people die. And they die frequently and in high numbers. It is the most proven medication in history, in history, yet not one advanced health economy around the world recommends it. Almost all hospitals that's been removed from their formularies. This was a humanitarian catastrophe and a crime against humanity.

Yet no one will go to jail for it. You know, my question when I watched that, and really, I want people to read the book, so we're not going to get deep into all that we've covered before on Ivermectin, but the European Union, you're traveling around the world, you're speaking everywhere where you'll be heard. Is there a difference here in the United States of America when you have stood before the Senate? the Senate, there's like two people in the room. Is the EU any different?

Are they more open or porous to this discussion right now? You know, I hate to disappoint you, Del. But I'm going to say, I think there's a little bit more support, a little bit more interest at least publicly. But from what I saw at the European Parliament, you know, it was a day put together by about four or five different European Parliament. We're talking about four or five. That's all of Europe.

All of the members were invited to attend that session. from what I understood from those who were there is that they would not show up in public. Because if they showed up and actually attended in that forum, they would be then, you know, aligned with or allied with... Or have to answer questions, what did you think? Exactly. Now, the real question is how many were watching quietly, remotely, and we think those are significant numbers. So as far as how many of people in authority and power are willing to come out and address this in a direct and public fashion, it's unclear. But I do think the fact that that event happened, everybody was invited, and we were all given an audience.

I think it's significant. At the European level, I think that was a significant day. But it's hard to tell. I mean, this, you know, I used to think this was, or I acted as if it was a sprint. If you could see, like, I go everywhere, and like you did in COVID. I mean, we both worked, you know, really hard. But, you know, we have to transition to this is a marathon. And now I'm going to keep showing up.

But you see that, like any graphic. grassroots movement. I think it happens slowly and then suddenly, right? And so I think we're still pushing that boulder up the mountain. Yeah, absolutely right. Well, hopefully your book's going to really sort of help, you know, with moving this incredibly ridiculous boulder, you know. And this is, we've discussed it before, you know, drugs that work just as soon as they don't make the pharmaceutical industry money, they go to the waste bin. That company that made it will come out against it just because they want you on to the new and brightest thing where they can make money again. So it's a really disgusting program there. But what's interesting is just as you said it,

you know, as I said, you know, when you were here in America, you know, speaking about Ivermectin the middle of COVID, like there's no one in the room, right? Just a couple of people. European Union, the same thing. And then as you're saying, they don't want to be seen in the room. They don't even, because once they're in the room, now they have to answer to what did you think? Yes. about what you just saw. And in so many ways, that's really a metaphor for how science is working right now.

This is what I don't think people understand. If you want an investigation into any problem in a product, the doctor, like the medical establishment will not do that study. They will not step into the room because simply by stepping in the room, now they have to address it. And what they really hide behind is,

I haven't seen any evidence that says otherwise. Well, you didn't come to the hearing. You won't come to the room. CDC, FDA, NIA, you won't do the study. And that's all of science now around medicine, it seems to me, is we haven't, they'll say that they've debunked it. The news will tell you they've been debunked.

No, what they've said is, we don't have any evidence that shows us that. But you're not doing the study that would give you that evidence, right? I think that certainly was the case for a long time. But, you know, as I go into my book, Delb, they went further than that. So it's not only the lack of courage and integrity for people to step out, because you need that unique combination for those scientists to really try to direct good behavior of these regulatory agencies. But actually the opposite happened, Del. They did those studies, but they were fraudulent. They were the only studies done on Ivermanton where every single investigator had massive conflicts

of interest with the pharmacy, many times with competitors. And then when you look at the trials that they conducted and produced, which were heralded by all of academia as the largest, most rigorous trials and all of us researchers from around the world and I was not alone there's a huge network of scientists I would say in every country who have been calling the fraud around Ivermectin and we tried to voice our objections to the design and conduct of these trials they manipulated data brazenly you can see it in the publications and that's what happened so it wasn't even that they for a while they were slow walking they didn't want to do the trials you're absolutely right but then my gosh they did them and they did them with what

always done in medicine, which is they design studies to fail. How do you do that? How do you do that? Oh. Is there a pattern to? There are a lot of different ways that can go down. I would say actually, like everything else, there's a playbook. And it's really the same things they do.

And it's very simple. I mean, I don't want to get too sciencey, but you choose the mildest patients you can, right? Because you don't want to take the most severely ill and the sickest where it's going to have the greatest impact. So you're going to mute any benefits that you find. You find them mild. You find them young. You treat them. late as possible. And when you look at trials, for instance, for a Paxlovod and a

only period, it's unbelievable the trials. They were, they had massive numbers that they treated within two days. And these are drugs they're trying to sell. These are drugs are going to make them. And so all you have to look is the design of like an Ivermectin trial and a Paxilovid trial. And you can see every single tactic that they do. So Paxilobit, they treat them early. They treat the sickest, right? They treat them longer. They treat them at higher doses. Ivermectin lowest dose possible. Shortest duration possible. Start the latest possible, in the most mildest patients possible. They won't see anything.

But actually the thing is you'll still see benefits. The problem is when you do all of those things, the size of the trial to show a statistically significant result is much larger than what they have. They know all those calculations. Their whole goal is to find a lack of statistical significance. I will tell you, all the fraudulent trials actually found benefits. But in modern medicine, if you don't have what's called that P-value threshold, if you You don't exceed that.

It doesn't work. And to watch that, Del, to watch science being conducted at that level, repeatedly seeing the same brazen tactics every time from all over the world with these farmer-conflicted researchers. And I'm trying to call foul. I'm screaming from my office into podcasts and interviews and everything I can and no one's listening. Well, I shouldn't say that.

There is an audience. Like your audience. We have an audience. But it doesn't get out there and to have major policy impact. And I don't know what else to do, but just keep polishing forward. And we just keep pushing it. And we are making headway. You know, I was on this 2016 release my documentary Vax.

The Heart of Vax is a fraudulent study. Where in the middle of a study, after setting your protocols and how you're going to run the whole study, they kick half the kids off the study. I mean, that to me is just fraud. Like you are changing the parameters of the study in the middle of it because you don't like what you're seeing. All for what reason? To water down the findings to the end, they say, well, there was a little. little bit of a rise but it wasn't statistically significant.

Let me say a comment about that because there's another piece to this. It's not only the conduct and design of the trials by former conflicted investigators, the journals play a huge role because I will tell you, if I tried to publish a study that I had done myself and I had pulled those tricks, the peer reviewers would have said, this is an invalid study, go away. They would have rejected my trial. These trials where they pull all these shenanigans and they, you know, bury people, they take data out, to manipulate the data, they change endpoints in the middle, which is a never event in the conduct of trials. They're doing these things that you would never...

You would literally laugh at any paper if you ever did that. And guess what happens with these trials? They're published in the highest impact medical journals in the world where any peer reviewer worth their salt would have said, I vote to reject. This study is invalid because they did X and Y. Instead, sail right through publication. Then, after publication, massive headlines across the world, Ivermectin doesn't work.

Yeah. Yeah, it's really, really, it feels evil at the very least because as you said and you say so plainly, people are dying because of this. You recently spoke in Wisconsin in front of, I guess, the government up there. Is that this? Yeah, state legislature. State legislature. You went to a place that I was really shocked by.

I want to take a look at this. I'm completely estranged from my profession, and in some ways, even society. It's literally a society that's been corrupted by forces, and nobody realizes. We sit in these little bubbles, we read our New York Times, and we think everything's going as according to plan. You know, we even have my colleague over there who says that we saved a million lives with these vaccines. That is utter and complete nonsense. Nonsense. These vaccines save no one.

Across the world, the most highly vaccinated countries had the worst-case fatality rates. your date on vaccine injuries, you always have to multiply by a huge factor. And yet, even without that underreporting factor, it was truly concerning. The history of regulatory behavior of agencies is when you launch a new product or a new intervention and a death is reported, the traditional stance is you assume that it's related until proven otherwise. And I heard out of the mouths of public health leaders saying the opposite. They're not related. They're not related. It's all incredible. I mean, we have baby formula, which kills a couple of babies, and the entire product is removed from the market. You have a faulty muffler on a car, and they recall 300,000 cars.

And here you have all of these deaths being reported, and nobody's doing anything. I've never been more terrified in my life. We have an explosion in autism, which is totally coincident and correlates with the explosion in the schedule. And I'll tell you, my colleagues here, they're going to say there's no evidence to show that there's any link with, autism and the vaccines. That is nonsense. That is nonsense. All right, you know, Pierre, I've known you for a few years now. Since you got into this, we've really been celebrating your work. And I will say, you know, we've gone out and had a glass of wine after shows or being on stages together. And I remember early on, I was asking you, you know,

have you looked at the rest of the childhood schedule? And at that moment, you know, and, you know, You said, well, I mean, yeah, I'm sure there's some issues there. You just made a statement that is the third rail of all third rails, which is the autism vaccine connection. So clearly, and you're not the only one. You know, Peter McCullough is moving in this direction. Dr. Robert Malone, I mean, a lot of you guys. So I'm curious, and you get into this some of your book that's really interesting about, you know, a personal story that takes you there. but can you enlighten me on what is it about this journey into COVID vaccine and Ivermectin

that leads a person because this is some of the work that we're doing now with our audience. So many people like, I know the COVID vaccine sucks, but what about the rest of them? Tell me how that journey happens for a doctor that obviously believed in it, vaccinated your family, all those things. Yeah, well, trained as a physician, I mean, there's not even, vaccines aren't even presented as something to be questioned. I mean, that's settled science. It's established that they're safe.

effective and they've eradicated tons of childhood diseases. That is the myth that is taught to every physician in the land. So here I am. I have three children that I'm raising, never questioned them. Pediatrician says, you know, this is the schedule and I happily had them all vaccinated because I was told and I'd never had a reason to question the science behind vaccines. I believe what I was told and taught. And then like what you just said, you know, what happened in COVID is I became an expert on a drug in which exposed to me the absolute corruption and control of the system where they can literally get entire global population physicians to believe things that are false. So I saw the capacity and potential for the corruption of what it can see. Easily. Quickly. I mean, just amazing. And over

it. They can get natural immunity as a concept to disappear within 24 hours. With a little posting on an FDA website. So you see this power and the impacts. So I never questioned vaccines, But then like you said, the COVID vaccines, interestingly, I allowed my parents to get vaccinated in March of 2021. I hadn't done the deep dive yet, even though I was starting to see signals of concern around the COVID vaccines. I did my deep dive in early April of 2021. And since then, everywhere I go, I could tell anyone who ever asked me, please do not get that vaccine. Okay, so that's COVID. Yeah.

Let's go back to your question, right? So now I am really skeptical because I saw a global. propaganda campaign of not only safe and effective, safe and effective when they were anything but they were not effective and they were not safe, but then you saw the demonization of the unvaccinated, that whole thing. And I saw society literally breaking into half. And lobbying people like you, even Malone that got, you know, Malone got the vaccine and he's an anti-vaxion now. People that have every vaccine in their life, but just in this one, you're an anti-vaxxer. It's so easy. And that's the thing. They want to label you and they want to pigeonhole.

you into this fringe element. It's always this fringe element with these unpopular beliefs that are not credible. And that's how they neutralize you, right? Anyone who's speaking truth, they have to demolish your credibility, and that's what they do. And it's very effective, right? Although I think what we're about to discuss is how I think it's backfire. But go ahead. Okay. Yeah. And I think I can probably agree with you. For exactly the reason about what you're about to say. So then, you know, I want to borrow from Jimmy Dorr because I just saw this bit of his, he's obviously, you know, Jimmy Doer, his stand-up comedian, and he's been really very deeply studied on all aspects of COVID,

and he's talked a lot about it on his kind of news podcast. And then I saw this stand-up bit where he addresses this issue of this demonization of doing your own research, right? Where, like, don't do your own research, you know, don't believe anyone who's doing their own research. And he makes this statement, he says, I think that used to be called reading. Right, right, yeah.

And you realize that they live, label and they describe these practices as being uncredible. And it's like, no, I'm just being thoughtful, skeptical, questioning, and reading, which is really what we're taught to do with any area of life, right? And so now that I've developed a deep skepticism of now I'm seeing what's coming out of journals, what's coming out of the mouths of agency officials, which are unmitigated lies, now I have to start questioning, what else have they been lying about? And then I did something called Reading, Dell, right?

I read one of the most deeply researched and referenced books on vaccines, which is turtles all the way down. And the level of expertise and the depth of thought and the presentation of all of the comprehensive evidence around vaccines in regards to safety, efficacy, and the holes in research of what we don't know about these vaccines, put forth to me a really terrifying sight, which is I came to the conclusion. Not only that book, it was other things that I had read and understood and actually thinking about. about some of the epidemiological data around chronic illnesses and the explosion in American society and in US children after that expansion of the schedule. I was just overwhelmed with like, this is a massive toxic fraud in public health

on our pediatric populations, which carries into adulthood that has been perpetrated for a long time. I learned about myths about the polio epidemic. People don't understand the truth of that the polio epidemic likely wasn't a polio epidemic, meaning the virus was, cannot really credibly make an argument that that was the cause of all the paralysis. There are other things that likely did it. And the vaccine did not.

And the vaccine had nothing to do that. Like shows up, you know, late. They start, you know, recategorizing all the different forms of paralysis, Guillain Barre, transverse myelitis. Had you done that in the beginning, you would have made this, you know, the remaining specific polio myelitis would have looked like it disappeared anyway. The polio epidemic, as it were, is a fascinating top. And it also, to this point, is it revealed to me how this consensus issue, where this scientific consensus is somehow established. Once this established, it's very hard to break it.

So you had experts of polio at that time who were writing the definitive papers, and they came to the conclusion, X, Y, and Z, which happened to be false. Now, there were detractors. There were dissenters at the time who questioned the validity of those conclusions. but if you don't counter it at its source, it propagates. And so now I see a body of evidence supporting childhood vaccines, which is literally built on the backs of turtles, that analogy, which is like, you know, there's really no substantive support for safety efficacy,

the mandates of these vaccines, or really even their utility, and on a risk-benefit analysis, which is the core of what we do as physicians. Any action I take towards a patient, I have to carefully consider what is the benefit that this intervention is offering compared to its risks and alternatives. It's called RBA, risk benefits and alternatives. And you're constantly, especially I'm an ICU doctor. In the ICU, things move fast. You're making decisions with massive impacts and sometimes with risks,

and you're constantly happy to make that. But with the vaccine, you can be much more thoughtful, much more studied. And I ended up doing my own research into the history of vaccines and the myths that have been propagated, starting from smallpox. that was not a disease eradicated by a vaccine. Neither was polio. And most of the other childhood illnesses that are credited, their low incidence credited to vaccines,

is 100% false. Almost all of it was due to improve hygiene and sanitation and water supply. It was like, you know, vaccines are the greatest invention of the 20th century. It was like, no, no, the toilet is. You know, clean running water, not, you know, your feces, not mixing with the water you're drinking from and bathing in. Huge difference in health outcomes. the moment that happens.

But nobody knows that. You know, we're taught that the greatest intervention and discovery in medical history is the uptake and use of vaccines. And it's just not true. There's no credible evidence to support that. And so you talked about how some of our early conversations, I hadn't done that deep dive.

And now we're coming full circle. And then, you know, another issue which I've brought up and I kind of talk about in the book, but, you know, this is not my first. war in medicine. You know, as you know, you've dressed it with Paul and myself before. Paul and I, we fought a war around IV vitamin C, which they also attacked and demolished. But I have two, I have three daughters, and two of them had catastrophic cases of a disease called Pandas, right, which is this neuropsychiatric syndrome that develops after strep throat. It's not recognized

or taught in medical curriculum. It exists. I'm on a board of a nonprofit, which advocates for the recognition and treatment of these disorders. We fund research at the top academic institutions in land. There are neuroscientists working on this disease called pandas, yet it's still not taught. It's ignored. And what I came to find out in my journey is that it looks like, and I can't say this definitive, but the explosion and increased recognition around this disease called pandas, like many other childhood illnesses, appears to correlate with the explosion in the vaccines. And so for me, Del, I find out in the journey that something that happened to me and my family, which almost destroyed me, I've never been the same man as before my children got ill and now.

And the battle that I had to fight to get them the care. My kids, one of my children were put into two psychiatric hospitals and I had to take them out. I was told they had anxiety, which was the most absurd thing. I mean, I was literally fighting against people who I thought just were on another planet. But ultimately, my children are well. We resurrected them. They're well. And now I come to find out of my journey that likely my life and the life of my family had been destroyed quite possibly due to an effect of the vaccine.

Well, the question you have to ask yourself is how much, how prevalent was Pandas before, you know, in 1989, when everyone's getting 11 vaccines, we, liability protection now. No one has to do a safety explodes, 54 vaccine, 72 shots. What is the overall effect that I'm going to talk later on in the show about this? The issue and what I think we really need to start focusing on is the vaccine may have protected against the disease it was made for. But what we're not testing for is that having an effect on the rest of our immune system that is not, like, you know, simple strep throat. Strep throat now turns into this massive psychiatric issue. Is it potentially because the immune system's been altered and how it's going to handle other diseases? And I think that that is the conversation that needs to happen.

It's where the science needs to be done because our kids are sick. I mean, they are sick. You know, two out of three of your kids, you know, suffering autoimmune disease. And that's in the space we're talking about. We've gone from 12% of our children in the 1980s having autoimmune issues to now more than 54%. And that's out of a 2006 number. They haven't even given us. They haven't even given us new data since 2006.

I wonder why. I wonder why. I mean, I think we would not be surprised to find that we are, you know, unprecedented levels of autoimmune and neurological disorders. And, Del, that goes back to, like, if you want to have a discussion in science, you have to be objective, you have to be comprehensive, you have to amass all the evidence and weigh the evidence. Like, again, the risk and venom. So let's imagine for a second, I don't want to imagine this, but let's say the vaccines

actually were effective eradicating these childhood illnesses. Great, that's their benefit. You must still now look very closely as to what is the trade-off. What are the acute short-term toxic effects, and what are the chronic effects? If you have some of the lifelong autoimmune inflammatory disorder and or autism, which, by the way, I have, I take care of patients who have autistic children. I have patients who are in their 60s and 7 days, and you know what they are? They're terrified of what's going to happen when their lives end. Who is going to take care of their children?

Do children need so much care and attention? And what you don't have, let's be clear, are 70-80-year-old autistic patients. You know, I mean, this is what's so amazing. Oh, autism's always been here. Really, I had Mark Blacksville, a genius in this space, but he says, where are the people in my age with autism? Where are they? Where are the homes filled with elderly autistic people? They don't exist.

This is a new phenomenon. Pandas is a relatively new phenomenon. These are phenomenons that arrive right where, right where the vaccine program explodes. And I'll say this, because they haven't done the science, they refuse to do the science. We can't say that is the cause. But what I think you're saying, we're all saying is, but it certainly should be, on the table, it should be one of the primary things being investigated in this autoimmune disease crisis we're in, and it's the only thing not on the table, literally looking everywhere

but vaccines. There's no question. So, Del, let me bring the book towards the vaccines. So what the book is, it's part of my biography, the biography of my organization and my colleague Paul Merrick, and then I would say we delve into the corruption of the science around Ivermectin as a case study. But I want to make the point, although it's using Iverminton as a case study, it's really about the playbook that's always been used. That's what's so important. And when you read about the

vaccines and the evidence that's published in the peer-reviewed literature, you see the same playbook that they use to demolish a medicine as they use the flip side to support the safety and efficacy. You see the manipulations of studies around vaccines where they literally look only at certain data. They're cherry-picking data. They're not making what are appropriate scientific comparison groups. And then they come to these conclusions that. that literally are the opposite of what is true. And it's absolutely astonishing that it's been going on so long. There's no area of the medical science in which this is spared

when you talk about antidepressants and SSRIs and statins and many, many different fields of medicine. The playbooks appear over and over. And that's one of my hopes with this book is that if you can learn about the tactics used around Ivermactin, I want the world to be more skeptical and questioning. to do your own reading, do your own research, don't just accept edicts and conclusions omitting from the mouths of these officials as the truth because the experts have come to this

conclusion. I think there used to be experts. Now I have to question every expert because they're all conflicted. Either their jobs are dependent on it or they're literally getting money directly from those with financial interest in the topic they're talking about. My advice to the world is listen to no one who has a conflict of interest. And I like your intro to the show, because this show, you guys don't take advertising. You can say and be objective and say the truth. There's no outside influence on what comes out of your mouth.

And that's why I'm more likely to hear the truth here than anywhere else. You know, and I have to say your book is the first that we're releasing through ICAN Press. One of the things that was really important to us. And what I think this book is so important is, you know, these conversations can happen on a science level, and need to happen on a high science level. But you wrote this book in the personal story.

You made it understandable for all of us because we do have to understand this playbook. It's something that I try to do on the high wire every week. But this book truly represents what we're doing at I can, which is helping people understand, you are absolutely intelligent enough to understand this. Yes. They have like, you know, lulled you into a trance

that I'm too stupid to be able to make these decisions. I just gotta trust the experts. It's really quite simple. And I think when you read what we see, you know, the scheme and how it goes down, most people in whatever business they're in, like, oh, my God, that happens in my business, too, the exact same way. It's no different. It's corruption.

It's moneyed interests. It's biases based on who's funding what and how you move something forward. And, you know, we want to make money off of it. So let's shuffle all the problems under the rug. Still, it's unfortunately in many industries, it's standard operating procedure. It's how those business models are created and structured. the fraud and corruption, corruptive actions are implicit and standard.

And so even patients and people in those industries, and I don't think everyone's evil. I do think there are people in authoritative positions who know the game and they're driving the game. Many of the others I just might be more quietly complicit or just are not asking the questions or just not courageous enough to push back because guess what happens when you push back, right?

I mean, you've had a lot of people in your show who've come to you and we've shared our experiences of what it's like to do. tell the truth. And, you know, I don't want to, it's not an ego thing. It's a shame that there's so few of us who are, you know, per se, whistleblowers. But I think there are more and more coming out of certain industries and people are realizing that we need more truth because if, if you have industries whose practices are built on propagating lies in order to support their financial interests, they're going to roll over us. They have been rolling over. Our food supplies, our

medicines, our education. And I think everyone that wants to be, even though they're silent and maybe they're afraid. What everyone I think, if you have any blood coursing through your vein and it's in your heart right now, is science is about to die. Every reason I got into this to save people's lives is disappearing. Money and interest, I know I'm a part of poisoning people. You know, you even had people breaking from Burbank at FDA. You guys like Paul Offutt, big shills for vaccine makers saying, wait a second, this is not. We did no safety for eight mice.

You're going to approve something on a study of eight mice for all of humanity? I mean, it's gone too far even for some of the biggest shills in this business, which tells you how many people below that level were like, I was here to do good, I can't any longer. It's such an important book. We're so excited that you chose to make, you know, to work with us on this, and I Can Press, and it's going to be our first book. You know, I think of a comedian, and I think about this a lot when I think about books,

Bill Hicks. I don't know if you know Bill Hicks, but he had a great bit. You know, he says, you know, I was sitting in a truck stop one day, and the waitress comes up, I was reading a book and she says, what's you reading for? The question was, what are you reading? It was, what are you reading for? I don't know so that I can understand what's happening in the world around me and maybe, you know, increase my brain size a little bit.

You know, and then they said, and the waitress goes, we got ourselves a reader here. That's what I came up. Exactly right. It's all about. Yes. We actually have readers. I know we have readers in our audience that did do their own science.

We came out of this crazy moment in time where the propaganda was saying, If you're stupid, you read the science and you do your own investigation. Smart people don't read anything they trust the experts. And that was the mantra throughout COVID. That's insane. It goes against everything we believe. All I'll say is, you know, my whole career in academia, my prior career, I have a different one now. But, you know, I was an educator.

I love teaching. And I devoted myself to the teaching of medical students and fellows and residents. And I love doing that. And I think this book, in a way, is a labor of love and in a teaching exercise. I do want to spread the knowledge that I've gained in order to help people. And I think more knowledge is, there's never been any evidence to show that the more you know, the more it's going to hurt you. It's actually the opposite. The more ignorant you are, the more you're going to be beholden.

And at risk of doing things, like, for instance, with the vaccines, the ignorance of people and many people in selecting to take that vaccine from being lied to is they became. complicit in oftentimes their own demise and or disability. And they did it because they thought it was the right thing to do because they were told that way, but they didn't ask the right question. They didn't do their own research, reading. Yes. Right? And then the last problem is, what do you read?

And that's another lesson of that book is the trusted sources, those institutions of societies, the high impact journals and the agencies and their edicts, I have to say that I'm sorry, but those are misplaced faith and trust. There are decades of evidence to show that those agencies and institutions have been captured by industry. You need to go to other sources of information. And I hope that's a lesson people take from that book. I want to thank you for writing the book. We're really psyched.

It's going to be a huge success. Thanks, Del. Looking forward to it. And you are an absolute hero. Always love having you join us. Thanks, Del. Pleasure. Good luck in all of your travels, and we're going to win this.

Thank you. We're going to wake up the world. Thank you. All right. Well, for those of you out there, we're excited, June 6th. Go and get your pre-order copy right now, because those pre-orders help get it on all the list. New York Times, if they allow it there. We'll see if they try to censor this book. But ultimately, we want to drive sales of this because it's not only about your own education, once you understand what happens here, you're going to have an arsenal of more information on how you talk to your friends, how you can describe simply what's really happening here. And then you can also say, you know what, why don't you read this book? It's a great gift for all of your family members out there that maybe, you know, I don't think it'll work if they are just already have the cement around their shoes and they've sunk to the bottom of the ocean. But if they're treading water and you're seeing them asking the right questions, we believe that this is a book that is absolutely going to help them understand what happened during COVID. This is the launch of ICANN Press. A couple of great books coming your way. And this is why we created ICANN Press.

At the informed consent action network, we are always working hard to inform, education. and bring you the truth. That's why I'm excited to announce our new book and publishing division, I can press. Leveraging the power of the written word, I can press is partnering with dynamic writers, medical professionals, and experts dedicated to the truth, building a library that will captivate and power

and inform you and your family. ICANN Press has already launched the informant, an online monthly magazine, curating news from ICAN and the Highwire offered exclusively to our recurring donors. Sign up for the Informant. that Ican decide.org slash the informant. Now, ICAN press is bringing you two must-have books available for pre-order.

First, the war on ivermectin from author Dr. Pierre Corey. Details a relentless attack on a decades-old Nobel Prize-winning medicine that could have ended the pandemic. The war on ivermectin is available now for pre-order and ships June 6th. Also available for pre-order, I'm unvaccinated and that's okay. A children's book by Dr. Shannon Croner, which empowers people. parents to talk to the children about the decision to not vaccinate and how to navigate any negativity they may encounter out in the world. Buy these must-have books wherever books are sold, and at iCan Decide.com. Start building your library from ICAN Press today.

You know, it's amazing. We sort of have this international team that gets together to put together a show, and I'm sitting here looking at where this show is going and the guests that are coming up and thinking how beautiful this journey is about to be for all of you. This is a masterclass today on how corruption happens. We're going to get into something that really illustrates this. The World Health Organization is now coming out against Aspartame, saying that it's toxic. I always knew that, but how many of us have been drinking products and eating this, all these diet products, and this is what we now know. I'm going to be talking to one of the neurologists that has been fighting to wake us up to this issue literally for decades. Dr. Russell Blaylock is joining me.

But first, it's time for the Jackson Report. All right, Jeffrey. Plenty to talk about, as always. So let's get it going. Absolutely. So, Del, the gender space, especially in America, has got to be one of the most controversial spaces to talk about right now. And we really entered into it here at the high wire when we saw two things happen that

we've been well versed on in covering vaccines. We saw the government in the medical community combined to come, between children and parents during really important medical decisions. And we saw drugs being pushed on kids that aren't really being studied for long-term side effects. So this is where we're at. And, you know, just a couple of weeks ago, we had Luca, a detransitioner come on the show. And she talked about the pressure she received during, you know, a really, a really big decision in her life. And this is just a quick look at how that went. Check it out. I started to open up about the fact that I was like, oh, well,

I don't really like my chest or I don't like the fact I would got my period at that point. And I was just feeling like generally uncomfortable with like growing up into a woman at the time. As someone who was uncomfortable with their breasts and was wearing a binder at this point, like consistently almost like eight hours a day or more. I was like maybe this will help and I had talked about it with my therapist at this point a little bit. And from there she was like, yeah, we could get you into someone in your city that can do this. My therapist had like sessions where I was not there and it was just my parents. They thought that like, okay, well this is this must be like an established like treatment plan in the medical like medical world if they're saying that this is okay. We don't want our kid to like kill themselves.

So we're going to be supportive. So it was during the summer of 12. 2018 in July is when I was 16 years old and I had top surgery or double mastectomy. I take responsibility for my part in it, but I also can't be the only one. I was a teenager on, like, who had a history of mental health issues at this point, an approach with the idea of like, hey, I want to cut this part of myself off to feel better. And the medical community went, yeah, okay. It became, no, you're born in the wrong.

body, there's something wrong with you, and you need to be medicalized to fix this. Yeah, that was an incredible story. So many of you wrote in about that and the idea. I was amazing how many people said I never knew that there was this movement of people that called themselves detransitioners that really regret the decisions that were made when they were, a lot of them on drugs for depression, and then made decisions that just was like a snowball that didn't feel like they could stop and the medical establishment pushing them in that direction. Really, really a scary story and it's happening inside of our schools now across

the country. Right. And it's interesting because I'm starting to see some polarization, polarization of the media on the D-Transitioner story as they come out and tell these stories. They're getting a little pushback from the legacy media. But, you know, this conversation has so many offshoots on it. And this is one of the main ones is the gender care for kids. And this is Politico just recently, this article, it says health access, health care access for trans youth is crumbling and not just in red states. So they said it used to be, you know, a Republican problem, but we see this map here. And we see, you know, almost like 15 something states. In dark purple, we have the states that have banned gender affirming care for kids. Some of these are banned,

but in joint, meaning there's legal battles going on here. So this is a legit, hot battleground for this conversation. Another offshoot on this is in Washington state, the governor that just signed a new law. This is what that looked like. Very similar to California. is a trans minor protected from parents under Washington law. So here's the coming between parents. This is licensed shelters in host homes in Washington had generally been required to notify parents within 72 hours when a minor came into their care. Under the new law, facilities can instead contact the State Department of Children,

youth, and families, which could then attempt to reunify the family if feasible. Youths will also be allowed to stay at host homes. These are private volunteer homes that temporarily house young people without parental permission. So, you know, there's, it's, you know, they're called sanctuary states. People going from those, those band states in purple on the map we just showed, they can, the kids can go to Washington now, get into a host home, have some, have some space there. So just a lot of the conversation is, there's so many offshoots here. But one of the biggest offshoots, I mean, it just stopped us in our tracks when we saw this recently. This was one of the headlines.

Apparently there's been studies going on for a little while now. This was one of the largest study to date confirms overlap between autism. and gender diversity. And it says in here, it talks to a lot of experts, doctors in the field, it says, it also indicates a need for clinicians and educators to talk with autistic people about gender identity, DeWinter says, and to be aware of potential mental health impacts that can result from what's called minority stress or the difficulties associated with being part of a marginalized group.

Being both autistic and gender diverse can intensify such stress. So now we have this piece. The autism community is being looked at. by the gender transitioning doctors now. And what's interesting on this is you and I have a lot of experience with this community and some of their challenges. You have children dealing with motor planning issues.

You have children dealing with social interactions that's affected by their autism spectrum disorder, like the basic communication or the ability to build and hold relationships. So, you know, this is, is this just a subset? Is it a subset? Is it a small situation here or how widespread is this? Well, on the CDC's own website, remember the CDC who refuses to even look at autism and call it an epidemic despite the rise, they're advertising a 2023 national transgender health summit.

Interesting. So the summit just passed. So we went to the summit's website and I looked at the schedule. And in that schedule here, sure enough, we have a gentleman named Dan Karasik and he's teaching something called the mental health track. This is managing patients with co-occurring mental health diagnoses, neurodiversity. Okay, so this is very interesting.

Neurodiversity, we have autism community now being directly a part of this. And so there is some audio that came from that talk. Let's take a listen to it. It's really kind of astonishing how many times over the years parents have attributed to their children. trans kid where it's very clear the kid is trans.

They just also have a lot of discretion so in a minor way where the parents kind of commits themselves that the issues around gender dysphoria and gender expression are just like obsessive, repetitive, you know, interest-related ASP. So, you know, he's saying there, look, you have someone with autism who, one of the, you know, severe autism, one of the key points is a repetitive behavior, ticks, things like that.

This person is saying that apparently the parents are kind of misinterpreting that because those are actually signs in some cases of misgendering or gender expression that they're missing. So it's interesting. We're waiting into this now. We're seeing how they're talking, you know, not really behind closed doors, but at these conferences where these doctors meet. So now it goes on from there, and they're talking about assessing. How do we assess kids with severe autism?

And take a listen to that. People are a patient on picking out, you know, despite their quite severe autism. And it's very clearly trans and clearly, you know, benefiting from being on. on gastrogal, anything, you know, just in patient for more of feminization and wishes they had gotten treated earlier for that reason. I was just thinking to add to that.

I think it's really important when we submit an assessment to basically say the problem is with the assessment requirements and that they're very neurotypically designed. And that is preface it. Just preface it, due to that, I used other measures in information to find out about this particular person and simply educate people around there's different ways of knowing. And if we use the standard template, we're not going to find out. We may have to depend on parents. We may have to depend on drawings.

But we can't just say, well, until you can be verbal and answer the questions as we have in this assessment packet, we can't clear you. That's really just going to enjoy it. It's considered an education opportunity maybe for those above us that don't understand ASD as well as, you know, some clinicians do. Because even though there was obvious communication and in some of the assessments that I did, I still got pushed back because there was not enough coming from the person themselves and instead from the parent.

So it's very, very frustrating because you're correct. It's very, very narrow, typical. It drives me crazy. And I'm hoping that in the future we can change that. Well, it's interesting you mentioned drawing because this particular patient is able to draw up her feelings better than to speak to. I, honestly, Jeffrey, of all the things we've ever covered, this one is absolutely mind-blowing the level of stupidity here.

Am I to understand that these people are overriding parents that are dealing with the difficulties and I have interviewed hundreds, if not thousands of these incredible people, that what they're being told is, you know what your child's problem is, the repetitive disorders and things like that. And forget the fact that they're nonverbal. They're drawing pictures. And what we're getting from those pictures is that they're trapped in the wrong body. and we need to put them on gender transforming drugs,

castrate them, and then ultimately maybe cut their genitals off. That will solve their issues. I mean, is this? I don't even know what to say. I can't even imagine. I know how much of our audience right now, you know, are dealing with this at home of all the issues that you have to deal with. And by the way, can you imagine prior to, you know,

figuring out, you know, how to communicate or communicate, and I would say right now, forget the drawings, forget transgender right now, go to spelling to communicate, get your child communicating, or if they're an adult now, get them, we had this film, this is a game changer. Let them communicate to you, you know, in a real way and let them know what's going on. We're not going to have a bunch of psychologists and people that want to transgender your child staring at pictures and somehow making something out of that. But just this idea, I mean, when you think, about the severe autism, the frustration and the communication with this child. I can't even imagine putting them through surgeries and things like that, changing their gender while, you know,

with everything else you're trying to work through, this is madness at a level that I don't think has ever graced the screen of the high wire before. At least that's my personal opinion. Maybe somebody else is out there. No, Del, you're seeing this the wrong way. But am I missing something? You know, what's interesting is they're saying, I'm trying to basically start this transition track with these people. But, you know, the standard template, I'm coming in here with the standard template, it's not working because they can't talk. So, you know, I got to look at drawings and maybe which way they point or what they're pointing to. So it's the standard templates fault. We need to change that.

It seems very interesting that that is a conversation there. And, you know, the person said in the audio, too, that, well, I have a person with severe autism on Estradial. This is a major female steroid hormone. And they seem to be doing much better. They seem to be doing great. I wish they would have elaborated on that. They're trying to tell me they want to feminize faster. Really?

Through pictures. Right. And so we have this, the guy who led this Dan Carras Sick. He is not just kind of a figure, maybe like a blogger that's trying to get a spot at a conference to maybe get some attention. He's a main author in the standards of care of the health. of transgender and gender diverse people version eight so this is not someone who's just a bit player so this conversation is is you know it would be considered more high level than just your average run-of-the-mill side conversation at a at a summit or a conference but you know this this

this this kind of these two trains colliding of gender dysphoria and autism spectrum disorder are not anything new so we have a danish study and they found similar situation here a gender Dephoria and Autism Spectrum Disorder narrative review. And they said, despite the limited current literature on GD and ASD, there is now some replicated evidence of an overrepresentation of co-occurring GD and ASD compared to what would be expected by chance based on the estimated prevalence in the general population in both conditions. As up to around 20% of gender identity, clinic assessed individuals reported clinical range

features of ASD, we can cautiously conclude that co-occurring gender dysphoria and ASD is frequent. So that's what we're looking at here. This is something that is going to be a story moving forward because it looks like they're targeting. They're clearly targeted the autism community and specifically severe autism where these children can't communicate. They're going to teach, you know, just like, I mean, when you think about how, you know, demented this is, in the story of Luca, Luca can speak, but she's dealing with depression and being told your way out of your depression is you're just in the wrong body and they talk her parents into it. Can you imagine with a child that you're already having trouble communicating because they're

nonverbal at the moment, which we now know, they're fully cognizant. I want to make that clear. They're frustrated. They're inside there. They're having motor, you know, neuron connection issues. They're making it hard for, you know, fine motor skills to lead to speech. Spellers taught us so much in just these brilliant minds inside there. But man, when they talk about how frustrating it was just to try and, you know, explain that that's not my favorite kind of food. You keep feeding me, you know, burgers, I want chicken, things like that. If we couldn't figure that out, how is it possible? But what we did figure out is you were trapped in the wrong body. And then you think about the vulnerability. And you're right. You know, one of the issues with this, you know,

broad spectrum issue, autism spectrum disorder, is this difficulty connecting with people, right, of understanding, even those that, you know, are high functional. functioning Asperger's go to university, but one of the issues around depression is they don't know how to connect with people. Well, what happens when some doctor says, you know why? Because you're in the wrong body. We just need to cut off your genitals, and that will fix everything. You know, and they're vulnerable to that. If Luca is vulnerable in depression, how is someone that has really got an issue that that is one of the primary effects of it, is difficult to connect?

And now you're told, here's your silver bullet to fix that. it's demented, it's twisted, and it just shows just how incredibly out of touch I think many of the leaders of this conversation are. At least that's my opinion. I'm sorry. I'm stating it. Well, as we're talking about information and getting more information, like you said, the spelling to communicate, it would be a great way to take power away from these health professionals, put it back into the families and the actual children and autistic spectrum disorder people and have them speak for themselves. What a time for that to come in at this point. But we're talking about more. And for anyone that doesn't maybe are brand new, go check out our

episode, you know, where we discussed spelling to communicate with Jamie. We aired the film. There over 13 million people watched it. You can still find that online in different places. But if you know anyone that is dealing with, especially, you know, autism spectrum disorder in a space where they're having difficulty with communication, this is just a true miracle. I want to make sure that everyone seeks that out. It's one of the miracles that we have witnessed on this show with our own eyes. And we're all trying to get to the truth. We're all trying to get to the realest information possible so we can live our lives in the truest fashion. And let's be clear about something. COVID killed the media, the legacy media. COVID killed the legacy media. They're done. Now,

clearly they've been dying a slow death. They've been losing viewership for a long time before COVID, but that accelerated it. So, you know, why? During COVID, the legacy media, got everything wrong. Masks didn't work. The vaccine didn't stop transmission. Lockdown, destroyed the economy. And they pushed for all of those things simultaneously. They didn't change their view, even when the science showed that their view should change.

It was the alternative community. It was citizen journalists that were really taking that and championing those points forward. So now we're at an inflection point. We're at a point now where journalists, media organizations that, let's just say, got it wrong. They can say, we got it wrong. we're going to try to do better, we're sorry, or they can double down. So the people that got it wrong are starting to sound like this. This is Marianne Cloick, and she was at a National Citizens Inquiry in Ottawa. And this was just a couple days ago. Listen to what she had to say. She's a veteran CBC

journalists. You know, I know that as a public broadcaster, you expect us to be telling you the truth, and we'd stop doing that. And there was another number of stories that I had put forward that were blocked, but it seemed to me as a journalist who'd been there 34 years, it's like the rules had changed overnight, and it changed so quickly that it left me just dizzy in disbelief. I was blocked and prevented from doing stories that I had pitched that I'd put forward. They never saw the light of day. They never made it to air or print.

And some of those stories were protests against vaccine mandates, people's safety concerns about the vaccines, and also the many problems with that reporting adverse reactions in Canada. You know, I would say this. If a journalist or reporter you trust isn't saying that to you in public, you should never trust them again. If they are not coming clean and saying, you know, either I was trying to tell these stories it wasn't allowed to,

or I did, you know, end up telling false stories, and now I realize I was wrong, This is what every journalist should be telling us around the world. If they're not, their networks should be destroyed, burned, and thrown in the dustbin where they belong. And it's all up in the air right now and where are we going to land? So not only is the CBC having some issues with this, obviously, she left. Marianne left and hats off to her.

She's standing in integrity and a truth. BBC had the same problem with this. The BBC in the UK, this is one of the headlines there, how the BBC lost its way on COVID. And the byline says, I've seen from the inside how the corporation has, failed and it's reporting on the pandemic. This was from someone that worked on the inside. He wrote under a pseudonym, false name, and he was saying how they just dropped the ball during that. And what was the cost? I mean, we saw people protesting the CDC during the pandemic because of

their lives, but they had legit job cuts. They lost revenue. And so this is what happened after that, BBC News and BBC World News presenters among 70 staff facing sack. There was a lot more when you read in the article that left. So now we watch the same thing as CNN. We've watched this, you know, clearing Don Lemon, you know, all these different, you know, spokespeople losing their jobs. I mean, it's been a disaster for mainstream media. Absolutely. The failed launch of CNN Plus. So now we go back to the BBC.

Let's focus on them for a second. So they got it wrong in a spectacular way. They got it so wrong they lost so many viewers that they had to cut their staff. So now they're back. And are they apologizing like Marianne? Well, you be the judge. Take a look. All right.

Welcome to BBC Verify. like you said we are a team of investigative journalists here at the BBC we are also a new brand and we are a physical location above the newsroom in London and the point of the team as you said is to verify video to fact check to counter this information and to analyze really complex stories so we can get to the truth of what's going on i'm going to give you a bit of a flavor of the kind of work that the team are doing so we're able to look at maps to geolocate and specific situation stuff that's going on and this is just a map of central london where we are now. And this is new broadcasting house where I'm speaking to you from. And it's not so

important perhaps for the centre of London, but it is when we're analysing war zones or what's happening in hard to reach places. And there's a story on the BBC website today. It's looking at Russian fortifications on the front lines in Ukraine. And you can read more about it there. And there are other ways that we also are able to interrogate what's going on, including on social media. I have some undercover accounts that I've set up for the BBC's AmeriCast podcast. And we use these kinds of undercover accounts. And these are the characters that the accounts belong to, to be able to really understand polarization online

and what's happening on our social media feeds and what we're being recommended and pushed to us can affect all of us. And they don't offer us totally exhaustive insight into what's going on, but they can help us understand just how social media works. And then there's also investigating other mistrudes and the real world harm they can cause. At the moment, I'm investigating the UK's case. conspiracy theory movement. I'm trying to understand more about how it's evolved and intensified

since the pandemic here in the UK. I'm looking at the alternative media that finds itself at the heart of this movement and a conspiracy theory newspaper that's a part of that as well. I mean, so they're doubling down. What they think the world wants is just even more fact-checking. I mean, it's incredible. We're going to go after all of those social media sites that got it right all the way through COVID. And we even have this ability to zoom in on. your house or probably you know where you're writing your blog from i mean it's really scary stuff i mean incredible that they think this is how they're going to save themselves is literally by intensifying the horrible reporting they've done so far and it's funny they're saying this

we have there's a new brand they're and they're looking at the alternative media like it's the spaceship that she's landed they're like poking it with a stick like we've got to find out more information about this why all our viewers left to go to this alternative media and you know notice she said at the beginning, we're here, we're a big team, we're going to analyze complex stories. Yeah, your journalist, that's what you do. It's nothing new. And what is that? Google Maps you're using. I don't know. That's great. It's a touchscreen. That's fancy. And you're going to create fake accounts on social media to get to the truth. That's an oxymoron right there. I mean, no better way to find the truth than the lie about it. You're giving us these, you know,

fake titles like disinformation expert. Is that a college course? What is that? Where are you coming from? So we go to BBC and the actual website has an article to celebrate this new brand explaining the how the launch of BBC Verify. It says in all BBC Verify compromises about 60 journalists. Remember, they lost 70. So they just rehired 60 to do fact checking who will form a highly specialized operation with a range of forensic investigative skills in open source intelligence capabilities at their fingertips. Dell, open source intelligence is basically just looking at what information is out there in the world and creating that to get to the truth. People have been doing that on social media, citizen journalists, regular people. Parents of children with autism had to do open source intelligence

medical research because the doctors cast them aside. This is nothing new. And BBC is stepping out on this plank saying, we're reinventing, what, fact checking. But the fact check in business is getting pretty crowded these days. Everyone's jumping in there. So if you see people, talk about fact checking you're noticing that this they're trying to rebrand because they got it wrong they're losing viewership so this is their new brand and you see this chart here from all sides dot com even fact checking has a little bias here so they have to give you a chart to tell you where your fact checker leans is it too far left on the CNN side or is it too far right on the town

hall side but sure enough right down the middle the people you can really trust our friends at the Pointer Institute there there's the BBC right there oh there's there's their new BBC verify. I'm sure we can trust them according to this. So that's where we're at in the news business. A major shift is going on right now. And really, when you look at this, let's just be honest. It's about the loss of narrative control. It's about the loss of the gatekeeping ability that they have. And they're choosing to look at this from a fearful way. We can't have disinformation go out there and harm people. But what about the flip side of that? How beautiful is that for everyone to do their

own research? Empowerment at the individual level builds resilience. And I would argue that these people are bound by their jobs, by that very jobs that they hold because they have to stay in the narrative. I'd rather get the truth from people that are not bound by anything that are free to go where the truth goes. So now we have this other piece coming in, this social credit score. So we have fact checkers telling us and trying to categorize what is truth and what is not, what is narrative, what is not, what you can say and what you can. But then we have the social credit score. So in the U.S. slowly building from the bottom up. And this is a couple headlines here. We've covered these in the past, these topics, ESG scores similar to China's social credit system designed to

transform society, think tank director says. Another one, report. America has a social credit system, much like China's, but it was built by Silicon Valley and not by the government. So a fact checker company that's been all over us is NewsGuard. And this is one of the things that they wrote about us, the high wire and what they're calling the anti-vaccination, misinformation, whatever. It said, Despite newsguards prior warnings and reports to the WHO, Facebook and Instagram have allowed known anti-vaccine misinformation super spreaders to flourish on their platforms. That's great. Just go with some dehumanizing language.

And it says in here, accounts include high profile purveyors of misinformation associated with newsguards red-rated websites. So they're really starting to cast people aside. They're putting them in categories, such as Children's Health Defense, 175,000 Facebook followers and 272,000 Instagram followers. and its founder Robert R. Kennedy Jr., who, despite having been removed from Instagram, for spreading anti-vaccination, anti-vaccine misinformation enjoys more than 330,000 followers on Facebook. Also featured are the InformConson Action Network, ICANN, pages with more than 50,000 Facebook followers,

48,100 followers on Instagram, and up to 66, 600 followers in February of 2021. ICANN has been identified as spreading health care misinformation and four of NewsGuard's reports to the WHO. I mean, that's, you mean, and folks, just so you know, this is part of what, you know, we have to deal with in this work that we do. As you know, we have the High Wire Protocol. And if you aren't, you know, accessing that, all you have to do is give us your email. It's right there in the middle of the page to scroll down to sign up and put your email in there so that you subscribe.

And we will give you all the data of all the information that we are discussing on the shows so that you can read it yourself. The studies we're talking about are there. It's full transparency. NewsGuard reaches out and gives us these long lists of questions they want answers to. Where are our sources? We always give them all of our sources. And then they print, as you can see, it doesn't matter what we say.

Here's how it works. We will give them all of our sources and they will say, well, Tony Fauci said, blah, blah, blah. Therefore, what you're saying is misinformation. I was like, no, we gave you studies by a real scientist, peer reviewed. So what you have is a difference of opinion. Now you could say there's a difference opinion on this subject, But to say it's debunked because Tony Fauci said so, and these reports are going to the WHO. I think the point to make is these unscience-based networks like, you know, BBC or NewsGuard, are reporting people like us to the WHO.

And now we're looking at the WHO wants power of the world. They want to be able to dictate the next pandemic, move the United States of America out of the way. And so what we look at is this may just be words on paper right now, but where is it leading? Right? Where is this all leading? Right now, I don't care. And by the way, they reached out to us this last week, and we finally basically responded and said, you know what? You never end up printing what we say. You still stick to your bias and you were wrong when you, we got dinged and reported the WHO when we said that there was a possibility that this was a lab leak. We're right. They're now wrong. We said that the social distancing wasn't going to work. We're right. All the science shows, they're wrong. They nailed us when we said that the vaccine would not stop transmission. We're right. They were wrong. Newsguard, you're a bunch of morons. And what's scary is these morons have the level of power that they're reaching out to these bigger and bigger agencies. And what happens if our government starts listening to these fools? God forbid.

Absolutely. And it's about who's deeming who is untrustworthy. And we're seeing it from the bottom up here in the United States. But what does it look like when it comes from the top down? And that's what's happening in China with their social credit score. Take a look at this. A good score brings benefits, but people with low scores lose rights. The cinema names and shames people considered untrustworthy,

plastering their details, even their addresses, across big screens. It's a matter of principle. Those people have to be condemned. Those people aren't honest, so they have to pay the price. It's only right to pay your debts. You have to blacklist those that don't. The Supreme Court has created a blacklist for so-called bad citizens. Those whose ratings have dropped to zero. On it are companies, but also 23 million people to date. Among them is this journalist Liu Hu.

He got a little too close to uncovering corruption among high-profile party members. After being sued for defamation by the subject of a story he'd written, he was blacklisted. He only realized when he tried to buy a train ticket and was told he was banned from traveling. That tells me I'm still on the blacklist. punished because he's been branded untrustworthy by the state. Once you're blacklisted, you can no longer get a bank loan, start a business, buy an apartment, or even send your children to a private school. You who is among a tiny minority of people who have dared to criticize the system, which some

are calling a digital dictatorship. I worry, because I think many people who are very people who have dared to criticize the system. I worry. because I think many people like me will be deprived of individual freedoms, and all of us will live with restrictions of one kind or another. After our meeting, Youhoo learned that his name had been removed from the blacklist, but he still has a long way to go if he doesn't want to languish at the bottom of the social credit hierarchy. I mean, as I sat here, and we watched this video when we're preparing for this,

but what actually just hit me is we really aren't far from that. If you look at my Wikipedia page, I might as well be on a poster on the side of the highway because every time you look up my name, I have a Wikipedia page that's locked. No one's allowed to change it, and it says a bunch of negative stuff, that I spread misinformation, all these things, even though everything that we've done here, we've backed in science, we look, you know, just this side of immaculate, on our reporting over COVID and every network got it wrong.

But these are these shaming sites now where they are the first things that pop up when anyone searches your name. And we're just right around the corner from billboards being out there. There's headlines all over that you'll see by major newspapers that are all a part of this like the BBC. I mean, it's a hit squad for government really. Or the funded narrative, as we should say. Yeah, and it's very important to continue.

to drive these points home, the disinformation industrial complex or censorship industrial complex. These things are all converging right now to really curate one narrative, and that's the dominant narrative, which is, as we see in COVID, is often wrong, and they don't ever correct the record very often. So not only is the news media, the legacy media, losing integrity, losing viewers, But like we've reported it here before, the American health agencies, the FDA, the CDC, they're having a loss of confidence as well. And right now, the FDA is in the middle of approving a whole new class of vaccines. And that's the RSV vaccine. And if you remember, we reported on this just a couple of years ago, there was an RSV is a respiratory syncytial virus. It usually comes during the wintertime. It's a respiratory virus. And it was coming off season. So the people with the COVID. shots were out and people were locked down and you had this you had this virus that was spreading in the summer instead of during the winter where it usually spreads here's the headlines from that time why the respiratory disease rsv is having an off season surge one of the first in several years and people were

saying well you know it's the immunity gap people were locked down they didn't develop the immunity against this and then when we were you know when the lockdowns were released in certain areas then people were just getting this but they noticed that other diseases respiratory diseases like the flu were not surging So people are kind of scratching their head. But no one in the media except us really was reporting on the fact that in Modernist COVID trials, from the six-year-old to six-month-old to five-year-olds were having increased RSV cases when they were in these trials compared to the placebo arms. No one talked about that.

So now we fast forward to currently this month, 60 and up was approved. So FDA approves world's first RSV vaccine, a shot for adults ages 60 and up. That brings us to this headline. Vaccinating, this is their next kind of venture. Vaccinating pregnant women against RSV helps prevent severe illness in newborn study shows. This is a Matisse trial. This was fully funded by Pfizer and then published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The FDA, the Virpac Committee spoke about this.

This is their bivalent protein-based vaccine. And we go into the article here to talk about this. And the article is kind of just like a press release from Pfizer. there were no major safety concerns with the vaccine, although 5.6% of pregnancies in the vaccine group ended in premature delivery compared to 4.7 in the placebo group. That's kind of a big deal. It's a big deal. That's like, you know, so is that 20% maybe like somewhere around 17% increased risk of preterm delivery. But hey, let's just look the other way, nothing to see here. Right, huge. And we're vaccinating pregnant mothers. This is, you know, this is kind of a big deal.

So Pfizer came to here with a phase three trial. They presented defer back. They did not have it adequately powered, meaning there was only about a little over 3,000 pregnant women in the vaccinated group and the placebo group respectively. So they didn't have it powered to figure out if that preterm delivery issue, they could find if it's statistical anomaly or if this was really a big issue. The study also, although it said it was supposed to, the study didn't include breastfeeding data, which clearly would have some type of impact on vaccine efficacy. But let's go on. We go back

to this article. It says this. Very important point. The reason the shot is given to pregnant women and not the babies themselves is because the newborn immune system is so immature. Oh, Rousseau explains. The idea is that we'll vaccinate pregnant women and they'll make the antibodies that will cross the placenta and offer the baby protection for the first few months of life. Amazing, Dell. They're finally admitting this. This is a point we've been making at both ICANN and the high wire for years. So we're going to vaccinate the mother because the first couple months, the babies, immune system is so immature that they're not. Basically, they don't have an immune system that can learn anything. So all those vaccines you're giving in that first year of life are absolutely useless because

they don't create memory. There's not an immune system there to memorize it. And so now they're vaccinating the mothers, which I don't like that either, but the point being, they're admitting a problem that we've been pointing out for years. Can we just dump all the vaccines as being in the infants because they're useless and pointless and don't actually work? Yeah, and so let's look at the CDC schedule. Let's look at those first two months they're talking about that they don't work really in infants. And you got with us two shots of happy rotavirus, DTP, polio. That's about eight shots there. So will you stop giving these to babies because their immune systems aren't fully developed yet can we have this conversation now right anyway back to the back to the story so there's a lot of

vaccine makers rushing this space we have fyser we have johnson johnson and we have gsk so this is something that was not brought up during the verpak conversation is gsk halted three this is reuters jsk halts three trials of respiratory virus vaccine and pregnant women well that's interesting because that's just what visor told us was really a great vaccine and now we go to the bmj to look that look at this little further analysis, maternal RSV vaccine. Further analysis is urged on preterm births. It's the BMJ. It says in February 2020, GSK halted enrollment and vaccination across three phase three trials of its maternal RSV vaccine candidates citing a safety signal in one of them. It emerged that the concern was about an increased increased risk of preterm birth in the vaccine arm.

And get this, it says in a document submitted to the FDA, GSK's data showed 238 preterm births out of 3,496 or 6.8% in the vaccine arm and 86 out of 1,739 or 4.9% in the placebo arm. Around one extra preterm birth for every 54 vaccinated mothers, there were 13 neonatal deaths in the vaccine arm and three in the placebo arm. Obviously, huge, huge concerns there. And similar, right? So similar to the Pfizer. What Pfizer's telling you is there was a, you know, It was about 70% higher. This, I don't know, this is probably 25 or 30% higher, but you're seeing the same problem. What you're seeing, what it should be triggering to, as, as Pierre Cori had said, every single peer-reviewed paper right now should be saying, hold on a second.

Pfizer's having the same problem. We poll GSK. Why aren't you polling Pfizer? Because it's only, you know, killing fewer babies. It's only hurting, you know, 20%, not 30%. I mean, this is the problem. Scrap it, dump it. the thing is causing problems.

And that's just in the small group you're looking at. God knows what the long-term effects of this are going to be. Not adequately powered studies to even figure out, even answer this question. And so here we get to this story, EpiPoc Times. FDA advisors, this is the Virpac committee, FDA advisors back maternal RSV vaccine. As Pfizer says safety concerns can be study post-approval. So here we go again. We have to approve it to determine whether it's safe or not.

Why? because Pfizer, a multi-billion-dollar company didn't come to the table and do their homework. So this is now going to go to the FDA to see if they approve it or not. And then we're going to talk about the CDC and ASIP at that point. But we're going to be on this every step of the way, Del, because this is no minor thing. This is a major deal. We're talking about pregnant mothers who are vaccinating with shots that have questionable, questionable safety issues here.

And so folks, just so you understand what the scam is, as soon as the FDA approves it, to say, oh, we'll study it, you know, post-marketing once everyone's getting it, that erases the ability for there ever be in a placebo group again. That is what this is about. If you say, you know what, we need more studies. Go back to the drawing board. Do a larger powered study against a placebo group, meaning a group that are getting a saline injection compared to vaccine, and let's follow them more long-term, since there's clearly a short-term problem.

Let's see if there's a long-term problem. As soon as they get it approved, soon as the FDA says, oh, nope, approved. Placebos can never be used again. Now it's unethical. And now you're just stuck with what Pierre-Corri is saying. You're going to have to look at the giant population that say, oh, it's similar to the background rate, just as we saw in the trials. And we're all moving on.

And only if there's pitstorks and blazing, you know, torches outside the walls of the CDC, will they then go and produce a fraudulent study, manipulate the heck out of it, and say everybody go on business as usual. I mean, it's incredible. It's over and over and over again. All right. Well, look, you've been warned. For everybody, tell your friends that are pregnant, tell them they don't need this RSV vaccine. This is something that, you know, we've all had children, RSV didn't kill our babies.

This is insane. You should not be putting in that risk. You don't want to be increasing your risk of preterm birth and probably neonatal death. None of that's necessary. All right. I'm going to just say that right now. And this product is untested. And they're never going to do the proper tests now that they've approved it because then they'd be held liable.

All right. Jeffrey, great report. Amazing stuff once again. Keep up the good work. We'll see you next week. Thanks, Tell. Thank you so much. On that note, and as I said at the top of the show, this is going to be a bit of a masterclass today because we really are trying to get you to understand how this scam happens. And so many of you are brand new to the high wire. We started this all way back in the early, in early 2017, this show, where we were just this little nonprofit. We started a closet with one camera in front of me and, you know, and a guy behind. that was editing and, you know, Patrick and Catherine were there with me, just trying to make a show happen. But what we were producing was the information we were winning in lawsuits through Aaron Siri, winning against the CDC, winning against the FDA and the LH. And it started

creating this picture that we were able to understand of how the scheme of vaccine safety is being done and how there's a blindness to it. And by the way, they've never done a placebo study of any of the childhood vaccines. So I want to answer this question that you all keep writing in on that are joining us now. I know the COVID vaccine sucks, but what about the rest of the childhood vaccine schedule? What about those vaccines? Well, they're exactly the same. COVID vaccine is just like every other vaccine. It was rushed on the market. In fact, it actually did have a placebo grip for a couple of weeks, which was better than any other study of any of the vaccines you've already given most of your children, unfortunately. But this is what I'm going to do is we're going to keep

using COVID to help you understand how this scam works. This was triggered by a headline I saw this week. Take a look at this. Baby dies and nine more admitted to hospital in unusual cluster of heart infections. WHO warns of a surge in severe. There it is. Myocarditis, a potentially deadly inflammation of the heart in South Wales and Southwest England. One baby dies is another headline about the same thing. One baby dies and eight others fight for life due to spike in a, and you usually harmless virus. The sudden spike in the condition left health chiefs baffled. And an investigation has been launched to determine the causes of the spread. They're just mind blown. We have no idea where this myocarditis, why all of a sudden is, you know, a regular virus that doesn't affect

anybody now killing children and swelling their hearts. I know, don't get ahead of me. Don't get ahead of me on this. We all heard myocarditis before. We know what causes myocarditis. But, Before we get into that, where you think you know this is going, let's just take a step back to pre-COVID. So a story we've shared with you of a lot on the high wire because it's going to give you a lens into understanding what you're actually watching happen and will help you understand the childhood vaccine program. I want to talk about a guy named Dr. Peter Abe. Peter Abe is a world-renowned vaccinator. He is in charge of designing vaccine programs for the Middle East and underserved nations. He prides himself in the work that he's done. Well, Peter Abe decided, I don't know why, but since I think many of us that says,

why don't you just do a vaccinated versus unvaccinated study? Compare the health outcomes of those that are fully vaccinated to those that are completely unvaccinated and see who's actually healthier. If you've been watching the show, you know that Robert Kennedy and I sat before the National Institutes of Health. Tony Fauci sat right across from me. Francis Collins was across from Robert Kennedy. And we were asking simple questions like,

Why are you not doing any placebo studies? And why won't you compare the vaccinated to the unvaccinated? Because if you did and you show that vaccinated are actually healthier than all the unvaccinated kids, this conversation would be over. You know what they said to us? We will never do that study emphatically. I'm not going to get deep into that, but here is probably why. Dr. Peter Abe decides, you know what? I have a way to do that study.

What he recognized is he had done a DTP vaccine program in the country of Guinea-Bissau Africa. And what he realized 30 years after this program was, you know what, because we were really specific on the age groups of the children that were receiving this vaccine, and if you weren't in that age group, you didn't get it. And also because it was hard to get to certain villages, he realized retrospectively looking at it that we actually only vaccinated half the kids with this DTP vaccine, in some cases, a polio vaccine. And he realized it's totally randomized by the nature of how we only got to half the kids. We have a perfectly randomized control trial across an entire country of, you know, similar human beings with similar diets and racial profiles. And so he said, I can do a perfect comparative study. And when he did that study, he was shocked at what he discovered. Now, folks, the diphtheria-technist or protestants vaccine is still used today.

In fact, it is the most popular vaccine used in underserved nations. UNICEF and everybody are in on it. We have tried to sue. That's a whole other story, but here's why. When he looked at this is what he found. This is the paper on it. The introduction of diphtheria pertustis and oral polio vaccines among young infants in an urban African community and natural experiment. What he found was DTP was associated with a five-fold higher mortality than being unvaccinated. What he found when he looked back was kids were dying at five times the rate if they got the vaccine. And that was if they got two vaccines at the same time. You look at this chart, diphtheria and oral polio.

If you got both of those five times the rate. If you only got the DTP vaccine, those children died at 10 times the rate of those that didn't receive any vaccine at all. This blew his mind. Wait a minute. And what he realized was they weren't dying of diphtheria, tetanus, and protusses. The vaccine was protecting against the diseases it was aimed at, but it was clearly creating a susceptibility that was making them vulnerable and making other diseases more deadly, like, you know, dysentery or malaria. They were dying at much higher rates than those that hadn't

gotten this vaccine. But don't take my word for it. This is him explaining it to an audience. This is about vaccines. And I think it's important to recognize that no routine vaccine was tested for overall effect on mortality in randomized trials before being introduced. I guess, most of you think that we know what our vaccines are doing, we don't. The program we are talking about at this time, the vaccine program was introduced sort of in the late 70s after the success with the eradication of smallpox. WSO made sort of the first immunization program for the low-income countries. While you comes out here, you had 2.3 times higher mortality if you were DCP vaccinated.

And that is the most commonly used vaccine in the world. And note again that this is clearly worse for girls and for boys. It's not good for boys, but it's the girls do worse. When you introduce DTP booster, mortality goes up. When we introduce hepatitis B, which is also an inactivated vaccine, the same thing happened. So by now we have shown negative effect for girls for six inactivated vaccines. DTP 1 is 20% higher mortality, but then when you come to DTP 3, it's 70% higher. 70% higher mortality for the girls for the boys.

So the moving cough vaccine or a pathosis vaccine was associated with two-fold higher mortality. And please note that the tendency is that this seems to be slightly worse for girls. You can have a vaccine which is fully protected against a specific disease, but associated with higher mortality. How is that possible? This is the first time, as he said, the study had ever been done. This is the truth, folks. There has never, ever been a study looking at the vaccine program in America.

or England or anywhere looking at, did it actually increase the lifespan when he finally asked that very important question, not the question. The only one they ever asked, as he said, is did it stop the virus or the bacteria that we were trying to protect you from? Yes, it did. But in the end, it killed more children. And that question has never been asked. Is our vaccine program killing more children? We know, as we pointed out with Dr. Pierre-Corri, that we've gotten much more sick. We used to have a chronic illness rate of about 12% when we had 10 vaccines, and now it's 54% of autoimmune disease and neurological disorders in our children now that we have 52 vaccines or, you know, in 72 doses, and it keeps on climbing. So all of this to say,

what he's pointing out, and I want you to be clear about this, the vaccine blocked against, you know, disease, you know, at least the illness, the, it may not have stopped infection, but it's stop them from being sick from it, but it caused a sort of a suppression of immune system that led to more death. This is Christina Stable-Benz. This is someone that actually works with Peter Abe. Now, just in case you think he's lost his mind as an anomaly, she did a TED talk on this. This is what she, how she described it. I'm a medical doctor and a researcher, and for the past 25 years, I've been working in the small West African country in Nair, Bissau. We started doing what nobody else had done before us, we evaluated the effect of vaccines on overall health. Before we started looking

closer at DTP vaccine, it had only been studied for its protective effects. In one study, we went back to historical data from when DTP vaccine was introduced in Ginebisau in the 1980s, and the results were scary. In spite of being protected against three deadly diseases, the introduction of DTP was associated with increased overall mortality. Children who received DTP vaccine had five times higher risk of dying than those who didn't. And this is just one example of many studies now done of DTP vaccine, and they all show the same. The protection against the three deadly diseases comes at a very high price, namely increased risk of dying. So with the best of intentions, the use of DTP vaccine may kill more children than it saves.

based on these observations that if we modify the existing vaccination schedule in low-income countries, then we could save 1.1 million children every year. 1.1 million children, that's equivalent to more than 3,000 children every day, with minor modifications of the vaccination program. I know these results are extremely uncomfortable, and most people, including myself, just wish they weren't true. but this is what the data tells us. We hear that vaccines save millions of lives, as Pierre Corrie said in Wisconsin.

Anyone that tells you that COVID vaccine saved a million lives, it's ridiculous. This vaccine saved no one. In fact, what we are seeing now through DTP is there's vaccines that cause more death. What is what she ends up saying is if we remove DTP vaccine from the program, we will save a million children a year. Okay? Did you hear that? Not.

If we add a vaccine, by removing a vaccine, we will save a million children a year. So I say all this because you see how hard this is for these scientists to admit. And they're saying, you may think we know how the vaccines work, but we do not. This is the statements they're making. This is what I can. And the work that we've done has proved over the last several years through multiple lawsuits and everything else. All right. Now that you understand that, that a vaccine is only looked at by those that make it,

doesn't stop the illness. they never look at does it actually make you healthier in the long term or does it raise increase your risk of death for autoimmune disease and things like that now let's go back to this story that caught my attention now that we're looking this way one baby dies and eight others fight for life due to spike and usually harmless virus it tells us the sudden spike in the condition left health officials baffled and investigations begin launched to determine the causes of the spread and baby dies and nine more admitted to hospital than usual cluster of heart infections Late on Tuesday night, the World Health Organization said there had been a rise in severe myocarditis of potentially deadly inflammation of the heart in newborns and infants between June 2022 and March 2003.

A total of 15 babies, 10 in Wales, 5 in England, presented with a condition during this period, WHO said, of these nine tested positive for an antirovirus. Oh, an antivirus is the cause. A common pathogen which can cause respiratory illness, hand, foot, and mouth disease, and viral meningitis. In very rare instances, young babies can develop myocarditis. Oh, so this virus can cause myocarditis, I guess. The report incident represents an increase in both the number and severity of enterovirus infections and infants under the age of one month. The WHO said in Tuesday's announcement, only one case had been identified in Wales in the six years prior to 10 cases appearing in Wales in one year last year. Okay, massive increase, and they're blaming it on enterovirus.

So let's check in here. I know we're getting the weeds, but stay with me. Myocarditis, where do we hear that before? We know that that was a side effect of the COVID vaccines. It's one of the most, you know, the one that got the most pressed because they couldn't get around it. Now all of a sudden it's happening to infants. It couldn't possibly be the vaccine. Their minds, it's an enterovirus.

Let's look at their investigations into antivirus and why are they looking at it? When we look at enterovirus studies, this is what they say, the suppression of the toll-like receptor 7, dependent type 1 interferon production pathway by autophagy resulting from enterovirus 71 and Coxacicivirus A16. These are the hand, foot and mouth disease. We all hear about. Infections facilitates their replication. I just want you to pay attention this toll-like receptor part.

Entervirus 71, Cox-A-16, is the primary agents causing hand-foot-and-mouth disease. These findings suggest that an increased EV-71 A-16 replication may lead to suppression of the toll-like receptor 7 mediated interferon 1 signaling pathway. So it's suppressing this, whatever this tole-like receptor is. There's more headlines on this enter virus. This is all going to, I'm going to sum this up, it'll make perfect sense. And now we're talking about toll like receptor 3 before it was 7. Now it's 3, same thing related to enterovirus. So it seems to be suppressing these tolerac receptors. There's another article. It goes on and on and on. I can show you all these articles on enteroviruses suppressing toll-like receptor 7, 3, 4.

Where have you heard this before? If you've been watching the high wire, you would know that the COVID vaccine was designed to suppress your toll-like receptors specifically 7, 3, 4. Why? Here's why. Because when they were trying to make these mRNA vaccines, right, they were taking this foreign mRNA protein, injecting into people's bodies, they wanted to. to get to your cell, this spike protein, so it can make your cell into a virus manufacturing

plant. The only problem is once this MRNA went into your body, your immune system, because of these toll-like receptors, by the way, the tolech receptors are like the centurions, right? The guardians of the gate of your white blood cells, they're the ones that notice that there's a foreign invader, a cancer cell, or a virus, or a bacteria, and they call in the warriors and say, kill it dead, it's attacking our body. These are your centurions, right? Your toll-like receptors. Well, these toll-like receptors were noticing the MRI being injected in the vaccine and attacking it so it couldn't get to the cells. So the geniuses that made the vaccine said, you know what, it would be great if we could put your toll-like receptors to sleep.

Here's the geniuses, doctors Drew Weissman and Catalan Carrico brag that they were able to replace the pseudo-uridine in this spike protein, in the DNA, put a, you know, basically mutate it so that it would go into the body and put the Tulek receptors to sleep so that while they were sleeping, it could invade your cells and turn your cells into a vaccine manufacturing plant. Here's an article that was written about it, stabilizing the code. It goes on to say in 2005, Dr. Weissman and Krikko discovered a way to protect for an MRI from the body's immune system. That scientific milestone would be key to the advancement of the MRI.

vaccines in 2020. Their key discovery that by modifying the RNA code using a nucleoside uridine resulted in ablating the innate immune response involved toll-like receptors. How does that simple removal of one letter of code from mRNA achieve that? It does so by affecting toll-like receptors, the alarm signal the innate. The key toolite receptors affected that they bragged about are TLR3, TLR7, Tollac receptor, and Tollac receptor 8. They act as centuries whose job is to recognize foreign invaders by way of other forms of patterns. So they have changed this virus as it enters your body. Now let's put this all together.

We are hearing that we have a rise in myocarditis amongst infants. All of medicine is looking at the enterovirus, which used to not be a problem. It very rarely caused myocarditis, but now it is. And what we know about it is it tends to limit your tolect receptors 7 and 3. Do you see how this works? Wait a minute. Did mom while pregnant just get a COVID vaccine? Did we just do what the DTP vaccine did?

Did we protect you from diphtherous and tetanus and produces? Or maybe in this case, we know the COVID vaccine didn't protect you, but that was the idea. But has it made your baby vulnerable to other illnesses? An antivirus that used to be mild is now causing myocarditis. With the DTP, in a case of dysentery, used to be mild. Now it's killing kids at 10 times a rate. This is how this whole program works. This is the problem with the vaccine program.

And let me explain to you when you're trying to look at the experts, we're all saying, well, what are the experts doing? Here's what the experts are doing. This is what they've got going on. They're working for pharma, okay? They have got the bottles of medicine in their way. So they cannot. They're saying, well, I don't know what's causing the inflamed hearts.

Doesn't recollect to them in any way that it was actually a vaccine that was causing this problem. It couldn't be the vaccine because they can't see it. No, they're looking at viruses. They're like, no, it's got to be a virus. It's got to be a virus. And this is how the entire program works. They cannot see the elephant in the room because they got these freaking Coke models on their eyes.

This is what's going on. They just took it off, took pharma out of the discussion. They go, oh, my God, wait a minute. You know what I just realized? The vaccine we just gave most of the world actually is suppressing tolect receptors 7 and 3 and 4, and maybe that is what's causing myocarditis in these children.

Maybe that's why this enterovirus that was once mild is now freaking deadly. Go ahead. Keep trusting these fools. But stop watching the high wire because we'll never do it. We'll never join you. All right. There's my little lesson. I hope that makes some sense. You cannot trust the experts any longer. They're funded by pharma. Everything they do, make sure that they do not look at the elephant in the room, which was the last product that pharma made. And guess what they will do with the antivirus? They'll come up with a vaccine for it.

So the solution to the problem the vaccine probably caused is another vaccine. If you want more information like this, if you want us to keep having the, you know, legal attacks that are helping us win against the FDA, the NIH, CDC, and able to bring you this information so clearly, we need your help. Obviously, we're being censored. I'm on billboards, at least Wikipedia, and all over the internet saying that I'm spreading misinformation, but I know you don't care. Instead, you want to help us do our work because we're the only ones telling you the truth. please become a recurring donor. It makes it possible. We have science we want to do. I want to start funding good science. I want to open up a laboratory because we have got to get the scientific method. It's on a ventilator right now. It's being given remdesivir and the scientific

method is about to die. And only I can is in here fighting in FLCCCCC also through Pierre-Cori, but it's groups like ours that need your help. All right. So to really bring this home, in a final story of how corrupt is the FDA, this amazing story broke this week that shows you why we need someone to go in and rip apart these regulatory agencies that are working for the very industries that were supposed to be protected from. If we do not change this, we will die.

We're going to die. The FDA, CDC is going to kill us. Here it is. Artificial sweeteners don't help you lose weight and may carry long-term health risks. The WHO warns. This is an incredible statement. study story, we went and did some research on it. What I found actually when we looked into

it is apparently aspartame, is at the heart of this. This sweetener aspirateam was approved in 1974. In 1974, it was approved to be an artificial sweetener, but by 1975 it was pulled off the market. The FDA retracted it. So first 74, FDA approves it. 75 they retracted. Why? Because there's apparently some animal studies that were done by Cyril. which is the company that makes it. And those studies show that there was tumors in the animals that were in the study. A lot of tumors, more than normal. And so suddenly it got pulled off the market.

So it languished. 75, nothing's happened. It goes all the way to 1980. Nobody wants to let this on the market. And then here's how it goes, folks. Ronald Reagan gets elected. All right? What does Ronald Reagan have to do with it?

Ronald Rumsfeld joining him. And so Rumsfeld, why is he important? Well, guess what job he had before he works for the United States government. He's the CEO of Searle, the exact company that was trying to sell aspiratein, even though it was causing brain tumors in mice. So as soon as they get in office, they bring in a new head of the FDA. This is that guy, Arthur Hayes Jr. The first thing Arthur Hayes Jr. does is approve aspirin for dry goods. So it didn't matter what everybody else said.

The CEO is now in government of our company, and so we're going to approve it for dry goods. Within two years, he's under investigation by the Congress because it looks like he's taking a lot of money from outside industries. What a concept. I guess that used to be a problem. And so he quits. He's going to leave. The last thing this guy does is he's walking out the door is he approves aspartame not only for dry goods, but to be used in beverages around the world.

It becomes a boom. Let's look at how big a boom. This is what the article says about the use of these synthetic sweeteners. A brief and bizarre history of artificial sweeteners. Look at this. The sweetener finally hit the market as NutraSuite in 1981, thanks to Donald Rumsfeld. According to the Oxford companion to sugar and sweets, Aspartain replaced more than a billion pounds of sugar in the American diet during the 1980s.

Coke made with aspartame was launched during this time. And we remember what that boom was like, because it looked like this on our television stations. Better known by its brand names, NutraSuite or Equal, Aspartame is the most popular sugar substitute in the world. Diet Pepsi. Diet Pepsi. Great taste with Nutrisweet. Sugar twin, with an advanced formula that tastes more like sugar than ever. In a taste test, advanced formula sugar twin diet sweetener was proposed. for tasting more like sugar. Exquisitely, deliciously and biting.

Only one and a half calories a teaspoon. Mmm. No added sugar. New light and juicy with Nutrisweet from MinutraSuite. 100% Nutrisweet. Oh, that's the great stuff. Why some things taste better than others. Hello, sweet children.

Hello. Would you like a bite of my lovely house? No, thanks. We brought her up things. All made with Nutrisweet. NutriSweet. Nutri sweet tastes just like sugar, but without all the calories. Neutra sweet is what I see.

Thanks to the new locale sweetener Nutra sweet. Just one drink doesn't leave a bitter aftertaste. Now available in sugar-free, naturally. If you've had bananas and milk you've eaten what's in Nutra-Suite, everything in it you find naturally and good things to eat, like two building blocks of protein. Only Equal has 100% Nutra-Sweet, no sugar, no saccharin. I choose equal.

You like to have something sweet, a treat. All this enjoyment is brought to you by all the things sweetened with Nutrisweet. Instead of sugar. Something you and your child can appreciate. Just look for the swirl. Aspartame has been proven safe for decades and offers a delicious taste. America runs on Duncan. Snapple.

Made from the best stuff on earth. Pass me the Pepsi Zero. Sugar? It's Pepsi Zero sugar. Surprise zero sugar. I've got new Mountain Dew Zero Sugar. Wow, that's really, really

ridiculously good tasting. Zero never tasted so good. Well, obviously it was a boom, and I'm sure many of you out there watching this and saying, oh my God, I don't think I want to hear this. Well, I suppose there's always been people that have been speaking out.

Now the vaccines, we've managed to make this a worldwide top. That's part of what people like me and others and Peter Corrie's do. But with Aspartame, there was also a body of scientists. One of them was a neurosurgeon named Dr. Russell Blaylock, who has been shouting from the mountaintops for decades about the issues of aspartame and other, you know, artificial products that are going into our food system.

He's written many books. This is him in an interview in a documentary nearly 20,000, 20 years ago. Look what he was warning us about. G.D. CERAL Company in the quest to get approval for their product, Aspartame, they conducted a study on animals. When they submitted this to the FDA and the FDA looked at it, there was some question about the study. Well, one of the scientists and neuroscientists looked at some of this, and he saw a lot of red flags. He said there's some real questions here about

tumors being caused by this product, particularly brain tumors. So they ordered a study to be done by the Bureau of Foods, which was the precursor to the FDA. That's what the Bressler reported about. And this is the report here. Basically what it shows is that either a lot of purposeful shenanigans was carried on to get this product approved, or, as he states, it, it's It was the world's worst research. They found that what they did is the animals that died after being fed NutraSuite, they had animal tissues that had obvious tumors in it that were reported normal.

They had, in one of the cases here, that's reported a lymph node that was enlarged. And this G.D. Cerro pathologist reported it as a normal lymph node. When the scientists from the Bureau of Foods looked at it, they said it was an obvious lymphocircoma, highly malignant tumor. There were just numerous, numerous things in this report that showed that in my estimation, there was an effort to cover up what was being found so that they could get approval. Well, it's my honor and pleasure to be joined now by one of those warriors that has been out there,

you know, speaking truth for a very long time, long before I ever got involved. And Dr. Blaylock, thank you for taking the time to join us today. Well, thank you. I've always been an admirer of your program. Well, thank you very much. Thank you. That's an honor. It's saying a lot because you have really been prolific in the space of speaking truth of power. So were you aware of this WHO ruling? finally, it looks like there's some attention being brought here. It's not that much, right? It's kind of a light little slap on the wrists. But you've been at this a long time.

How bad is this stuff? It's terrible. There's quite a few scientists who have looked at this intimately, and one was a good friend of mine named John Olney, who was a neuroscientist at the University of Washington. And he looked at it, and he said, you know the study showed there's a six-fold increase in brain tumor with the use of this well the Bressler report was a report in which they looked at this and they found out that the researchers were

actually cutting the tumors out of these animals and throwing them away and reporting normal numerous cases of these animals had these tumors in it well recently Scafetti who is a researcher who does almost all the research on carcinogenic effect of natural product. And so they garnered his research laboratory to do the study on it. He did a study on it, which extended most of the life of the animal, but not all. And he found there was a tremendous increase in lymphoma and leukemia among these animals, as well as brain tumors. And he, further found out that well if you look at society today there's a tremendous increase in lymphoma and leukemia particularly below age 30 in the United States

it's just rampant it keeps increasing people are drinking this as nutritious wheat which in this study so he repeated the study twice more use more animal and he made a lifetime study in his study he found out the same thing. Once again, you're seeing a tremendous increase in lymphoma and leukemia as well as these other tumor. And they tried to cover it. They said, well, why did you do a lifetime study? Well, you're feeding it to little children.

You're feeding it to pregnant mothers. It is a lifetime. And I was on a radio station locally, and the reporter said, you know, I heard your report, and I didn't believe it at first. And then I realized I was just really having a problem. I couldn't read the reports. I couldn't do my job. And I stopped the NutraSuite, like you said, and it all went away.

I worked with a researcher, Betty Martini, very closely. She had a lot of pilots who were going blind. People who were having seizures, all from this product. And some of the products had real high level. And they would have seizures in these. people and they would stop it, it would go away. The blindness, of course, would ruin their career. I mean, here you're a pilot,

and you have blindness and impaired vision. You can't fly anymore. Right. So we're seeing the same thing. Of course, we're seeing this with this COVID vaccine as well. We're seeing these people have heart defect. Well, what does the airports do? They change the whole testing.

They say, well, the EKG now is declared. there's normal. Well, we know, and the car of the snow, it's not normal. These pilots could die at any time and they'd kill everybody on the plane. I mean, what if he had a heart attack just at the moment he happened to be landed? There wouldn't be time for the co-pilots to take charge. He would die and everybody on the plane would die. Right. So I would be afraid to fly. You know, they've had all these pilots vaccinated from all over. They've, as you've reported, a tremendous report about these immunologic effects. And I've written extensively about this COVID vaccine as well.

So, you know, this truth telling that you do and the others do is vitally important. Like you said, I started 20 years ago with this, trying to warn people about after-train. I used to go in the supermarket, and there would be a mother with a little. little child in the basket, two or three years old, and she would be giving them some diet coliative drink. So people looked at that, well, the amount of nutrients wheat was far in excess, even of what the FDA had approved. They said it's way above that.

Yeah. So people were consuming a lot of it. And one of the researchers found, well, it's metabolized to formaldehy. And the formaldehyde forms a protein addict and forms an addict with the DNA. It destroys it. It attaches to it. So even drinking a single colon, I was the first person to say that. I said, you drink a single colon.

And then later you drink another one. And it's permanent on your DNA. It's destroyed. And you're likely to get a tumor. You're likely to have brain malformation. When we compare what was done and the regulatory agencies with this aspartame, it's amazing. It's almost exactly what they're doing with the COVID vaccine. They're lying about.

They're lying from start to finish. The regulatory agencies were captured by these companies making it. And that's the problem is people don't realize you're trusting the CDC, you're trusting the FDA, you're trusting the regulatory agencies. are owned by the pharmaceutical companies. They're taking this case here. They took these tumors and threw them

away. I was on the David Adkins show one time. He called me and asked me and I said, would you be willing to talk about aspirin? I said, sure I wouldn't. And so he called me back and he said, well, we canceled the program. I said, why? And he said, well, the company, Monsanto Company, sent a whole bunch of lawyers

to my office. They sat down they open up these suitcases and held, they said, if you interview him, we're going to sue you. Wow. And he said, what should I do? And I said, one thing. Say, what about the Bressela report? I said, just say that. And he called me back and he said, we're going to do the interview.

And I said, what happened? He said, I did just exactly what you said. I said the Bresler report. Let's look at that. They all put their stuff. their suitcases left. And he said, then we did the program and I told everything. I didn't leave anything. Good. All you had to do is talk about the breast report. Now, you discussed the breast report and that was the one in which they took the tumors and they removed them and

said it was normal. They took that. The malformed baby animals and said they were normal. They tried it on higher primates. They all died. Every one of them got in seizures. So, you know, you're right on the mark with every bit of this. You were very early in this COVID thing. Yeah. I used to watch your program constant. And you were saying everything exactly right. And I look at this vaccine.

I've written several reports about the vaccine in medical reviews in a neurosurgery germ, in which I showed that you're going to see a tremendous increase. in autism, you're going to tremendous increase in neurodegenerg diseases, and that's happened. We're seeing it. Yeah. We're seeing autism increase. We're seeing neurodegis disease increase. And they're denying this.

They're calling this misinformation. No, it's not misinformation. It's published. We have, and I have references. Let me go ahead. You talked about your friend, Dr. John Only, that had done a lot of work on this. This is that we have a little video clip of him discussing this is sort of corroborate what you're saying here

take a look at this doctor john only who has been studying aspartame's effects on the brain for more than twenty years disagrees he is a neuroscientist at washington university school of medicine his new study analyzes u.s brain cancer data in the years before and since aspartame's approval

we've uh... found that in the last eight or nine years which is about three to five years after Aspartame was approved. There's been a striking increase in the incidence of malignant brain tumors. Dr. Olney does not say flat out that Aspartame is responsible for the rise in brain tumors, but he does believe that his analysis of the data shows that it's the most likely suspect. Because he says many researchers have discounted other environmental factors. And Olney says,

The same types of aggressive brain tumors that showed up in the Aspartame animal studies over 20 years ago are now increasing in the American human population. I mean, so for 20 years, you know, and before that, obviously, it was reproved in 1981, but you've been in this fight. Why only now? Like, I mean, you know, you even had 60 minutes, which I don't even think 60 minutes, they're clearly not covering. you won't see the WHO now ruling that aspartame is toxic. We won't see this on the news because, as you know, they're all owned by Monsanto. They're being funded to do Monsanto commercial, so they're not going to cover it. But did you expect, I mean, as a neurosurgeon, that you would be able to get this stuff stopped?

And why didn't, why did it just seem to persist in it's everywhere? Well, you know, the more I looked, the more I saw this as a cover. And then it was advertised. Accidentally, the CBS News accidentally sent me a fax one day. It was out, I led the charge on MSG as well, monosodium glutamate. I received an accidental fact from the CBS News that told methods to keep me quiet. and they contacted me CBS News and said

please throw away that fact that accidentally shit to you I said no I'm not going to throw away I'm going to kill everybody about That's amazing And I was in Chicago where my book first came out about Excluor Toxia and one of the researchers

said the manufacturer research He said we're going to put MSG in food we don't we're gonna change the name we're gonna call it something out he said no matter what you say we're gonna do it and i said well that's interesting you told me that you know i'm gonna use what you just told me that every time i talk about it yeah every time i talked about it i talked about this company i said this guy worked for him and he makes it and he says it's gonna change the name and you're not gonna know what it is uh and they wrote it in the favor put it in chicago tribune uh the reporter was there and he talked to me well and and as you point

point out they try to science you we looked up i always uh you know it's always fun with the guests come on the show to look up their wikipedia your wikipedia has this paragraph uh in it blaylock allegations of health dangers blaylock claims the supposed toxicity of numerous substances that according to scientific studies are safe at customary uh exposure levels he's been quoted several times in media outlets regarding his position that msg is toxic to the brain he also states that the widely used artificial sweetener aspartame is toxic and maybe the cause of multiple sclerosis. He's now being proven right, but the WHO doesn't say that.

He is additionally cautioned against heavy use of the artificial sweetener splendor, which is sucralose. These positions are not supported by scientific consensus. There's that word we love on the high wire or regulatory bodies as extensive studies support the safety of aspartame, sucralose, and MSG. To wrap this up, obviously, you know, aspirin is horrid. It's clear that, you know, the science was manipulated. I think everyone on our audience now gets that, that we cannot trust these experts.

We cannot trust regulatory agencies. But let me ask you this then, since this is the focus of your interest, what are the products and foods that we should be looking out right now? And I know that you've got great books and we can read those books. But the long and the short of it, what should I be avoiding in my diet right now that is really going to be causing me long-term health problems for me and my children? Well, the worst thing, of course, is excitotoxins. These are amino acids most likely. The aspartame contains one of them, spartic acid and glutamate. It's added to virtually everything, and this is one of the things.

This is how I met Olin. Dr. O'Holney was doing research on this, and he testified for Congress and said, you need to quit putting this MSG in food, particularly toddler foods and baby food and Congress contacted Sierra Comin and some of these other companies that were putting MSG in the baby food and said you know we're talking about banning it well they agreed to take it out of the baby food they didn't take it out of the toddler food it raised it now the Germans to their credit studied the MSG and I said

everything said about it is true it causes enormous weight gain this is the epidemic of obesity and this is one of the things I visited the old in his lab one time and stayed at his house and he said the the woman working with me she was a research assistant she said have you noticed that all their mice are obese every one of them's grossly obese and he started looking at it and he said you're right they're all grossly obese and it's hard to get rid of the obesity and so he found out that what does, there's a nucleus in the hypothalam is called arcate nucleus, and that MSG and the food

destroys it. And so the animal gets fat. Same thing happens to humans. Humans eat this as babies. By the time they're adolescents or they're in a teenage years, they start getting grossly obese, by the time they're adults, they're grossly obese, they get diabetes, they get other diseases associated with obesity. Obesity causes inflammation.

All the neurodegenerative brain diseases. are caused by inflammation. And so now we have an epidemic of all these diseases. We have all part of this disease, Alzheimer's disease. We have all these things cropping up. And it's directly connected to obesity. It's directly connected to what's been put in your food. And I write about it.

I write about it. I've written a book about it. I've done all these things. I've worn people. And I found peanuts. As good as peanuts taste, I looked on there, at one of the brands of peanut, they put MSG salty,

the peanuts with MSG. Wow. This is ridiculous. So people are consuming foods that naturally have glutamate in it as high, and they put extra glutamate in it as an additive.

That's the number one thing that you put in for it. If you look at most contents, information on most foods, it looks like a chemistry. tax. Yeah. I mean, I looked at it and I say half the stuff on here, I don't even recognize it. And I looked at it and said, they don't want you to recognize it. Right. They changed the name.

So you won't recognize it. And this is what's happened to MSG. I've seen foods that had contains no MSG. And I look on there, it's filled with objects that have glutamate in it, hydrolyzed vegetable protein, natural flavors. All these things are glutamate. And they know it. And that's what that guy told me he said we changed the name we we're going to trick people to take in i said fine i'm going to tell everybody about it well thank you exactly what you told me and and he was the chief guy who was responsible for putting us in the foods and changing the name uh so you you can't even trust the label and what the the law says if it's not pure msg in the label you can put on the food it contains and no way much cheap.

Wow. That's the law. It allows you to lie on the label. And so I usually have a list of things. They use these artificial names that are high in glutamate and tell people to avoid them. Ordealize yeast, hydrolyzed protein, soy product. Soy is very high in glutamate. They had women just gulping down tons of soy.

I said, soy is very high in glutamate. I met a young lady who wrote a book about soy, and she sent me the manuscript before it was published. And she said, would you read this and see that it's okay? And I said, there it is. I said, but you've got to put down there about this. This is high in glutamate. These people drink soy salt. Soy sauce is almost pure glutamine.

Wow. It produces severe brain damage. And I've had people who said they can't think when they consume it. They've had seizures, as are uncontrollable. they have all kinds of problems with this. The glute have made in there. And I was on a 700 club, and I said, well, it's very simple. I said, they had one of the women that worked for the company that was the spokesman for it.

I said, get her on this program. We'll make sure she eats nothing before she gets on the program, and we'll feed her MSG and see if she'll have a seizure. Of course, she wouldn't do it. Wow. I don't want to do it. Wow. So these kind of things are very simple to show. And it's just like you do with the COVID vaccine.

Well, take some of these people that are elite and say, I've found a COVID vaccine. I'm going to give it to you. You're not going to get saline. You're going to get the real vaccine. And I once was on a program, and I said, I said, if you would tell these people that work with this company, we're going to give you the vaccines you give everybody else.

they jump out of the window getting away from you. Yeah, wow. It's true. And it's true. They would not let you give their product. And here's these companies that make these vaccines and say, well, we want to catch up. We want to catch up on all these vaccines.

They say, well, let's get you to take the vaccine. Let's get your family to take vaccines. And you know what? I had a friend in Maryland and his governor was trying to force people to take the vaccine. the catch up. They had a thousand people in a courtroom and they gave them all the vaccines at once. At once. And I said, tell the reporter to ask the governor of that state, Maryland, let's see your medical records and your children. He refused to do it. Really? He said, that's personal information. I said, it's not personal. You're a public official. I want to see the vaccine rate of your children.

You're a liar. They're all liars. Wow. You see, and that's what you've got to point out. It said that there's a double standard. Well, I don't take it. My children don't take it. I know it doesn't work.

I know it's dangerous. But I want you to take it. I'm going to pass a law. You have to take it. Yeah. So you, you've led the charge on this. You know, I have to give the credit for you and the people that's been behind what you've said. I watch your,

your reports when all this started well look right on top I just want to say you know we're able to do what we do because we're standing on the in the shoulders of giants you are one of those people that really you know laid the groundwork for how we fight for truth I want to thank for the work you've done is the best way of people want to see what you're writing about and the work that you're doing is is go to your website is that is that where you sort of put out most of your information. I think we have it here. Well, I don't have a way. The Blatlock Wellness Report. Right. The Blatlock Wellness Report. I usually keep up today on the nutrition and right. But I've written a lot about the COVID vaccine and

my wellness report, a warning people what to do about it, how to avoid it, why they should avoid it. And the reports now are starting to come out backing what you've said all along. These people are going blind. These people are developing prion diseases. They're developing neurodegeneration. I've written several articles connecting the vaccine to neurodegeneration and why it occurs. Yeah. No one is writing about this.

But you're exactly right. You're exactly right. And the other people that have been behind this were exactly right. What I did is I worked on the mechanism. And you would know. I mean, look, you have a background in neurology. That's why it's so important that people like you, you know, really lay out these mechanisms, how they work. It's so important. And we really are looking at a crisis now. I mean, you know, aspirin widespread use, MSG widespread use. But at least these products are not being mandated technically upon us. I can still go to a store buy whole foods, make sure that everything I'm eating.

I understand what I'm reading on the label. If I can't understand the words, I should probably step away from it. But these vaccines go to a whole other level as being mandated and forced upon us, which is really the greatest horror of all times. Dr. Blaylock, I want to thank you for joining us. This is a bucketless moment for me.

I've so honored and respected your works for many, many years. It's really great to have this opportunity and sharing such important information. Hopefully everyone our audience will now at least be avoiding Aspartainment, Aspartainment, MSG, wherever they get the opportunity. Well, thank you. I really appreciate that, Della. You do great work and keep it up. I will. Just keep it. All right. We'll do this again sometime. Thank you. You take care. All the best. Thank you. I appreciate. There are so many heroes throughout the years,

some unsung, some that have been at it. You know, you look at Dr. Russell Blaylock, never gave it up. I would say now, COVID took everything to another level. It's really brought a lot more scientists and doctors to start questioning the narrative, which is what this is all about. But I think about those doctors that before you had this cacophony, you know, you've got Pierre Corrie gets to stand with Merrick and Malone and McCullough, but many times there were scientists and doctors standing all alone. All of these guys are heroes. And, you know, sometimes we, lose one of these heroes after incredible work it's always amazing that in the end the one person they were not able to save as themselves this week we lost really a true

pioneer one of the most outspoken and brave doctor scientist he went toe-to-toe with the FDA they tried to take his license he stood his ground spent millions fighting for recognizing if he goes down it will only lay the groundwork for so many others. I'm talking, of course, about Dr. Rashid Bhuttar. He will be greatly missed. You know, he was a really good friend of mine. I saw a lot of information from him through the years. A couple years ago, we had him on the show. And this was what that moment, very memorable moment that we had with Dr. Rashid Bhittar. It doesn't matter whether it's your race, your ethnicity, your religion, your creed, your nationality, whether it's your beliefs, whatever

it is. It's the same thing. Whether you've been segregated out because you're being, or whether you're African American or you're Latino or because you believe that there's a better way of a person to make a choice for their own health or their child's health. It's the same aspect. Our forefathers understood this. In fact, Dr. Benjamin Rush, he was the only physician who signed the Declaration of Independence. And in that declaration, he's quoted to having said that medical freedom should enjoy the same privilege as religious freedom in our Constitution. Because if it is not, one day medical decisions will become a dictatorship, which is exactly what's happened. It's amazing to me how our forefathers could see the future. It is really. I think there's something divine that happened.

Absolutely. I have to believe that. Absolutely. So one day, medical decisions will become a dictatorship, which will be dependent upon one man's belief system. And in order to prevent that, medical freedom should be put on the same level as religious freedom. That's what he said. We don't see it written there. It wasn't written, but I think that's one of the things that we're now pushing for,

that my goal is to bring the religious leaders together because what happens to your body, it's the sovereignty of your own body, which is in all the monotheistic realism, in the Quran, in the Torah, in the Bible, it says the same thing. God gave you a body treated as a temple. And if we allow a government, in the word of Thomas Jefferson, to dictate the foods we take into our mouths and the medicines we take into our bodies, our souls will soon be in the same story state as those who live under tyranny. Now, again, our forefathers knew these things.

So why are we allowing someone outside of our body to dictate how we treat our own body, our own temples, that the creative gift is our sovereign right over our own bodies? Because if they say that they can have the right over our bodies, that's slavery. I think there was a civil war about slavery, if I'm not mistaken. I mean, maybe my history is off, but I'm pretty sure that there was a civil war that tore the country apart, based. upon the right of a person to have sovereignty over their own body. And that's exactly what's happening right now.

Whether you want to say it's about medicine or about race, it's the same thing. It's sovereignty. It's our own decision to make what we decide to do with our body. And nobody should dictate that. You know, as we think how we move forward and the work that we do here at the high wire, you know, there are some very strange issues around Rashid's health. I do not know, you know, why he passed. just this last week. I do know I was speaking to him. He had some health issues, water throughout

his body just a few weeks ago, really, that is questionable. Was it spike protein? Was it just contact? All these things I think we need to investigate. As all of our health issues, you know, we've got to watch what we're doing, stay as health as we can. But I do want to say this. No matter what, Dr. Rashid Bittar was truly a warrior. And what he's talking about there is so important, the power of our Constitution, the fact that our Constitution is under attack, the idea that, you know, we had founding fathers that thought that maybe right next to freedom of religion, we should write in freedom of medical choice. And the decision was made, that is included in that. Freedom of personal belief, your personal belief affects your medical decisions. We should never have to isolate that. Well, maybe we should have because that is the attack that we've seen.

Now, the attack that COVID brought is losing in courtrooms around this country and around the world a lot because the work that I can is doing. But I want to say this, as you watch these great heroes that sit with me on this stage, you know, whether it's Dr. Rashid Bhittar, or Dr. Blaylock or Pierre Corey, I think sometimes, you know, as an audience, we sit back and I used to be the one watching the television and going, wow, those people are just so amazing, their courage. And I just want to say that they're just human beings. We're all just human beings. And it was only human beings that founded this nation. Our founding fathers were quite young, many of them in their 20s and 30s, that wrote a document that still stands the test of time. But they stood up against the greatest tyranny the world had ever seen. This is one of those moments, and we need to reflect on what drives those people that make change.

It's what Rashid Bhattar stood for, which is the same statements our founding fathers would make today is what he would say to me when we would be talking. I would rather die standing than, you know, live enslaved on my knees. That is what he stood for, and that means his life will matter. He stood for us. He stood for humanity as so many of the great individuals that grace the high wire do. We don't care what our Wikipedia says. We don't care how many New York Times headlines and CNN headlines try to, you know, call us misinformation purveyors. We know that our science stands up.

Our peer review stands up. We are transparent and we are working. We're out in the public. But what we know is we have a fight on our hands. We are up against dark forces that are trying to destroy the greatest country and the greatest country. greatest document in the Constitution that has ever existed to help people find their way, to protect our God-given rights. So this week, in honor of Rashid Bitar, reach down inside yourself. Find that hero inside of you. Find that warrior that recognizes that your children are watching you

right now. They want to see if their mother or their father is going to live on their knees, is that how I'm supposed to live because I'm watching you? That's what I think. when I watch my kids. And that's why I do what I do. That's why I tell the truth. That's why I stand for what's right. And that's why every day I get involved and I do the next right thing. That's what this show represents. That's what everyone on it represents. We're all regular people and we will too have our day. Death is just a part of our life. How we lived our life is what actually matters. I hope you'll think about that. I look forward to seeing you. next week.