The Highwire with Del Bigtree - Episode 324: RIGHTING THE WRONG

Episode Date: June 16, 2023

Parents Clash As California Continues To Target Parental Rights | Jefferey Jaxen Reports on New Information Out of Wuhan which Alleged First Patients to Contract COVID Were Wuhan Lab Scientists; Who is Colonel Deborah Birx and why was she Heading up a Military-run Pandemic Response? | Life-Saving Vitamin C Protocol for Sepsis Reaffirmed After Legal ChallengeGuests: Amy Bohn, Paul Marik, M.D., F.C.C.M., F.C.C.P.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

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

Good afternoon, good evening. Wherever you are out there in this world, thanks for taking the time to step out onto the high wire. You know, one of the questions I get as I travel around and have had my whole life is people say, where did you get the name Dell? Where does that come from? And the truth is, my parents, you know,

they were like 60s hippies, they were into love and peace and all of those things. And I think in some ways they're kind of like social recluses a little bit. And if they're watching mom, dad, sorry, I'm sort of outing you there. but when they were looking through the book of names, just thinking about names, the story that they told me is every time Dell was attached to a name,

the definition was everybody's friend. And I think that they named me Dell because they really wanted someone that would get along with everybody was also great socially. And so maybe that's part of what puts me here today. I don't know. But the reason I say all of that is because some of the topics that we are covering on this show

are very difficult for me to cover. I say this because I have friends that are in every race, every sexual preference there is. Yes, I have friends that I call friends that are transgender, that have even gone through transitions, and all of those things. So when we try to have these conversations, I know sometimes they can be offensive. And if I've ever offended anybody, I want to state this, that I believe in a world that accepts every adult for who they are and every decision that they make. And there's no way that sort of standing in themselves and being themselves that it hurts other people as long as they physically don't hurt other people. What comes out of their mouth, I believe, is free speech. They're allowed to say what they want.

I was raised with my parents. Sticks and stones may break your bones, but words will never hurt you. That is how I see the world and that's how I try to portray the world to my children. But these conversations that we're having get beyond what we accept in each other as adults when we're. made our own decisions. What it gets more into is what is a parent's purpose on this planet and what rights do they have in the decision making of how they want to raise their children. Now, we may not all agree with how each other are raising our children, but to me, that's a part of free speech. It's certainly the part of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I've said it

before, I taught my kids to ski at like three years old. Some people would say that's really dangerous. They could get killed. And it's true. It's more dangerous than not sending your kids down a couple of boards, you know, on snow with trees and rocks everywhere. But that's how I was raised and that's how I raised my children. And there's nations all around the world that do it too, maybe even younger. Doesn't mean you have to do it, but you don't get to tell me how I'm going to raise my kids. and it goes the same way. So these conversations we're having right now are really, where are the parents at? Are they being allowed to raise their kids the way they want? And is a public school allowed to say, you have to have your kids taught this thing? And if you even try to take them out,

then we will punish you. Schools are not supposed to be prisons, okay? They do not control our children. They're simply there to educate and offer opportunities for our children. So this conversation, we're going to get into now, we'll have some issues for those of you that are homeschooling, and I know you use this as a program for your homeschooling. Just this next little section, we'll have a couple of things that might be a little controversial. We're going to be talking about the transgender conversation in schools. Why? Well, because you have to ask yourself, what is a real movement? What is a peaceful movement? I've been a part of the health freedom movement for many, many years now. And I'll tell you what, not a single one of our moments

standing outside of capitals or, you know, state offices across this country or at churches ever looked like this. They never looked like this. The clash at a California school board meeting. Several agitators really starting to cause trouble. Punches were thrown. Protesters come to blows over LGBTQ plus rights. This were really flying. here. Two sides face off outside Glendale Unified Board of Education meeting. Chaos breaks out over LGBTQ instruction in schools. Dueling protests turned violent outside a suburban LA school board meeting where officials voted to bring LGBTQ awareness to class during five months. Protesters who have been

gathering at the last couple of meetings say the state's curriculum and thus the Glendale Unified School District's policy in dealing with LGBTQ plus issues violates their rights as parents. Where is a consent form that gives this school district or any other school district permission to discuss, diagnose, or affirm my child's sexual orientation or gender identity? The school board says it's only following state law that K-12 curriculum include lessons about lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans. And parents may not pull their child out of any such class. Schools must use students' preferred name and pronoun and are prohibited from notifying parents. This week's skirmish, which California's governor called an organized campaign of hate is just the latest in a series of violent confrontations during Pride Month. Glendale's police chief confirming to KTLA there was Antifa and revolutionary communist members in the crowd yesterday, quote, serving as agitators.

Young children are very vulnerable. First of all, at that age they're targeting them. Children don't have any idea about sex and sexuality. Parents want transparency and then parents want the option to opt out. Well, things are obviously getting heated on this topic in the Republic of California. And I'm joined now by Amy Bond, who heads the group Perk. We've worked side by side with Perk on many resolutions and legislative actions. Amy, thanks for joining us today.

Hi, Del. Thank you for having me on today. Good to be here. Before we even get started on this topic, I mean, I just want to understand there's a sensitivity to this, right? Where do you think this line is just for you? As a mother, a parent, and someone that really looks at legislation, what is it about this topic that's getting so heated? And where do you think we should fall as Americans on it? I think that for me as a mom of three kids,

I have a college-age son, high school age, and then a middle schooler. And I think it comes down to what are our fundamental rights parents. You know, we have a sacred relationship between us and our children, and that needs to be protected instead of undermined. And so what I see happening in places like California and even across the country is that fundamental sacred relationship is being interfered with. We can see it in lots of different ways, whether it's through the school or through, you know, bad laws that are coming down through the states. I think you can just, you know, it's a fundamental right every parent has to raise their children. And that's not the job of the government or the schools or anyone else. And that has to be protected.

That's where I stand on that. So this outbreak of violence that took place. And as I said before, you know, there are very passionate people in our health freedom movement, which is how you and I met. We've never descended into this level of chaos here. I don't even know which side. And it's not really even about blaming sides. They get this a lot of passion.

But what fueled this passion? Why is this getting violent like this in California? Well, I think what people have to understand is that before the violence actually happened, there were some really big situations that were problematic for the parents. And that's what started this fire. And two particular situations that have happened over the past month triggered what you saw there at the school board meeting. And what started this all off was basically, There's an assistant superintendent for the Glendell Unified School District.

Her name is Kelly King. And she came out publicly just over the past six weeks and told parents that it was okay for girls to change in the boys' locker room in front of coaches. I think we have that video. So let's play that. Let's play that really quickly. We have male coaches who are horrified at the thought of having a biological girl changing clothes in front of them. you know there's a stigma attached to you know abuse and um you know having a male teacher around any female student in that circumstance um is just scary for them and you know it's one thing

for me to keep saying it's not a girl it's not a girl it's not a girl it's not a girl you only have boys in the boys locker room until they arrive, you know, until they experience it and realize, oh, I only have boys in the locker room. Then that, that helps. So just so that I understand what that video is, that video telling me that this woman believes that, you know, that male, I'm assuming like gym teachers that feel like they're uncomfortable with you know, people with female anatomy, stark naked in the showers with other boys, that their discomfort with that is inappropriate, and they need to get over it and recognize that that is still a boy or a male.

You're exactly right. So she's basically trying to make it okay for girls to be in the boys' locker room, and the coaches are the ones that have come out complaining saying that they're not comfortable with this. So I kind of feel like in the video she was slightly mocking those male coaches as they, you know, don't feel comfortable with this. Understandably, I wouldn't want our children in the opposite sexes, you know, locker room. So she's definitely, I think, very extreme. And the parents in Glendale Unified School District heard and saw this video. And this was not the only incident related to the locker room that triggered the parent.

You have that, the comments that she made. But in addition to that, you also have a teacher that served in the Glendale Unified School District for 25 years who happens to be a gay man. And he came out publicly saying that not only is this happening in the locker room, but there are boys in the girls showers and girls in the boy showers. And he just said, you know, these things are being hidden from parents. They're, you know, they're not disclosing this. They're not being transparent with parents about this. So you could have a lot of reasons why you're not comfortable with this. It could be religious.

It could be your family values. It could just be that you don't want your children endangered in a situation like this. I mean, I think we all can relate to that. So you know, you've got the male teacher and again, 25 years of service in that school district. And he is vocal, you know, he's speaking out about what's happening. And then the third scenario related to the locker room is you have a special needs child who is a high schooler in Glendaleigh Divide School District. And what happened with her is she said that the male coaches could see the girls changing in the girls' locker room as well.

As she was, you know, as one of the female coaches has an office kind of close to the locker room area. So this whole locker room situation had just been escalating. And the more information that came out, the more outraged parents were and are. You know, I mean, you're a father. You know, I know my husband with our youngest who is 12 years old as a girl. I cannot imagine any father would be okay in this type of situation. And so that's what's happening. Is this locker room scenario?

And then of course with the assistant superintendent, she admitted that this is what's happening. She's admitting that they're allowing this and not disclosing this to parents. So you've got, I mean, and that's, I mean, that's one of the fundamental issues that sparked all of these, you know, the parents attending the school board meeting. And so in addition to that, you have the special needs child and what happened there. And they go hand in hand with the locker room. So what happened? So this is a testimony by you.

Tell me about this special needs child that gave some testimony. Yes. Yes. So she, so what happened is her mother, her and her mother gave a public comment at the local city council meeting first. That's where this started about, you know, a little over a month ago. And as they gave public comment, what they were saying, what she was saying is that she's being made fun of.

She's being harassed, she's being discriminated against an even disciplined and punished as a child, a high schooler who has special needs for not using the proper pronouns for her, you know, for other students, for her teachers, for the principal. So she was, you know, sharing the story. All right, I think we have that video, so let's take a look at that. Great. The reason why I'm here is pretty straightforward, I suppose. I have to give her permission to participate in sex ed, which I did give her permission

to participate in sex ed to a certain degree, and then you can mark off boxes that you don't wish your child to participate in. I specifically wrote out anything that was LGBTQ plus. When my daughter expressed that she should not be in these classes and that I did opt out of these classes, she was called a bigot by her teacher and her aid. She was called intolerant, and she was also called homophobic. These are all terms that she actually didn't know until yesterday. They're not part of our vocabulary at home.

At that point, a staff member told her to look at her skin color and to, if she wanted, if she felt that, I'm so sorry, if she felt that she should be discriminated against due to her skin color. And she said, no, she shouldn't feel discriminated against or be discriminated against due to her skin colors. They said, well, discriminating against transgender sex is the same thing. How did my daughter come home explaining to me what scissoring was and asking me how two females can have sex and must use protection? Two biological females must use protection or else they can get pregnant? How else would my daughter come home knowing the word transphobic?

And how else my daughter come home knowing the word bigot or intolerant? That's what I would like to know. I would also like to mention she is in a special day class. She does have a frontal lobe brain injury that doesn't even allow her to process this. I am in the special day classes and I have a one-on-one aid. My one-on-one aid was Cameron, but they call them cam. I guess I was mistaken or corrected by calling Cameron Ms. Cam. My parents had always taught me that adults of male is Mr. and their last name or their first name.

Female is Miss or Mrs. is married and of their first name or their last name. With Cameron, I called him, yeah, I called him Miss Cameron because I saw the breath. I'm not saying that I can see, well, what they're private parts are because that would be kind of weird. I saw breath. I called him Miss Cameron. All right, so obviously got in trouble for using the wrong pronoun for a teacher's aide, I guess it is, that is identifying differently than they appear physically. Right.

We heard later after that video and those public comments that heard her daughter gave that she was given detention for not using the proper pronouns. So I mean, obviously there's a free speech issue here, but even more than that, this is a child, as her mom said, that has a brain injury. So she's not even able to really process the, the pronouns and all the things that, you know, the school is trying to force on her.

So I just, I think that that these are the triggers that outraged the parents in Glendale-D by school district and even the broader L.A. community and all of us, really, you know, seeing what happened to her to discipline a child for not using the proper pronouns is just, it makes me feel like we're losing our mind. Like, well, how could this be happening? So when we see this protest that took place, who was actually protesting and why did it get violent? I mean, I get that there's passion here, but it takes another level for someone to swing at somebody and sort of start that and instigate that. So what was it about the elements in that crowd that it got to that point? Yeah, so what happened with that is, so the background, everything escalated.

So the parents started to attend the local school board meetings. to talk about what was happening with the kids and the curriculum and all these things started to come out. And so last week, there was another school board meeting and parents gathered there. There were about 300, our best guess, is there's about 300 families, parents that were there. They were peacefully protesting, by the way, all different walks of life, primarily the Armenian community. But you have Jewish people, Muslims, Armenians, Christians, Hispanic, just a lot of, you know, know, a wide diverse background, and they were there very peacefully. They just don't want this curriculum and these ideas and these things forced on their children and forced on them as parents.

They want to raise their children. And so they want informed consent. They want, you know, they want to be the one in charge of what their children hear and learn. And that's the fundamental issue. So they're going to speak up about that. So they go to the school board meeting. And And even prior to the school board meeting, there's a local trans elected official who put out a flyer and a call to action for the LGBTQ community to counter protest. So there was a call for that. And in that call, that's where the first signs of Antifa picking up on this potential protest and to show up.

So essentially, Southern California Antifa came to the protest on Tuesday this past last week and they were starting to antagonize the parents so parents are praying parents are there talking to each other you can even see some other the people are actually engaging with the you know the LGBTQ community just having conversations about the issue and talking about why this matters and in the midst of that you have antagonizers you have Antifa who showed up where 100 percent they were there

and they start they start chanting again against the crowd and just to let you know, primarily with it being Armenians, you know, there's a war in Armenia right now. And so the Antifa group was chanting about that war to insult the Armenians. There was pepper spray, Antifa brought pepper spray. They were just really, really in that space of aggression

with the parents. And for the most part, the parents were peaceful until I think the insults related to the war are what kind of tipped it over, to be honest with you. And, you know, the parents... They're picking a fight, you know. Yeah. They're clearly picking a fight, got what they wanted. All right. Well, I mean, obviously, this isn't how civil discourse should be taking place. I mean, I think the goal here is to start talking to each other. These are sensitive issues, sensitive times. But when you show up in riot gear and pepper spray, it's obviously, you know,

you're not coming for a conversation or to find some middle ground, which is, you know, you know, perhaps what needs to happen here. In California, it's not just this school. There's a lot of laws on the books, or there's bills in the books right now. Tell me what California is looking at right now as far as legislation that's trying to be passed. Right.

So the California legislator, they're trying to propose probably the most extreme laws, the first in the country, related to gender affirming bills. Okay, so we have AB9-5. This, you know, AB 957 is basically a law proposed that would amend the family code to include that a parent is required to affirm a child's gender identity. And why this is super significant is this is supposed to be a deciding factor for parents that are in custody battles. So if there's a divorce situation or, you know, an issue related to the stewardship and guardianship of a child, this particular,

law would remove children from a parent if they don't affirm the care. In this case, it's just from one parent to the other. But, I mean, I think we all know this is a slippery slope. I know it's sort of a lot of people are out there saying they're going to take the, the state's going to take the kids away. But this is really not, it hasn't gone that far yet, but this is that step in that direction. Right now, it's really thinking in terms of custody battles, this will be a deciding factor, which is, it is really, it's scary.

And you would have to imagine that really a judge is, I think, capable on other levels to decide whether there's decent communication with a parent and a child. I don't think the state needs to be in here writing laws and what the judge is looking at or thinking about. That's just my perspective. What else? What are the other ones that we're talking about? Right.

And I would just add one thing about that bill. So you're right that it doesn't specifically say that children from parents that are not in custody battles could be taken away. However, the way that the penal code is written, this does open a door for CPS to get involved, for calls to be made for, I think that it's really a path to taking children away from parents and making it considered abusive or neglectful for a parent to not affirm a child's gender identity. So I think it's a gateway bill that is really, really, really dangerous, which is why one of the senators spoke out about it. It's certainly a gateway to ugly custody battles between parents. We've all known these people that this happens to. It's yet another space in which they can really get ugly, you know, in these situations, which is unfortunate. Right, right, exactly.

And so you take that law combined with several others that the legislators are proposing in California, another law actually makes it a requirement for foster care parents to agree to affirm. a child's gender identity. So and to sign a form that they would do so. So children won't be placed. If this passes, children would not be placed in a loving foster home unless this criteria is met. So, I mean, you have children that need a good home and you're putting these types of criteria in place. It's just, it, it doesn't make sense, honestly. And you know, all of these things, as we know, is in such untested, uncharted waters as far as the psychological outcomes of, you know, whether we affirm or don't affirm. We have, you know, people that are detransitioning that felt

like they were pushed into something as kids. This is not, I mean, this is what bothers me, is it's such a new frontier, really. And to be mandating and making laws is really, really, not that there should ever be laws here, but boy, are we jumping the gun when we are really seeing difficult, for happiness and joy no matter what decisions are made. This is a group of people that are struggling really with their own sort of, you know, self-awareness and happiness. And I think there's a lot of questions on whether affirming is going to help at a young age or not. And so to have laws already is just, it just, it seems, you know, the cart before the horse in a way, all right? So, you know, going on. Right. Well, and that's true. And I would say that these all, all these laws go together.

So when you look at them as a whole, you can see that there's an erosion taking place of parental rights. You know, AB223 makes it so it's much harder for parents to give consent for a minor who wants to change their gender and their name on the state identifying records, you know, birth certificates, those kinds of things. And keeping that information private and no longer public, that actually makes it so that schools and doctors and, you know, medical facilities, all kinds of people who care for these children, minors again, would not know what the child's true biological gender is or names. So you take all of those laws, put them all together, and it's, again, it's taking away parental rights. It's trying to exploit a minor who does not have the ability to give informed consent. They don't have fully developed brains. And it's really putting a barrier between the child and the parent as if the parent is the bad guy here,

the parent is an abuser, as if a foster parent is going to do harm to these children. But it's just, it's the opposite. Parents are here to love. They want their parental rights protected. And these are the very laws that, I mean, they come to a state near you. People always are like, well, California, we're going to all just leave California. Well, where are you going to go? Because it's going to come to, you know, Texas and Ohio.

Some other state, they already have these issues there, too. It's just not as bad as California is yet. You're a test ground. You're right. This is attack on parental rights, which is what, you know, here at I Can, we really stand for. I mean, we really believe in the power of the parents, both in all medical decisions and things like that. So that's why we keep sort of covering this issue. But when you talk about parental rights or whether you should stay or should you go, Representative Flea in California had a very interesting statement to make. Take a look at this, everyone. I'm now in year 11 in the state legislature and all the time we're proposing policies to protect children. Well after 11 years I've come to a conclusion that we need to start protecting parents. That's just not happening. I've been here with witness a full frontal assault on charter schools taking away parents' choice and how their children are going to be educated to the detriment, particularly children of color. In recent years, we have put government bureaucrats between parents, children, and doctors when it comes to medical care.

And now we have this where if a parent does not support the ideology of the government, they're going to be taken away from the home. Now, I agree with both Senator Wiener and Senator Laird that today it only involves divorce proceedings. And frankly, a judge can already factor this in. But I can assure you it's not going to end with divorce proceedings. In the past when we've had these discussions and I've seen parental rights atrophied, I've encouraged people to keep fighting. I've changed my mind on that. If you love your children, you need to flee California. You need to flee.

We are moving towards the pathway of the hands-made tale. California is becoming the new Juliet and it just breaks my heart. I'm born and raised in this state. I love this state. I'm not going to stay in this state because it's it's a very much. just too oppressive and I believe in freedom and so I'm going to move to America when I leave the legislature. It's quite a statement by Scott Wilk there in the Senate floor.

You need to flee. Obviously you're saying that you don't want people to flee California, but it really is happening. We've reported on all of the U-Hauls that are leaving. This mass exodus is taking place. Also, New York is seeing something similar. But these are very, they're very scary times for parents. I mean, I would think there's a lot of people, at least fleeing the school system, and moving into homeschooling.

I'm sure homeschoolers are booming also in California right now. Yeah, I mean, I think it is pretty scary and significant that the state legislator said this. I mean, to warn parents to that level to flee the state. I think that it shows us how serious this issue is. And I would just say, I do understand why people are leaving California. I do get that. I mean, we have three kids, and it has crossed our mind several times. We might have to come to Texas where all of you guys are.

But, you know, I think the thing is, is that this issue isn't just about one state or about just one school. So people could leave the school. There are solutions, but this issue is everywhere. I mean, look at what is happening in the culture. You can see, you know, Target and, you know, the Dodgers stadium. and all these places where this issue is infiltrating into the fundamental fabrics of our society and the culture. And I would just say that social media, bigger than the schools, I'm going to just be honest with you. I think social media is one of the biggest culprits that are harming our children in trying to confuse them in this whole gender affirming ideology and culture.

And I will tell you from personal experience as well as we work with so many families, that's where they're snatching the kids. That's where they're capturing them. They have these private group chats, groups called Discord and platforms. Of course, we know Snapchat and YouTube and on Instagram and all these things. But these are the places where parents maybe aren't looking. And so I hope parents will actually read the chats that their kids are on,

read the groups that their kids are in because, you know, you've got the videos and things and the algorithms are being built to manipulate our children. This generation of children, they're going online thinking they're safe to watch some funny video or some silly thing. But instead, what's happening is the algorithms are feeding them a message that's really propaganda and manipulating their young minds to think that maybe they need to be a different gender. Maybe they should do this. And it takes them down this path where algorithms aren't even matching what the children are really looking at. It just seems so prone. I mean, you know, it just seems so prone.

It doesn't even matter that it's transgender. The issue is always this, you know, sort of that the pedophile, you know, really seeks out these spaces. And we are, you know, and now there's almost like a protection in here that your young children are being told they have to have these sexual conversations with adults they don't know and keep your parents out of it. And the schools are getting in a, they're sort of, you know, setting this precedent for children that, no, don't listen to what your parents are saying. Speak to that stranger that's out there. Get in that group. I mean, this is really, you know, it's troublesome.

It's troublesome. And it has, you know, it's, you know, I know that you're working, you know, really hard of this. So for everyone out there that wants to get involved with PERC, I know you're, you know, working on legislature, you're going to have your lobbyists looking at these and really trying to hold on to parental rights. So where's the best? place to go to sort of read up on this and help support the work that you're doing with Perk. Yeah, thank you, Del. People can go to our website. We have a lot of great actions. People

can take online that connect them directly to the bill or give them also just parent resources to help them to guide them in what's happening with these transgender issues on the minors. So you can click these action campaigns. They can, you know, send a letter and an email, even tweets directly to the legislators on this issue. And it'd be really great for everybody to support us in this and show that we're not going to accept what they're doing. So a lot of action can happen there. And I think the only other thing, too, parents, I want to say parents need to be closer to their children than they've ever been. And I think that is actually the biggest solution on this issue is that, you know, as moms, dads, aunts, uncles, grandparents, neighbors, you know, godmothers, whoever you are, when you see these children,

our children, your neighbors, just the people that the children that you're around, they need our love and intervention more than I think I've ever seen, you know, in a very, very long time. And, you know, they need us to intervene. They need us to be close to them. We need to have open lines of communication where we can talk about anything. So I know for us with our children, that's what type of culture we try to have as a parent to our children that we aren't the bad guys. We love you and all the children need that type of open communication and closeness with parents and those around them that love them. I think that's one of the best solutions we have. That's such a great point.

And it's a bit of what I've said before in many ways. It's like we're raising our children in wartime. There's an attack on our families. So if you don't start preparing your children for the attacks that are coming on them, especially if they're ideas that you do not sort of hold your complete. complacency is going to let the other side, you know, have the first strike. And so I think you really have to start thinking about the times that you're raising your kids in and act accordingly. If you want to support Amy Bond and the work at Perk, I just want to say, you know, you may not

live in California, but this is the test ground. These, you know, this is where they're trying these things out, seeing that they get away with it. And then all of a sudden it'll pop up in New York and Virginia and Mississippi and Maine or, you know, a capital near you. So I know that PERC needs a lot of support for those of you that are doing really well, get involved. If this matters to you, this is where we make a difference at the grassroots, where we nip this in the bud before it sweeps the nation. Amy, thank you for sharing all the details on this because from the outside, it's really hard to get a grasp on what's happening there in California.

So I appreciate it. And you're working so hard on the front lines there just to keep parents and the family intact. I really appreciate your work there. Thank you. Thank you so much for having me on so we can talk about this. Appreciate all you guys do too. Thank you, Del. All right, we'll talk to you soon.

All right, well, it's time for the Jackson Report. All right, Jeffrey, what do you have for us this week? All right, Del. Well, we've been tracking since just days after the first coronavirus case in the United States in late January of 2020, we've been tracking this story from thousands of internal emails showing how the scientific community manufactured the conversation away from lab origin. We had evidence at that time early January that this thing may have even came from a lab.

And so our reporting on this has been, where did it come from, who knew what, and when did they know it? And some more information has now dropped. This is some breaking news this week. There's been a lot of chatter. This past weekend, the Times reported from the U.S. State Department officials. This was the headline, what really went on inside the Wuhan lab weeks before COVID erupted. So in this article, they're saying that in 2016, Chinese researchers discovered a new type of coronavirus in a mine shaft in Woonan province. And the people there, some of the people there had died of, with symptoms similar to SARS. So what they did, you know, again, this is according to investigators, U.S. State Department

investigators, not named. So these are just sources at this point. But they're saying that that virus there was recognized as the earliest, the earliest member of this COVID-19 before the pandemic. So that was taken to the Woonaw Institute of. of virology at that point. And they're saying that the paper trail starts to go dark at that point. This is the investigator saying this.

Now, we do know that the National Institutes of Health in 2021 revealed in a letter to the House Oversight Committee that in 2018 and 2019, remember, NIH was funding EcoHealth Alliance, and they were doing that coronavirus research out of the Wuhan Institute of Virology. And so NIH revealed in this letter in 2021 that the Wuhan Institute of Virology created a coronavirus and it was more infectious in mice, but they did not report that as they were supposed to do in the grant to NIH in a timely manner. So there was some shenanigans going on there. And now what we have here, so during this time, as this story has been unfolding, we have a, we have a 2021 headline here. And this again, this is Intel, this is Intel agencies, like internal reports. But this is ABC News.

2021 U.S. Intel report identified three Wuhan researchers who fell ill in November of 2019. So this is a big deal. And until now, the three have never been named. So we have journalists using their substack, Matt Taibi, Michael Schellenberger, and Alex Gutintag. And they have written a paper or a substack article now. The U.S. government sources claim that the first people sickened by COVID-19 were Chinese scientists the Wuhan Lab Institute of Virology, and they're saying that they have the names now. So we go into this article, and this is kind of the addition to this story now, the latest

edition, says, according to multiple U.S. government officials interviewed as part of a lengthy investigation by public and racket, those are the names of their publications. The first people infected by the virus, patient zero included Ben Hu, a researcher who led the WIV's gain of function research on SARS-like coronavirus, which increases the infectious of the viruses. Now, Ben-Hu is a researcher at that organization, but we go on and we read this. Now answers increasingly look within reach, it says. Sources within the U.S. government say that three of the earliest people that become infected with SARS-CoV-2 were Ben-Hu, Yu-Ping, and Yanzu. All were members of the Wuhan lab suspected to have leaked the pandemic virus.

And who is Ben-who? So he works at the, we worked at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. And he was a researcher, specialty of SARS-CoV related viruses. And he even has papers with his name on it. So in 2017, he co-authored a paper called the discovery of a rich gene pool of bat-sars-related coronavirus provides new insights into the origin of SARS-Coronavirus. And on that paper are the other two people who fell ill. They're also co-authors. And then in 2019, he co-authored another paper, Geographical Structure of Bat-Sars-related

coronaviruses. So this is the latest information. And according to that substack article, next week, there's an expected release by the director of national intelligence. He's apparently supposed to release classified information. You know, again, this is all kind of hearsay from sources as journalists. This is how we work. But, you know, this is still government intelligence agencies feeding information.

So it'll be really interesting to see next week of this, if this national intelligence report does come out. if these three individuals are named, this would add a lot of information to this. And it begs the question, the Biden administration kind of went cold on really researching the origins of this virus. So it's interesting that the State Department officials, U.S. investigators, intel agencies are now coming forward and using journalists to leak this type of information. So this is a really interesting development at this point. Wow. Wow. Well, I mean, there it is. And I remember, you know, those were some of the arguments made when we've been attacked. by these fact checkers like NewsGuard.

We were questioning the validity of the natural origin story. You weren't allowed to do it. We were spreading misinformation by saying that this looks like it came from the lab or certainly seem to have, you know, fair and cleavage sites and things like that, HIV inserts by some scientists. And as I've said from the beginning, you know,

and we are, this is a breaking story. It may change. When you're watching the high wire, What we're doing is we're bringing you all the latest breaking information. Many of the scientific studies that we're bringing you and things like that are preprints. It's just being released for people to look at it. They want scientists to challenge it. So this story may also keep changing.

But so far from the beginning, it really has looked like this thing came out of the lab. And now the world has moved in the high wires direction on this conversation. Right. And so with that in mind, let's take a little bit of the way. of a deeper dive than we normally do on these segments into the coronavirus response the pandemic response specifically the united states um most people remember president trump at the beginning standing at a podium you had fouchy behind him you had this this government response you had the lab coats the doctors the vaccine manufacturers fda all promising transparency but above all it was a medical

health agency response with the government yeah but there was a separate response running parallel to And it was by the military. This military complex was also in there running this COVID response. And for people that may not have seen it, this is what it looked like on December 12th, 2020, when the FDA had just greenlighted Pfizer's COVID shot for emergency use authorization and it was time to roll it out. Let's look at what the military was saying. We checked our egos at the door. We worked collectively to solve the problem. And we have achieved success, as was identified last night by the FDA when they approved EUA of the Pfizer vaccine. Now we'll begin distribution of safe and effective vaccines to the American people.

You have heard me refer to today as D-Day. Some people assume that I meant day of distribution. In fact, D-Day in military designates the day the mission begins. D-Day was at pivotal turning point in World War II. It was the beginning of the end. D-Day was the beginning of the end, and that's where we are today. And that was General Gustav Perna. He was directing kind of the distribution of Operation Warp Speed. But you can see there that, you know, there is a military flare to that.

If this was the only video someone saw from the past, looking back in history, they'd say, wow, this really looks like the military was commanding this thing. And even before the coronavirus, a couple of years before that, we saw the military starting to get into collaboration with the FDA. Here's an article from 2017 in November, almost two years before we're actually knowing about the coronavirus. FDA and Pentagon in turf war over product approvals. And what they were talking about there was emergency use authorization products. The Pentagon, the Department of Defense, wanted really control over the emergency use authorization mechanism for times of war, times of biological attacks. They wanted to be able to fast track that on their own. And the FDA, you know,

hats off to them at that point. They actually did put down their foot and said, no, this is our wheelhouse. We want to remain control on this. So what happened was there was a compromise. Public law 115-92, this is amended public law. And if we go into this and we look at it at the time, and again, it's 2017. This was an act to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to authorize additional emergency uses for medical products to reduce deaths and severity of injuries caused by agents of war and for other purposes. And right after that, there was a great article on this that broke it down really with the legalese and how it really affected the future of EUAs.

In this article, if anybody wants to look at this, this really breaks it down a new era of collaboration between the Department of Defense and the FDA. And now this thing gets moving a little bit. It says a compromise emerged between the positions of the DOD and FDA, whereby DOD would get both the expansion of the EUA authority beyond CBRN. that's chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear threats for battlefield trauma care and an expedited approval mechanism for DOD medical priorities, but where FDA retain the exclusive authority to authorize an EUA. So right there, we have DOD being married to the FDA, especially when

it comes to any type of threat, you know, note biological, any type of threat that is going to be an issue, the DOD can have its hand in EUA is fast-tracking these medical priorities. So, So we fast forward to July of 2020. We start looking at the contracts now. And this was five months really before we saw General Perna there go on the podium and say this is D-Day. Five months before that, the U.S. starts looking at the U.S. health agency, start looking at manufacturing capability.

Who can upscale this experimental mRNA vaccine platform? Who has the best capabilities to do this? We have this document, July 2020, and it says COVID-19 pandemic, large-scale vaccine manufacturing demonstration. You can see at the bottom of this slide requiring activity. It says it's a joint mission between the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Defense to combat COVID-19. So right there, they're both standing side by side, doing, you know, walkthroughs of the Pfizer plant, looking at manufacturing capability. Obviously, HHS is doing it from a public health standpoint. DoD is doing it from a militaristic standpoint.

That's their goggles that they have on. So we go back into that document. here and it says at that time this was when they were chosen the government received and evaluated all proposals submitted and on a basis of selection has been executed selecting Pfizer incorporated as the awardee says the total approved costs to the government for this effort is not to exceed 1.95 billion and change there and then you get to the actual contract December 2020 it says here look in the scope of work this is Pfizer's contract scope the Department of Defense and the Department of Health and Human Services in support of national emergency response to the coronavirus disease 2019 requires the production of Pfizer vaccine, BNT162B2 on the commercial item basis,

up to 500 million doses to inoculate members of the DOD and the general public. So both, you can see there, HHS has the public in mind. DoD has military members in mind. So you can see they're both had the same aims. They're both trying to get this, but they're separate. They're distinctly separate at that point. And then that moves on to international distribution. We have July 2021.

We have the Kovacs instrument, basically. This was to inoculate low and middle income countries, African countries. And we go in here and we look at there, the scope of that document. Again, the DOD is right in there. DoD and they're paired up with the United States Agency for International Development Use had in support of the global response. And you can see in there, they're looking for 500 million vaccines as well for the Kovacs. That's an advanced market commitment.

So this is where we start going internationally with this. So that's really the distribution side of what's happening here. And again, you can see the military is married to the public health agencies. Although we don't see that too much in public. We see popped it up here, you know, with Perna making that announcement. But you really, from there, it's very difficult to find the military's hand in this, especially publicly. But we go into the policy piece now. And this is really where the rubber meets the road, where the policy happens, who's making the policy, and how is that

shaped and how is that rolled out so in 2006 we have the public health service act and you can see even in here from a policy standpoint this is really the gold standard this is the the the Bible of how the united states works when there's an emergency and it says this the secretary of health and human services shall assume operational control of emergency public health and medical response assets as necessary in the event of a public health emergency but then it goes on to say except that members of the armed forces under the authority of the secretary defense shall remain under the command and control of the secretary defense and shall any associated assets of the department of the defense so you can see in there again even if there's emergency we have two breakaway kind of civilizations there well it's interesting it says

in control of assets and we just saw that one of those assets is they're a part of the purchase of these vaccines for both civilian and military so that's an asset so now you you you you're You have to imagine or they can be in control of that asset as it's delivered to the people. Exactly, exactly. And so now we get to the coronavirus response. So we have all of this. We have all of this policy already written in there. We have the vaccine manufacturing.

You see the parallel lines there. But now we have the actual plans. This is the plans from the White House. So in March 2020, the U.S. government puts out this document. And it's the COVID-19, the U.S. government's COVID-19 response plan. So this is kind of how it goes and flows. So we start reading into this.

It says this plan outlines the United States government's coordinated federal response activities of COVID-19 in the United States. The president appointed the vice president to lead the U.S. government's effort with the Department of Health and Human Services serving as the lead federal agency. And it just says after that consistent basically with that public health act. So you have Mike Pence. He's serving as the lead.

And the lead federal agency is health and human services. Mike Pence is really the figurehead here. So we're really looking at the organizations, not so much Mike Pence. So we go into this document here and it says on January 27th, the president's coronavirus task force was formed and charged with leading the U.S. government response. The task force was initially led by the Secretary of Health and Human Services and coordinated through the NSC, the National Security Council. So let's look at a flow chart on this document.

And you can see at the top here in orange White House task force is at the top. But to the left in that yellow box, who is dictating policy, the National Security Council. That is who is dictating the lockdowns, the masking, the vaccination mandates, everything, school closures, everything that had a meaningful impact or a negative impact, you know, as our reporting is shown on this coronavirus response. So we go into the next flow chart. Remember, HHS was the leading agency. That was the head agency.

And at the top here, you see HHS. response structure it's a big tree but who's at the top nSC national security council there it is again they're getting they're getting the the lead horse in the hHS's response so let's put a name to this now we have this agency so in february of 2020 remember that was march that was kind of the blueprints for how we're going to roll this out so in february 2020 we started seeing headlines that look like this white house names aides expert deborah berks to help lead coronavirus response so now we're We have the Coronavirus Task Force Response Coordinator, Deborah Birx. We have, she's on the board of directors of Operation Warp Speed, which was the distribution, basically, of the vaccines.

And then she's the response coordinator at the National Security Council. So this is a person. Remember, now, Deborah Birx was this person for, as far as the public remembers, a woman, you know, could have been someone's mother, grandmother, wore as a scarf kind of dressed down, always behind President Trump. kind of in the shadows, not really saying too much, just kind of observing, standing next to Fauci. And that's where the public remembers about her. Now, here's another version of Deborah Birx that the public may not know about her. She was active duty military.

So from 1980 to 1994, Berks served as an active duty reserve officer in the U.S. In 1985, Berks began her career with the DoD, the Department of Defense, as a military-trained clinician in immunology, focusing on AIDS and HIV vaccine research. them really celebrating the AIDS part, but not the fact that she's really military. Absolutely. Right. And so from 94 to 2008, she was active duty regular military. She achieved the rank of colonel. So this is not a minor person.

This is a very serious person. This is a very serious person with both a military career and, you know, some vaccine research and a medical career. So what is the first thing she does when she gets in there? Remember, Mike Pence is basically. the head, the go-to guy under President Trump. So this, the, the response that's carried out should be from the dictates of President Trump, Mike Pence, and their, their cabinet, if you will. These are the headlines. As soon as Burks gets her hands on the controls, this is what we're looking

at. Top Trump advisor bluntly contradicts president on COVID-19 threat urging all-out response. She starts really contradicting him and going against, against his will. And that was just one of several articles showing this at that time. So how did she get there? It said White House picked, but really when we start to look at this, the Brownstone Institute did a great article titled The Talented Mr. Pottinger. And this is the headline here. You can read this. The U.S. intelligence agent who pushed lockdowns? Now, who is Mr. Pottinger? This is Matthew Podinger. He is a decorated intelligence officer. And we start to go into this article. And it says this. Pottinger became a decorated intelligence officer and met General Michael Flynn, who later

appointed him to the National Security Council. There it is again. Pottinger was originally in line to be China director, but Flynn gave him the more senior job of Asia director. In 2019 of September, Pottinger was named Deputy National Security Advisor, second only to National Security Advisor, Robert O'Brien. Now it gets to the coronavirus. It says on January 14th, Pottinger authorized a briefing for the NSC staff by the State Department and the Department of Health and Human Services, along with CDC Director Redfield. The first interagency meeting to discuss, the situation in Wuhan wasn't prompted by official intelligence. In fact, there was practically none of it. Now, Pottinger was in China. He was seeing what was happening on the ground, and he did this on his own.

Now it goes on to say, on January 27, 2020, Trump's staff attended the first full meeting on the coronavirus in the White House situation room. Unbeknownst to those in attendance, Pottinger had unilaterally called the meeting. Others urged calm, but Pottinger immediately began pushing for travel bans. So now, now we go to link these two up now. So we have Pottinger, we have Berks. Where's the connection? Well, it's actually in Deborah Berks' own book. She wrote kind of a weird bragging tell-all book in 2022 called the Silent Invasion. And we go into that book and we start to read some of the, some of the things that were in this book, as quoted, on January 28th, after meeting with Aaron Walsh to solidify the planning and schedule for the upcoming African diplomatic core state department meeting, I received a text from

Yen Pottinger, aside from being the wife of my friend Matt, the deputy national security advisor, Yen was also a former colleague at the CDC and a trusted friend of the neighbor. It goes on to say, Matt had apologized for the short notice and said he hoped we could meet face to face. Yen arranged that so I can meet him in the West Wing. And once we were both there, Matt got to the point quickly. He offered me the position of a White House spokesperson on the virus. So now we go into, now we understand how she got there. And remember, Burks and Pottinger had a kind of a similar view of this virus, which was, you know, COVID-0. We can't have any cases whatsoever.

And we need some harder lockdowns. We need these lockdowns going a little further. So we go into another article here. And this was, again, Brownstone Institute is doing some great reporting on this. And it talks about Burke's specifically. And in this article, it's quoting Pottinger when he's talking to Berks. So Pottinger says this. to burks you should take over azar fouchi and redfield's jobs because you're such a better leader than

they are and that was out of her book so pottinger is seeing what's going on allegedly was from these words seeing what's going on with azar at hhs with fouchy with fredfield and he's saying we need somebody else in there these guys are not really doing as good of a job or perhaps the job more specifically we need a military we need the military you know voicing this and driving this not you know all of these sort of science, CDC, NIH people. Right, exactly. And now something happens, though. We enter a gentleman named Scott Atlas.

He was put on this coronavirus task force, and he was somebody that was kind of a medical lead. And he, as we covered him, he started talking kind of outside the narrative a little bit. He started giving some real scientific data. And that didn't last too long. He was in there for a little while, but then he was really. to that position. And of course, the media viciously attacked him during and after that. And so he also we celebrated him big time here on the high wire. He's on my bucket list of people that I'm just dying

to interview on this issue because he got in there and suddenly we had someone that was not carrying this W-H-O-D now that we're looking at this narrative. He was giving a different perspective, which was more of a scientifically based perspective that you could put evidence behind instead of all this six feet distancing, which had no science behind it, masks, which we knew every scientific study said didn't actually work, a vaccine that was going to be rushed out, that it had been problematic in animal trials. So it was just such a relief. It was just sad that he got in there,

and Trump didn't seem to give him any power to do anything. Right. And looking back, we can really point to him as one of the beginning, people who kickstart the open scientific debate about the real science and the real health conversations that were surrounding this. And so he writes his book. And this is, these are some, these are some quotes from his book, some of the reporting on his book. And we're going to talk about this now. So he says this. In his book, Atlas observes with puzzlement and consternation that although Pence was the nominal director of the task force, Deborah Birx was the person in charge. He says, Berks's policies were enacted throughout the country in almost every single state for the

entire pandemic. This cannot be denied, he says. It cannot be deflected. He goes on to say this. This was his bird's eye view within that organization. Not only that, but no matter how much Trump or anyone in the administration disagreed with Berks, the White House was held hostage to the anticipated reaction of Dr. Berks, and she was not to be touched, period. He goes on to say this about Dr. Fauci. Dr. Fauci held court in the public eye on a daily basis so frequently that many misconstruers role as being in charge. However, it was really Dr. Berks who articulated task force policy, all the advice from the task force to the state came from Dr. Berks. All written recommendations about their on the ground policies were from Dr.

Birx. Dr. Berks conducted almost all the visits to states on behalf of the task force. Very interesting information. And I can say right here from combing through thousands of internal emails of Fauci's internal emails from, you know, almost every organization that put a FOIA, including the informed consent action network, there was little evidence of Fauci crafting or setting policy. I mean, look, I mean, I have to sit here and say, I mean, though we've had all the evidence correct here, we have definitely, you know, it worked. The court gesture even distracted our attention

a little bit. We've been very focused on Foucher. We didn't let Berks out of our sites, and we have discussed her many times, and the fact that, you know, she clearly has contradicted herself and even came out saying, now, I always knew the vaccine wasn't going to stop transmission. But you do realize that, you know, now, wow, so you don't really recognize she's military. You don't recognize that the NSC is involved in this. And so what it appears is this is being driven. And you have to imagine she's having meetings we don't know about that are driving this DOD, you know, military agenda. And now when I think about it, it all kind of makes sense, right? We were trying to say, folks, this is feeling a lot like martial law. But the part of it that kept your mind from saying

it was martial law was you didn't see any tanks or military. But if she had been standing there in camouflage every time she was telling us they were locking us down and now you're going to have to wear masks and now you're going to be forced to get this vaccine if you want to go to work, we would have probably started seeing this in a much different light. Right. And the question becomes what it was when I started out this segment, where did this virus come from, who knew what and when did they know it? So if this becomes a question of a lab leak that people knew and decided to do perhaps a military response over just a wait-and-see or just a public emergency, it puts things in a whole different light. So this is why this information about lab origins is, you know, it's passed for a lot of people, but it's really important to understand this because at the drop of a hat, you know, we have Jeremy Farrar, we have other people talking about, you know, the coming in director of the WHO saying, we're going to need to get ready to do. now for the next pandemic, are we to expect that the second the hammer drops the next pandemic, we're under this quasi-military martial law. We really have to pay attention to what's going on with this. You're right. And as you sort of laid this out, I even now have to think about the fact that

Pottinger, what is in charge of Asia? He's the one overlooking all things happening in Asia. Why does that end up? You know what I mean? Then he moves into this powerful position. All of it, you know, all of this weird interconnection between China, Asia, the United States, of America, the WHO, and now this military, the way you're bringing this in. This has been an incredible journey this last few weeks with you, Jeffrey, sort of, you know, listing out the past, you know, sort of how we see these decisions and eugenics coming up through the system and then into military. In some ways, you know, what you have to ask yourself now, is this then, was this a military

exercise? Because, I mean, at the heart of this, at the heart of, you know, a military guy is saying, this is, you know, D-Day, I just keep thinking for a virus that had a death rate of ultimately 0.35% of everybody there, and for people like under 60, really, we're in the 0.0, you know, 2.05% percent space. So really? Was this really the war of all wars? Did they know it was that week the whole time? Certainly by 20, you know, by the time this vaccine is coming along, everyone should have known it. We knew it. We were reporting this is, you know, essentially a bad flu, hardly, you know, World War III, but it never stopped. And now we look at this, the way it was driven through. Super interesting. Jeffrey, great reporting. Thank you. Thank you, Del. All right. So, you know, we've been on this journey of the last few weeks, really sort of breaking down what happened with COVID. And, you know, all of this, a lot of this, what you don't see behind the scenes is. You don't see the international scientists and legal authorities that we work with and here.

I mean, you know a lot about Aaron, Syria, and the work that we do here in the United States of America. But when Jeffrey's working on this, we have a team he gets to work with, and they're not volunteer. We are a full-fledged news agency that is not taking in any funding whatsoever. And so when, you know, we do this, when we say you are sponsoring this, you really are. And by the way, I think even NPR gets like government funding. We're not getting that either, right? I mean, we're a nonprofit. We're not even being funded by the government because I don't want them telling us what we're allowed to say or not.

You're deciding that. So when we start bringing you these stores and we're bringing you all this evidence, we are also, if you haven't noticed, not jumping to, you know, giant conspiracy theory, conclusions. Now, some of those conspiracy theories that are floating around, even around this, and Department of Defense may or may not be true. I'm not saying they're not, but what I want you to know is when you're watching it here on the high wire, we are making sure we have the evidence behind what we're saying. Sure, behind the scenes, we have some ideas of where this is all leading, but until we have the evidence to put before you, you're not going to find it on

the high wire. I want you to be able to share this evidence, not just some of the evidence, not just some idea that you can't back up. We cannot win arguments right now with theory. We need facts, and that's what the high wire is all about. That's why one of the most important things we do here at the highwire is the highwire protocol, our transparency. The fact, and I say this to all the news agencies and those that try to fact check us, you find a news agency that has a protocol like ours where we put all of our evidence, not just the excerpt for talking about all of the evidence in our viewers' hands and any news agency that wants to question us. If you're not taking part of the High Wire Protocol, then you're really missing a large part of what you know all of the

donors and sponsors are investing in, the facts that we put in your hands. All you have to do to have the facts from every show, every single article, every scientific study that we present here. Even coming up, I'm having a brilliant conversation with Dr. Paul Merrick. We're going to be talking about some things that might be able to actually. change your life. Imagine healing diabetes. You might miss it all and so say, I couldn't capture it all. You didn't need to if you are a part of our newsletter. So all you have to do is go to the highwire.com if you're on the page, just scroll down that page, throw your email in here. It's not that hard. We keep everything encrypted. No one's going to know who you are. And instead, you're going to get

all of the information, all of it. I want to sort of celebrate. We got 4th of July coming up. So we've got a brand new t-shirt that you can buy. We've got a few. We've got a few. weeks, you can actually enjoy this. It's just a part of our sort of beefing up all of the gear that we have at our store. It's at the top of the page of the highway. Just click on the store and go there. This is how we highwire. I can't tell you when I wear it, you know, how many times I'll be wearing my highwire shirt, though I don't really need to wear it. But those of you out there will also say, you know, I was wearing a highwire shirt. Someone came up in the store and says, oh my God, you watch the highwire? Instant friends. Instant friends. This is how we do it.

So check out some of that new merchandise. It's all a part of supporting the high wire. And I just want to say for all of those that are out there supporting us, can imagine how great Fourth of July is going to be for you? When you look back at all we won, we won back a religious exemption in Mississippi this year, something that's been gone since 1979. You tell me the last news agency that ever did anything like that, gave rights back to families and parents to make a choice about what's injected in their children. You did that. We get to celebrate that when Fourth of July comes around saying we're actually fighting for independence here. And the dollar or the $5 or the $20 that I give to the Highwire every single month is actually making a difference.

So if you want to be a part of that celebration, you want to stand around and brag with your friends while you're throwing back some ribs and beer, then becoming recurring donor. Just go to thehighwire.com. Hit the donate link at the top of the page. It really helps for those of you that just become recurring donate. because we know how much we can invest in the next lawsuit or investigation that we want to do. How many new cameramen and news agencies we can sort of align with and hire around the country and around the world? You're making that possible. If you can't do $23, cool, do what you can so you can say you're a part of this whole thing.

And besides that, you know, T-shirt, one of the things you're going to find at the store is the brand new book. It just hit the shelves. It's the first book that we put out, The War on I. Ivermectin by Dr. Pierre Corey. It is now available at the highwire.shop. You can check it out there. This is an amazing book. It really lays out, you know, the issue around Ivermectin,

but also this crime, this happening around science. Science is, you know, hanging in the balance. This is a great gift for your friends and people like that. And so speaking of this book, when you read sort of the first chapters of it, Dr. Pierre Corey's work so close with, with Dr. Paul Merrick. They've been deep into this issue of repurposed drugs, which is what hydroxychloroquine was, what ivermectin was. But not just when it comes to, you know, COVID, how many drugs maybe could cure us from cancer, but they're not seeing the light of day. I keep thinking of like, you know, Raiders of the Lost Ark,

you know, find the arc, and then at the very end, after all this work, it just gets shelved the way and hidden somewhere deep in a warehouse somewhere, that's what happens to every drug once it goes off of patent now. When it goes off a patent, the pharmaceutical industry doesn't care if it can cure all the cancer in the world. If they can't make money off of it, they want it destroyed. This is the sickness that has to change. There's a lot of the conversation I'm about to have. So in this book, Pierre Corey references Dr. Paul Merrick, let me just read a couple of paragraphs from this.

I was honored that Paul, that he took the time to contact me as I, like many others, in my field was an avid admirer of Paul. He was an intellectual giant in critical care medicine, the embodiment of a thought leader. What's funny is that so many so-called thought leaders and not leaders at all, but rather status quo supporting orthodoxy upholding doctors with positions of authority or profound pharmaceutical or agency influence. They lead thoughts, all right, the ones they're guided, bribed, or forced to lead. Conversely, Paul's lecturer at major academic conferences were always overflowing as his research and insights often led to conclusions that completely opposed prevailing orthodoxy and standards of care in the ICU. He goes on to say,

more important than the fact that Paul often argued against the prevailing guidelines issued by the professional academic societies is that his data, analyses, and conclusions were nearly always impossible to rebut logically or scientifically. Time and again, Paul would show that the standard of care was not based on correct scientific data. or an accurate understanding of the underlying pathophysiology of the disease or treatment. He has a gift for compiling and analyzing evidence and presenting it in such a way that is both compelling and humbling. I'm about to talk to Paul Merrick. You're going to want to read about him. And by the way, guess who wrote the intro of this? I did.

So if you want my thoughts on the matter, you're going to have to read them here in this book. All right, Paul Merrick is coming up. He is a spectacular individual. arguably one of the most published doctors and scientists in the world, certainly when it comes to ICU and health in critical care. This is Paul Merrick. About 100 protesters are here to support Dr. Paul Merrick. You've done something that's so transformative, that's so maverick. Dr. Merrick has treated over 150 septic patients the same way.

Time after time, they survive. Ah, Giro! Dr. Paul Merrick teared up outside the Norfolk courthouse Thursday, surrounded by a group of supporters. And what they're basically doing is telling me how to treat patients and what to use and what not to use. Dr. Merrick has been cited over 48,000 times in peer-reviewed publications and it's certainly one of those doctors who've been persecuted for treating patients. What's happening now is completely unprecedented in the history of medicine and across the world. We have the federal government, we have state agencies and hospitals telling doctors how to practice medicine. They're interfering with the sacred patient physician relationship.

Dr. Merrick had been reading about the healing powers of vitamin C, and just on a hunch gave it to Valerie intravenously, along with hydrochortosone. This is quite miraculous in that patients who are critically ill, who are at death store, when we give them this very simple combination of medications, it turns around their septic process and within hours they significantly better. Reaction from the medical community to what you had proposed and done has been very mixed at best, hostile at worst. People are displeased with me because here we found a very simple, cheap, easy way, of dealing with sepsis. They just didn't like the idea that a vitamin, which is cheap, could save people's lives. It was against the narratives.

The question is to you, if your daughter was in the ICU dying of septic shop, would you deny her a therapy that we know, we know absolutely for a fact is safe and that may potentially save her life? That's the question you need to ask. There are no downsides. There are absolutely no downside. The only downside is you may save the patient's life. To deny it, I think, is unacceptable. Traditional medicine does not like challenges to the status quo.

We need a reawakening because this current medical system is broken. Our goal now is to educate clinicians, healthcare workers, and the public that they need to be empowered. And we hopefully will live happier, healthier and more fulfilling lives. Well, it's my honor and pleasure to be joined by Dr. Paul Merrick today. Really. Thanks, Del. It's always an honor to be here, you one of my heroes. Well, then feelings are mutual.

You know, the other times that we've had you on the high wire, we've been talking a lot about COVID and all the work, you know, obviously you really were one of the ones fighting for repurposed drugs to save patients. He had an incredible testimony with Senator Ron Johnson, the emotional testimony where you basically said I was forced to watch my patients die when I could have saved them. But I don't want to really, let's move beyond that a little bit today because your work before COVID really is instrumental and that came under attack. We've talked before about vitamin C. So just to remind people, what was the actual discovery? of vitamin C when it comes to sepsis, which is a major issue in ICU's, right?

Yeah, so the World Health Organization estimates that about 11 million people die of sepsis every year. It accounts for about 50% of deaths. Is that the leading? Would that then be the leading clause? It seems like that's pretty high up there. It's the leading cause of death in children, and obviously it's about third or fourth in line in terms of adults. So it is a very important cause of death. And, you know, it's treatable and it's preventable. But it wasn't always.

I mean, this was a real problem in hospitals before you made the discovery. So how did it, you know, really sort of how did it work? How did you discover vitamin C in this? Yeah, so it's an interesting question. So what people may not recognize is that almost all species on this planet, except humans and guinea pigs, actually make vitamin C. C and it's really not a vitamin, it's a stress hormone. So when your cat or dog is stressed, it's what it does is its liver makes vitamin C because

it's an important stress response. Humans have lost that ability. So then the obvious next step would be when humans are stressed, give them vitamin C. And the more stressed you are, the more vitamin C you need. And probably septic shock, which is a severe form of sepsis, is a severe form of sepsis. is the most extreme form of sepsis and one of the most extreme stressors on the body. So it only makes sense to give vitamin C because it's a stress hormone. And so this was really built on the work of many people before me,

but particularly Dr. Fowler at Virginia Commonwealth University did a study looking at vitamin C in sepsis. And so I'd read his work and I thought that's really interesting. I kind of stuck it in the back of my mind. And then when I had this patient who was dying, you know, a doctor's, you know, traditionally do what they can to save a patient's life. All right. That's what we do.

That would be the jam, I would think, like to be able to say, I save someone today. Yeah, that's the democratic principle, which seems to have been lost, that doctors will do whatever they can in their power. You know, they'll think out of the box because, you know, when a patient's dying, they're dying. What do you have to lose? And so you'll try anything.

within reasonable bounds. So this patient was clearly dying, and I remembered the vitamin C study. I wasn't sure in the dose, so he had postulated two different doses, so I went smack in the middle, and I thought, you know what, for good measure, I'm going to add corticosteroids

because I had, you know, long-studied steroids and thought they had a role in sepsis. And for good measure, I threw in thiamine, so I gave the patient this cocktail of vitamin C, hydrochortone and thiamine, we call it the HAT protocol. And so in this first patient, I was not expecting anything. You know, you do what you have to do, and you hope for the best, but you assume the worst. And the next morning, I was completely dumbfounded.

She was sitting up in bed, the kidney function had improved, a liver function had improved. We actually took her off the ventilator, and she walked out of the ICU three or four days later. Wow. And so obviously, you know, one swallow doesn't make a summer. So I thought, you know what, I'm going to do that again? So, you know, in discussion with our nurses and the patients, we did this again and again and again and again. And we saw the same thing. And so at that time, you know, I really didn't realize what we were doing because patient came in the ICU and we treated them immediately.

Yeah. It's such an obvious thing. And so that's really the key. early treatment. They came to the ICU. They were critically ill. We gave them antibiotics, we gave them a little bit of fluid, and we gave them hat therapy, which seemed like the obvious thing to do. And so that's really was the key to the success, is early aggressive treatment. And my friend, as you highlighted, Pierre Corrie, had the same experience. Unfortunately, what happened, you know, with the powers that be is whether by design or just because of sloppy

they designed or did studies which were going to fail. And essentially what they did is they gave the vitamin C cocktail at least 24 hours after the patient came to the ICU. They gave antibiotics, they gave fluid, and they delayed treatment. And so it's pretty obvious. It seemed like, you know, I know talking, we've talked about this before, like in about a lot of different studies, but where they set out to try and make the product fail instead of saying, let's use you. instead of saying let's use it exactly the way Dr. Paul Merrick is using it. Of course, you had published on this,

your publication was accepted and touted worldwide as a cure here was, hydrochortosone, vitamin C and thiamine for the treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock, a retrospective before and after study. This was seen by tens, hundreds of thousands of physicians and people around the world. But then, as pharma usually does, they sort of attacked and they attacked from several positions. Yes, so you're absolutely right. What they didn't do is try and replicate my study.

Right. That's not what they try to do. They try to disprove the concept. Right. And so there are really two important things that actually I realize after the fact. One is timing that it must be given early. And secondly is we chose medical patients because medical patients are patients that have a medical disorder that responds to medical therapy.

If it's surgical sepsis, for example, you have a ruptured appendix, you have a ruptured gallbladder, that's a surgical problem. And trying to give vitamin C to treat a surgical problem is obviously doesn't make a lot of sense. So our paper was only medical patients because that's where it has a role. Many of these other studies enrolled patients with surgical sepsis because they knew it wasn't going to be of benefit. it. Right. What you need is the, it's obvious, you need a good surgeon. You know, when you have a ruptured gallbladder, you need a good surgeon. While vitamin C will help and is part of the treatment algorithm, what you need is a surgical intervention. So they didn't replicate or duplicate

the study that I did. And so, you know, last time you were on, we talked about this event in, is it Belfast? I think it was, where they brought you out basically. tar and feather you, they took one of these studies that refuted your statement, made you sit in front of this giant scientific body and try to humiliate you. Your paper has been under review. And one of the attacks, though, what we're here to really celebrate is I think one of the great victories I'm finally able to talk about on this show. So many scientists whose papers are retracted and pulled and yanked and you know, and you know it was solid. You know it was done, right, they're not being given any opportunity to refute the arguments being made. And by the,

and we've talked about this. This is the scientific method. The way these journals are designed, you put forward what you found. Other scientists are allowed to attack it, even with a study, like you said, but then you come back and say, well, look, you added people in your study that, you know, had surgical sepsis. I never said that it would work there. And you didn't do it in the timing or used the protocol the way I did. And then we all get to read everybody's statement. on this and decide whether or not we want to add to this. This is how science is supposed to work. Instead, they keep yanking these papers, yanking them down, and disappearing these foundational principles that maybe need adjustments or should be a part of not against the scientific method, but the method is dying here. But you decided to sue. And so I want to get into this story. First of all, just so you know, folks, that, you know, a doctor decided to attack Dr. Paul Merrick's perspective. This was an Australian doctor named Kyle Schia. Sheldrick, and this is what he, I think it started, I tweeted out, thanks. Somebody linked the Merrick study an hour or two ago. It is clearly fraudulent. I have requested retraction. A copy of my

complaint is here. He did submit this complaint. This is it. This is what he had to say. Unfortunately, within about five minutes of reading the study, became overwhelmingly clear that this is indeed research fraud, that the data is fabricated. While I understand your need to act fairly, there is overwhelming and irrefutable. evidence that data presented in this paper cannot have come from the method described and can only have been fraudulent, even from the data in the paper alone without any further evidence. I urge you to retract this paper or at least issue an expression of concern as soon as possible. I have CC, the institution's integrity officer in case they wish to institute integrity

investigation proceedings and disciplinary action. Just out of curiosity, is he an ICU doctor? like what gave him the foundation to believe he had this level of expertise? Yes. So what's interesting is this came four years after the paper was published. So that should firstly raise a red flag. Secondly, he's some kind of an orthopedic doctor, as I understand. Okay.

He's not a statistician. He's not an ICU doctor. He doesn't treat sepsis. So his background in both ICU medicine, sapsis and statistics is just not there. Wow. And so why did you decide to bring a lawsuit against him? So we actually took legal action against him rather than specific lawsuit, you know, that's what it's kind of called. So obviously what he did, you know, he accused me of fabricating

the data. And he essentially was defamation. Obviously, I had to defend myself. I had to defend the study and I had to defend what it represented. And so, you know, he made the, he subject, so firstly he tweeted this out, it then went to many of the social media medical organizations who assumed I was guilty, you know, without actually investigating the information, I was assumed to be guilty. And so, you know, his accusations were pretty interesting. You know, he claims that after reading the results in five minutes he knew it was fabricated. But the statistical techniques he actually used were completely infounded. And we had real statisticians look at what he had complained of and found his thought process,

his thought process was not correct. But nevertheless, the social media medical organizations took it seriously. and I was assumed to be guilty and having assumed to have committed, you know, scientific fraud. Wow, yeah. And so obviously the complaint went to the medical journal and they obviously had to take it seriously, which they did. They went through the, I provided the data, and initially they said they found no credible evidence for his claims. But then they received a second complaint, which was anonymous, stating that my inclusion and exclusion criteria were very suspect. So that led to another year-long investigation.

Finally, the journal basically vindicated me. Basically, they said they can find no data or no evidence to support his claims or the subsequent claims. and after having statisticians and methodologists and clinicians pouring over the paper for over a year, for over a year, all they could come up with was two words, two words in the entire paper that they wanted me to change in the methods section. So the results stood, the conclusions stood, which is really astonishing because you can take any medical paper and you can find fault with it.

It's just the way it is. And so they, after a year or, of intense dissection, two words. Two words had to be... Is what they want to change, which were really inconsequential in the whole paper. People are going to ask, what were the words? I mean, not getting too deep the weeds. I know they're like, what are the words, Del?

Why don't you ask you? One of the words? So the two words is we said they were consecutive patients, but in a clinical trial, it's very difficult to be absolutely get consecutive patients because you don't have researchers there all the time. some of the patients you just can't get access. We had to change consecutive to non-consecutive. Okay.

Because we originally said consecutive, but we meant consecutive patients that we were able to enroll. Got it. You know, if it's 2 o'clock in the morning and there's no clinical investigator around, you can't enroll the patient. That happens in all clinical trials.

Your goal is to get... No, the ones that you can safely put in, but not necessarily everyone that came to... Yeah, so they were trying to imply. there was a selection bias, but we actually showed them with the data. We tried as best we could to enroll consecutive patients, which is what we did. And the second was the dose we wanted was 1.5 grams Q6, but this was a pragmatic study. So the pharmacies didn't always supply the dose exactly every six hours in the way we wanted it. So we had to put, we targeted a dose of 1.5 grams

Q6 because sometimes it wasn't Q6, sometimes the patients left the ICU a little bit early. So the two words they want to change was consecutive to non-consecutive, and the dose had to be, we targeted this dose. And so if anyone who knows anything about medicine knows, that's what happens every day in real life. Right. Well, awesome. So not only you vindicated, not only around the world now, all of these attacks on this paper, it stands, the evidence stands, the claims of fraud have been wiped away, and this chucklehead

that decided to attack you, what did he have to do? I mean, what was it, you know, you sort of brought this litigation in his direction, or at least to, you know, legal action, as you put it. Yeah, obviously what we wanted him to do was to recognize that he made a mistake and to make a public statement recognizing that his accusations were not grounded. So you didn't ask for money or retribution for trying to destroy and smudge my career. I believe we have this statement. Can we take a look at this? Here it is a statement.

On 22 March 22, I posted a blog post called the Scattered Corn. This post was a copy of a complaint I filed with the journal Chest, identifying features of a study led by Paul Merrick, titled Hydroxychortosone, I'm sorry, vitamin C and vitamin for the treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock. published on 3rd of February, and I've identifying that I believe them to be signs of fraud and linked to this on Twitter. Those complaints have since been formally rejected by the journal Chest, which I consider to be the definitive conclusion to the matter. I realize that this letter was used to imply that Dr. Merrick personally acted deceptively and falsibly reported study data, which was not my intention, and this caused him significant hurt and distress. I regret this hurt to Dr. Merrick. I will inform those who have reported on this complaint that it has been rejected by the journal,

Dr. Merrick has also indicated to me that some subsequent control studies have found some positive outcomes for vitamin C and sepsis, and I accept this. The statement is not endorsement of the use of vitamin C in sepsis. Well, he can go ahead and go on his merry way. I just love this because, you know, I think so many times people just walk off and just let this abuse continue and you are not only winning for yourself, you're winning for science. We've got to start standing on ground in these situations. And, you know, when you think about this issue of sepsis, I mean, you know, what is your dream that the treatment will be and what could it do for people around the world?

So, Del, I must say, I am grateful to chest because the journal chest, they could have taken the easy route that many other journals have done. And under pressure, just said, you know what, this is scientific fraud and we will retract the paper. So I'm indebted to them for standing up for the truth. Yeah. For training, standing up for science. because ultimately that's what we need to do. You know, all of us need to stand up for the truth because the truth will always prevail.

And so although they tried the best to take me down, they failed. And I think it's an important point because this was, one personally, obviously, for me, but more importantly for science, that scientific truth and integrity can survive. And it's also important for the vitamin C protocol because otherwise it would be assumed that, you know, our protocol was fraudulent, it was based on false data, and would have buried the use of vitamin C in sepsis. And so now I think it resurrects this very important form of therapy.

Yeah. And so let me say this again. Timing is important. So there's no reason across the world, vitamin C is cheap. It's non-patible, non-patentable. So that's why big farmer doesn't like anything they can't patent. So there's no reason that people across the world who have severe sepsis can't be treated with a similar protocol, which is very simple, it's very cheap, it's very safe, and has the potential to save lives.

And so what more important a task should we have than to help people save their lives? And many times, these are people who, when they recover, much like my first patient, recover completely. These aren't people who have severe comorbidities. These are people who have the potential to recover and live healthy, meaningful lives. And as we said at the beginning, you know, sepsis accounts for about 50% of deaths in children. So there's no question of doubt that this is a treatment modality which we can be. build on. You know, sepsis is an important cause of death, and so timely use of antibiotics, really important, appropriate management of fluid, and then adjunctive therapy with corticosteroids

and vitamin C can be very helpful. Well, I mean, that's a huge win for science and medicine, but you sort of had a huge personal win, I would say, in your own health. So I kind of want to get into that a little bit because it's really fascinating. And, My understanding is this story sort of starts with COVID and the vaccine, which we've talked a lot about. But what was it about spike protein COVID, the vaccine that sort of got you into a health kick? Yeah, so basically this started a new journey for me. And I suppose I was a traditional physician. I was a professor of medicine.

I was tenured. And I believed everything we were taught and everything we were told. I mean, that's what doctors believe. Yeah. And I had no idea the extent to which medicine has been bought and corrupted and deceived. And so COVID- You're a professor, you wrote an ICU. I mean, it's amazing that someone, because you imagine, from a lay perspective, I imagine if you get as high up as you were, you know, cited tens of, by tens of thousands of doctors around the world and all the work that you've done, We assume that you don't get that high without seeing all the skeletons in the closet, right?

You just sort of have to imagine, if there's a problem, Dr. Merrick would have seen it. So I always was a person who challenged the status quo because I think scientists have to do this. You have to have an open mind. Don't believe anything. But I, despite having an open mind and despite challenging, I was brainwashed as almost every clinician is. not so much in terms of ICU medicine because ICU medicine is based on physiology and manipulation of physiology, but just in terms of medicine in particular. And so my journey really started off with figuring out how to get a spike protein.

Okay. Because there are these questionable practices of detox. And detox is something which doesn't work. The body has enormous capacity to heal and self-heal. And that's part of how vitamin C works. It helps the body heal itself. And so I came across this process called autophagy or autophagy, where the host or the cell basically gobbles up these bad proteins in the cell. It's called autophagy.

It's truly astonishing. I mean, the human body is so brilliantly designed. Whoever designed the body did a really good job. A really good job. And so there is this process called autophiles. where the cell gobbles up misfolded, damaged, bad proteins. And the most efficient way to stimulate or activate autophagy is by something called intermittent fasting or time-restricted feeding.

So what was your, why did you have the focus on spike protein yourself? Why were you concerned? Had you gotten the vaccine? So not for me, but I was interested in how we could help these vaccine injured patients. Okay, okay. As you know, there are quite a few of them in the US. Yeah, and FLCCCCCC, of course, the work that you and Peter or Corey have done.

You've been on the front lines with that. So you may know about the ICAN group. Yes, that's them too. They're really great. You heard about the V-scan study, which shows the 18 million at least vaccine injured people. And so obviously, this is a humanitarian disaster. We have to figure out a way to help these people. And so I figured out that one of the ways to do this was through intermittent fasting.

And through this journey, I realized that. intermittent fasting actually may be the solution to many other medical problems. And so I was a type 2 diabetic. In addition to being a type 2 diabetic, I will admit this on TV, I was a food addict. And so what you may not know is maybe 80% of Americans are addicted to processed foods. It's a really, it's a DSM-5 diagnosis. This is a real psychiatric diagnosis. Wow.

And I was a food addict. And we can talk about what the features are of being a food addict, which is, you know, eating processed foods, eating snacking, eating bad foods, eating processed foods. And so what I figured out was that... What's your weakness? Is it sweets? Is it salt? For me, it's like chips and things like that. Yeah, it's changed.

So I'm no longer a food addict. I'm a rehabilitated food addict. I'm glad to hear it. So what I used to do... do, this is what I used to do when I was like a normal human. I'd go to work, I'd go to gym, I'd come home, then I would sit in front of the TV and eat chips. I would eat chips and snacks and potatoes and candy for hours.

I was a processed food addict. That's what I did and that's what many Americans do. And then I realized that, well, I was an addict and I realized that I was an addict and I realized that What I needed to do was to eat real food. Imagine such a thing like that. To eat real food and to do intermittent fasting or time-related feeding. And so that's what I started doing. I lost 40 pounds within a few months.

And the diabetes that I had went away. When you say intermittent fasting for people that may just be sort of tuning into this or, you know, time-controlled eating, what's this we're using for your body? So it's really important to distinguish starvation because this is not starvation. The second thing is that diets don't work. If you are a food addict, the diet doesn't work.

It's like telling someone who's an alcoholic, which don't drink, or someone who's addicted to cocaine, don't take it. D diets don't work. This is a mental disorder, so you have to get to the problem. And so I changed my philosophy about eating.

my approach to eating changed completely. And it took me a little bit of time to adapt, but it's not difficult. So basically I stopped all snacking. I stopped snacking. And then what I did was I ate between a window. So you want to eat, the easiest time restricted feeding is missed breakfast, and then eat between a six to eight hour window. The rest of the time you fast.

Fasting means you don't eat. Right. And you can drink. you can have fluids and you can have coffee. Coffee is actually really good. Coffee prevents Alzheimer's disease, prevents dementia, it prevents cancer, and it activates autophagy. So coffee is really good, as long as you don't have it just before you go to sleep. So I changed my diet, more importantly I changed my lifestyle and my approach to food. So before when I ate processed food, so I went to the cupboard, the, the, the, the, the, the,

where we keep all the food, I threw out all the processed food. We just dumped it out. And what I kept was real food. And so what's the difference between real food and processed food is quite simple? If it looks like food, it's food. I usually, Ed, I tend to think if I, you know, if it has more than like two or three words, you're describing the ingredients inside of it, and certainly if you cannot understand what the word is or means, probably not real food.

food yes so if it comes in a box and has a label comes in a package it's probably not food and the more the more the longer the ingredients and the more undescipherable the ingredients are that's not really I almost ate a little snack back honestly just the other day I was on the plane it's like you know it's like a little snack mix and I was like oh hold on a second I turned it over to look the ingredients and it was like on it was bigger than the package it racked the package and it was like there's so I was like what would this little snack need this many ingredients in it And so many of the additives actually are addictogenics.

So they are put there by design to make you addicted to the food that they're making you eat. And so there's actually some good data, an award-winning lecture which actually showed that the processed food that we eat actually causes oxidative injury in the pancreas. It actually damages the pancreas and causes the pancreas to release insulin, which may be part of the. of the reason for type 2 diabetes. It's the actual the chemicals, the colorance, the toxins in synthetic food. So we, you know, we don't eat, we're not eating food. We're eating synthetic chemical compounds. Which are causing diabetes. Which are causing diabetes and they're causing a whole host of other disorders. So it's really getting back to nature and getting back to the way we were meant to be. And so you, and was there any guidance

Were there any books for anything you read that sort of led you towards this, you know? Oh, yes. So what actually took me on this journey is a book by Jason Fung, who's a nephrologist in Canada, who wrote the book, The Bible on Intermittent Fasting. It's an outstanding book, so I have no, I'm not in, I have no investment in his book or in him. But it really, if anyone's interested in intermittent fasting, I would truly recommend this book. because it's a very simple, he lays it out in a way that anybody can do it. This is not complicated.

The nice thing about time-related feeding is you can adapt it to any lifestyle, any person, any time. It's simple. It doesn't cost you anything. I'm doing the same thing, by the way. I mean, everyone that's watched this show for the last couple of years watched me almost die. I guess it was almost two years ago now, a year and a half ago. where I mean again I was you know thought I was being healthy even I don't really eat a lot of you know bad foods some I guess when you travel a lot you know and just working too hard but

I have really looked at my diet looked at things that I chips you know I have these weakness you know I'm eating whole foods the middle of time but you're right I'm having a nice breakfast with eggs and you know toast but then I have chips and you know it's for me it's the salt and oils and things the addiction yeah and so you know what if you think of it in that terms that, you know, this is not a personality trait. You are addicted to the substance. And the data shows that carbohydrates and sugar and fructose is more addictive than cocaine. Wow.

If you were to give mice in a laboratory cocaine or sugar, they will choose sugar. All right. Well, let's show me your results because this is outstanding, folks, and this is one of those things you're watching this show. A lot of you say, well, you know, we talk about problems all the, but how about some solutions look at you were monitoring yourself as you went through this process which is really cool I'm glad you did it so we have some graphs and some things to show you this is your continuous glucose monitoring what is it when we look at this

what does this mean why is this important yes so you know we have the technology now to monitor blood glucose continuously yeah so if I'm a bad boy yeah I do what you did and ate a bag of chips it would cause my blood glucose to spike so my blood glucose runs around 100, which is really quite good. What would happen is if I do what you do, or dead, or sometimes did, it would shoot to 200. And so what that does is, firstly, it tells you you being a bad boy or girl. Secondly, it gives you this instantaneous biofeedback. So you can tell what different dietary elements do to your own blood glucose. Wow. Can anyone do that? Really. So you can sort of mod or go through a day and just say, how are these things I'm doing really affecting my blood?

very effective by a feedback because you because we're all different we all respond to foods differently but it basically tells you how you personally respond to any particular food type and so it may even differ from day to day or for the time of the day or the order in which you eat food is very important so there's a woman in sweden i think who's known as the glucose goddess and she wrote a book It's very interesting that the order in which you eat food can determine your glucose profile. So if you eat carbohydrates at the beginning of the meal, of course, it's a big spike. But if you start the meal with greens and fiber and then end with carbohydrates, say a sweet, you have a much flatter blood glucose profile.

So it becomes very important in teaching you, learning how your body reacts to a particular food type or group of food. And there's no question it's instantaneous biofeedback. It moderates your behavior. So through the blood glucose monitor and also then monitoring my hemoglobin A1C, my blood pressure, my weight. We can show that. We can show your A1C throughout this. You can see these are as the weeks go on. You started out your A1C was at 8.

Also you have your weight there and the, what does that mean? fasting blood glucose. So then at four weeks, it looks like you didn't monitor your A1C there, but when we go to eight weeks, look at it, you've dropped down to 5.7 from 8, and then at 12 weeks we're at 5.4, which is in sort of side of the space that you want to be. So that's, yeah, if a hemoglobin A1C is below about 5.8 means you're not diabetic. Okay. So I went from being a diabetic to being a non-diabetic. So it's really important because we told.

You know, just in... Four to five months. Four or five months. Wow. So it's really important because the medical establishment wants you to believe type two diabetes is non-treatable. So it's not just the medical establishment. It's the food industry because they want you to eat all this bad food. And it's a big farmer who sells you all of these drugs.

Well, speaking of Big Farmer, you were on all these drugs. Let's take a look at this. This is a look on the left here. My story, Type 2 diabetes. drugs prescribed by my internist metformin you're on a thousand milligrams Jardians you were on 20 milligrams a day I'll taste if I'm saying these things right 10 milligrams amlodipine amblodepine at 10 milligrams lipidore 40 milligrams Zoloft 50 milligrams I guess all of this was making you depressed but then look

at this four weeks after intermittent fasting and real food you've dropped down your metformin was at 500 milligrams, not 1,000. And you're here just all the rest of the drugs disappear, omega-3 fatty acids, resvatrol, spermidone, and vitamin D3, 5,000, IU. If someone wants to sort of read about this or understand how to do this with themselves, is there somewhere where they can find this information? Yes, so on our website at FLCCC, we have a protocol firstly on how to eat. Okay.

How to eat. Okay. Eat well. Great. And second, we have a protocol on insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes. And so this is not difficult. They want you to think it's difficult because they want you to be on medications forever. They want you to develop diabetes complications. They want you to go blind and they want you to go into kidney failure. It's preventable and it should never happen. And it's a treatable disease. So I must add that on top of this which I subsequently learned, I started taking a, specific supplement which is probably one of the most potent anti-diabetic

medications but nobody knows about it it's a Chinese herb it's been around for about 3,000 years but no one knows about it because you can't get a patent on it and if you can't get a patent on it you're not going to make money on it and no one's going to sell it and it's called berberine berberine berberine berberine okay so berberine actually is probably one of the most potent anti-diabetic medications we have. And this is looking at science. I mean, if you actually look at scientific data,

it's probably a more potent antidebetic medication than metformin, which is considered the standard of care. Wow. So by the way, I take metformin for another reason, not because of diabetes, but it's a very potent drug to prevent cancer, which maybe we can talk about. Well, we just tagged that on. I know we were brought to you in the type of this diabetes.

I just want to see I had a friend just this week, say, you know, I'm dealing with type 2 diabetes. I hope you're watching. Otherwise, I'll send you this episode and make sure that you're watching it. But you just dropped some, just a brand new explosive look into cancer. Yeah. So basically, I've gone on this new journey of, you know, challenging the status quo and challenging everything that we told. And so it became obvious to me that cancer, you know, cancer is a big problem. You know, half of the people in, half of people in this world are absolutely shit scared of getting cancer. They're petrified. And it's now the commonest cause of death of men and women. So something like one in three, one in two men

and one in three women will in their lifetime get cancer. The costs are enormous. And what will be stunning to you is that 60 to 80% of cancers are preventable. Preventable. It's a preventable disease. Probably the most, obviously, the most important is smoking. Stop smoking. Yeah. Obviously.

The second is insulin resistance and diabetes, which links into what we were talking about. Insulin resistance, and this is not my data, this is CDC data. This is, you know, the establishment medical data that, about 40% of cancers are due to metabolic syndrome and being overweight and diabetes. So just controlling your weight, preventing insulin resistance and treating your diabetes, goes a long way to preventing cancer. And then there's some other things you can do, vitamin D. So there's, they don't want you to know this because vitamin D is so cheap.

Right. D is very effective in both preventing cancer and in treating cancer. But again, it's so cheap. It's wild to think about that because, you know, probably the best way to get vitamin D is to get out there and get a little bit of sunshine. And we're literally told, don't get sunshine because it causes cancer. Yes. So the problem is you're absolutely right. So I have, you know, my good friend, Dr. McCola, who spends his life outdoors, he's naked in the sun. He can get his level up to about hundred just from the sunshine. Right.

And so that's what you want to ideally do. But most of us, so what he does is he cycles half naked at midday for at least an hour to get sunshine. That's the best way to get vitamin D. But most people can't do that. Right. And other people, you know, they live more north or more south and they just don't get, can't get enough ultraviolet B. So you can take vitamin D orally, which is completely safe. It is exceedingly safe.

So, in fact, there was a randomized double-blind placebo study. You know the gold standard, the ivory tower standard, the way the powers that be want. They did a simple study. They took patients. They randomized them to double placebo or to give them vitamin D, I think it was 2,000 units a day, omega-3 fatty acids, 2 grams a day, and a home exercise program. Three simple interventions. reduce their risk of cancer by 50%.

Wow. Wow. Wouldn't you think that's important to know? Yes. Exactly, but that I want you to know that because cancer's big business. Cancer is a business. They make money and it would be, it would bankrupt the medical establishment if we annihilated cancer. I always think, you know, and I feel bad, we've all been suckered in this.

I drive down the road and I see kids out there, you know, raising money for cancer, put your quarter in here for cancer and St. Jude and all these. And I know these, a lot of this means well, but I just think for all the years, we've been putting our quarters into these things, cancer just continues to rise. And really, as I started investigating, working on the doctors, I thought, you're never going to get a cure to cancer from pharma. I mean, it would put so many people out of business. It would take so many of these machines, you know, all these machines.

you know, all these machines that cure cancer, all the oncologists, you know, what would happen to all that? I mean, an entire billions and billion dollar industry would come crashing down if we discovered that a vitamin or something like vitamin D could actually, you know, keep you from getting cancer. It's just not going to happen. Yeah, so that's the problem. So that's why patients need to empower themselves because they can't trust the system. Yeah. And they're things they can do to reduce their risk of cancer. which is really important.

And then healthcare providers should know this because their goal should be to improve the health of their patients. Right. Firstly, they should engage in a conversation with their patient. That never happens because they have like three minutes. And so they should, you know, talk about lifestyle changes, you know, really important things they can do so patients can change their lifestyle and empower them to improve their own health. And then of course, if you have cancer,

there are very important things you can do. So there are a list of about over 200 off-label drugs and nutraceuticals that have been shown and proven to be effective for treatment of cancer. Well, where do we find this paper if we want to sort of let you just sort of dropped in all this information, repurposed drugs and vitamins to sort of help us with cancer? Where do we find that at? Yeah, so we just have posted on our website three days. ago, a monograph which I wrote on cancer care. It can be downloaded from the website,

FLCCC.net. And it basically goes through what I've just told you. It challenges the conventional dogma on what causes cancer because probably that theory is probably not correct. And the treatment is based on an incorrect theory of the causation of cancer. So there's actually some data that chromosomal theory is not correct. That's why you don't get, it's not due to genetic mutations that causes cancer, which is a big deal, because all the treatment is based on screening for these gene mutations and for treating the genetic disease. But the overwhelming body of evidence suggests that it's not a genetic disease, it's a metabolic disease. And so probably the strongest evidence. It's amazing right. They love this word genetic because it means there's nothing

can do about it. Now all we're going to have to do is treat your symptoms and try to hang in there, right? Whereas... So can I tell you, you know who James Watson is? No. James Watson was from Watson and Crick. They were the two gentlemen that discovered the DNA. They described what DNA was. Crick and Watson. Dr. Dr. Watson wrote an editorial in the New York Times saying he does not think cancer is a chromosomal and genetic disease. Wow. And if it comes from him, he's the father of DNA. Who am I to challenge it?

So that's how far along we are in this theory, challenging this accepted theory of cancer, which is really, really important. Because if cancer is not what they think it's due to and it's due to some other cause, that means your treatment's going to be radically different. but that would mean throwing away all their chemotherapy and all their therapies which they make trillions of dollars. Amazing. Dr. Merrick, you're a pioneer you always have been. It's wild to sort of watch you up close as you've really transitioned as sort of a top pharmaceutical medical specialist into a top health care professional, real health care.

And it's really excited to have you. I want to thank you experimenting on your own bodies. You know, also awesome because, you know, you get to say it worked for me. Thank you. And, you know, I think our goal ultimately is for people to empower themselves. Yes. So that they're healthier, happier, and live more productive lives. And so, you know, we've spoken a lot about diet, but there's also exercise.

And there's also good sleep and stress control. So there are things people can do to control all those five pillars. of lifestyle and I think if people did that you know we'd be living in a really healthy happy world a healthy happy world I think my staff's into thinking Della's got like three of the four this stress control lately taking out a little bit too much in a few places so it's been a little bit stressful but I definitely sleep well I've been exercising food so I'm with you on that and you look fantastic and welcome to sort of kicking your diabetes to the curb it's super exciting thanks for having this discussion

with me because I think it's all about just speaking, having discussions, you know, honestly, openly and without censorship. Agreed. Love it. Dr. Paul Merrick. Stay in touch. We can keep watching all of your great discoveries you move forward. Thank you, Dr. Bigtree.

All right. Well, look, you know, it is about self-empowerment. That is all the high wire is really about empowering yourself and recognizing how much power you have, whether it's legislatively, whether it's with your own health, whether it's, whether it's in your parenting, you know, or how you get your media and where that comes from. So, look, don't you want to help empower all your friends and family members? I know you do. I think in rolling them into this incredible experiment we've been a part of called the Highwire, which not only brings you media, but also brings you legal action. We don't, you know,

we literally put our money where our mouth is. When we talk about it, if there's an issue, we go and we fight to make a difference with it. We want more and more people to be. a part of this process because as the world gets, you know, more and more dicey, there's more that we can do. So we want you to, you know, spread the message. We have a great new promo that you can just throw in a text, a tweet, an email to your friends. Check this out. Good morning, good afternoon, good evening, wherever you are out there in this beautiful world. It's time to step out onto the high wire. It's time to step out on the high wire. It's time to step out on to the high wire. It is time to step out on the Highwire.

The Highwire, an award-winning weekly health news and talk show dedicated to delivering you the truth on the hottest topics vital to your health. I appreciate your segment for digging deep, looking at the data, what is real. Emmy Award-winning host, Del Bigtree, brings you the latest science and evidence, putting the power of factual information in your hand. Here's the evidence. Here's the science. Del, thank you for your bravery and your team's bravery. Thank you for all you've done.

It's brave. Bold trusted news. The Highwire with Del Bigtree. The scientific method died here, and this is the point I want to make. It died a death here, and I need you to help me save it. Thursdays at 1 p.m. at thehighwire.com. We're fighting for those who cannot fight for themselves. That is what the truth is all about.

That is what being alive is all about. And that's what the Highwire is about. I'll see you next week. Get it all at thehighwire.com. Well, all right, I want to thank all of you for joining me from around the world for this adventure, the high wire. Thanks again to Paul Merrick making this trip, but also for just standing up for truth and getting out there and showing us ways to move forward for our own health. It's really exciting stuff. I just want to let you all know.

We've got an exciting thing coming up. Last year, we were at Freedom Fest in Las Vegas. This year it's going to be in Memphis. We did a live show from there. We're going to do it again for so many of you that say, what's it like to watch a live show? You're going to get to do it at Freedom Fest. We want a huge audience there, and this is an incredible event of people celebrating liberty and freedom. Just go to FreedomFest.com.

The dates were there on the Thursday. We're going to be doing the live show on the 13th and on the 14th. Aaron and I are going to do a panel together, so that's going to be a first. We've never sat on a stage together. and actually we're going to go through some of the incredible deposition moments in the videos where we have the experts proving that they've lied to the world. This is going to be awesome. That audience is going to have their mind blown.

I'm also earlier that day at 9.35 a.m. on the 14th, I'm going to give a talk on weaponizing compassion, which I think is a lot of what's happened here. But this was a fantastic event last year. It's going to be even bigger this year. And there's so many reasons why you should go. You're going to get to be a part of the live studio audience, which, you know, I want to see how that works. If you want to see me do more of that, I have a little dream to do that here, but I want to test it on you. So get to Freedom Fest if you can. July 12th through the 15th, going to be awesome. And hopefully you can make it there. All right. You know, the truth is just the truth. I was actually on a panel recently where I was talking about truth. And some guys said, well, that's your perspective. That's not the truth. I mean, I guess there's certain things that do have perspectives to them. But this is what science is supposed to be weeding out.

Science isn't supposed to be based on someone's opinion. It's certainly not supposed to be based on the opinion of those that are funding you or your government or anything else. And so we've been in this very precarious place. But here at the high wire, we have been bringing the scientists that have been challenging the status quo. We still believe in science. We're showing you our evidence. And by the way, we invite people to challenge our evidence. but here's how you have to do it.

You don't get to say, well, that's wrong because Tony Fauci said. I mean, this is what I watch on all of these major news programs that try to attack the high wire or I can or those that are like us and say, well, the experts say that's not science. Experts lips flapping is not science. Science is based on evidence that is laid out in a clear and concise way that you know definitive. what they're trying to say and what they can prove, we're allowed to attack it. And if once we attack it, it still can't stand up. If it can't defend itself, if it cannot refute the claims being made against it, then it doesn't stand. You don't get to hold onto your hypothesis, and it certainly is not a space because the majority thinks it so. It just doesn't matter.

We're fighting for the scientific method with everything we've got right now. Currently, it's on life support. It's got a ventilator ram down his throat and it's got remda Zvere being pumped into it. So we've got to all do our best to return, bring back the scientific method. That's what's happening here. That's why we celebrate all the great experts that come here, not because of what they say, but because they hand us evidence, we get to hand to you. So don't just watch this show. Go to FLCCC.netorg.com. I forget which one it is. Try them all. You'll eventually get there. But this is the point. Use the tools we're handing you. Do the investigation. Get on our newsletter, would you? It's ridiculous if you're watching this show and then not walking away with this body of evidence we're handing you every week. It'd be like going to school and never purchasing a textbook. Really? Come on. We can all do better. This is the high wire. We strive to be the best there is in the business. You're making that possible. And I can't wait to see you. next week.