The Highwire with Del Bigtree - Episode 332: THE FORBIDDEN DEBATE

Episode Date: August 11, 2023

Vaccine Maker Paul Offit, MD, and ICAN Lead Attorney, Aaron Siri, Esq, Are Engaged in The Forbidden Debate on Subtack and X(Twitter), After Years of Demand For Experts to Publicly Debate Vaccine Safety; Jefferey Jaxen Reports on College Mandates Still Being Pushed By Some Colleges and Universities, The Relentless Censorship of Experts Continues, and the Powers Pushing The Climate Crisis Narrative Now Blaming You!; MIT Research Lead Exposes potentially dangerous contamination in the COVID Vaccines Guests: Aaron Siri, Esq., Kevin McKernanBecome 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 in the world today, let's get ready to step out onto the high wire. Yeah, my name is Jim Meann. I'm a medical doctor. I'm setting in for the gray fox himself, Del Bigtree, the man who puts sexy back in suit coats and suit vest. I'm here to do my best to honor such a great endeavor that the high wire has become. I'm really excited to be here because they're such a big part of my life, the freedom, that they're helping to restore in this country. One of the things that's really important to me

is our religious freedoms. The removal of religious exemptions from vaccines and medical therapies is such an important protection that we need to keep working for. And I can recently won back, the religious freedoms in Mississippi. And this is such an important topic

because all over the country, religious freedoms are under assault. Their templated legislation is going to be passed throughout this country, trying to remove that religious exemption from medical vaccines, medical interventions of various kinds. And we need somebody there fighting for us. But here's what they're talking about and what the news looks like today about the assault on our religious freedoms. State lawmakers passed a bill getting rid of religious exemptions for childhood vaccines. State workers previously given religious accommodations have had them suddenly revoked. Lawmakers passed legislation to drop religious exemptions for all vaccines, including the measles.

Defense officials so far tell me that no religious exemptions have been granted across the services, not a single one. The right to request a religious exemption stems from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which protects workers from discrimination on the basis of religion. The total percentage of exemptions related to religious exemptions increased dramatically with the COVID vaccine. A significant number of those exemptions were related to a concern over fetal cells being used in the development of the vaccine. Pfizer and Moderna's vaccines raised concerns because an abortion-derived cell line was used for testing them, but not in their production. The Johnson-and-Johnson vaccine, however, was developed, tested and is produced with abortion-derived cell lines raising, additional moral concerns.

It goes against my bodily sovereignty as Christian. All airmen are supposed to have their vaccine by tomorrow. If any, are declining to get the vaccine. They may actually go through the Uniform Code of Military Justice. They could theoretically eventually be kicked out of the military. 250 employees were fired for refusing to get the COVID-19 vaccine. More than half approached an attorney to sue, saying Blue Cross Blue Shield wrongfully terminated them based on medical or religious exemptions.

Under the new law, unvaccinated children will not be allowed to go to school across the state. What's going to happen is we're going to either homeschool or we're going to move out of state. You can't treat religious beliefs less favorably than you treat medical conditions or administrative exemptions. Religious freedom in our country is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. Medical freedom, right? I don't see it right now.

And I want it back. The government does not have the right to interfere with my personal religious beliefs. God makes it very clear that for me, this body I'm given, this is my last bastion of freedom. And I couldn't agree more. As a father, as a grandfather, as a doctor, as a follower of Christ, I am very committed to this issue of our religious freedoms. And why should we be concerned about vaccines and our religious freedoms? Well, I'll tell you a very serious reason that we should be concerned is that many of the vaccines, the live virus vaccines in particular, Ferrisell of the chickenpox vaccine, Rubella, et cetera, these vaccines are grown on an aborted fetal cell lines.

Cells that were at the moment of a child's entrance into the world, they were taken captured in a plastic bag, taken to a vivisection table, and without anesthesia, without compassion, those tissues from their body were ripped out of their little bodies. And they were harvested, the cells were harvested, become the manufacturing substrate for generations of vaccines produced by the manufacturers of these live attenuated virus vaccines. And they did not teach me this in medical school. They didn't teach us. In fact, medical school, what they teach about vaccines is little more than memorize the CDC recommended schedule and memorize how to catch a child up should they fall behind on that schedule. That's what they teach you. Two and a half pages in a textbook, you know, a few days

in medical school, they don't teach you about what's in the vaccines, the ingredients, the possible contaminants, the aluminum adjuvants that could be neurotoxic in the human body, especially a small developing child's body. But the thing that I found out later in medicine, as a father of five children, that my children were being injected with the DNA microfragments, the residual cellular proteins of a human child's cells that was sacrificed at the moment of its entrance into the world. And I find that a very powerful reason that people of faith should be demanding their religious freedoms and they should be filing religious exemptions from these vaccines, any vaccines that use them. We know that Pfizer tried to hide the fact that they were using aborted fetal

cell lines in their quality control and their development process. Now, what what many doctors and what many of our opposition will say is that there aren't aborted fetal cells and vaccines. And technically, they're right. It's not aborted fetal cells. It's the cells that were the remnants of the cell as that virus was growing in that that aborted fetal cell line replicating to the point of it bursting forth and what's left behind is human DNA microfragments and residual cellular proteins.

But for anybody that wants to argue against that, I think we should just listen to the dark father of vaccines, the primary author of Stanley Plotkin's vaccines, the medical textbook that is the Bible of vaccinology and medicine. When he was deposed by ICAN attorney Aaron Siri, this is what he had to say about this issue. If you want to listen to the facts, listen to what Stanley Plotkin said under oath during a deposition on this exact. topic. In your work related to vaccines, how many fetuses have been part of that work? My own personal work, too. I'm going to hand you what's been marked plaintiffs, Exhibit 41. Okay. Are you familiar with this article, Dr. Plotkin? Yes. Okay. Are you listed as an author on this article? Yes. This study took place at the Wistar Institute, correct? Yes. You were at the Windstar Institute, correct?

Yes. How many fetuses were used in the study described in this article? Quite a few. So this study involved 74 fetuses, correct? I don't remember exactly how many. Turn to page 12 of the study? Yeah, 76. And these fetuses were all three months or older when aborted, correct?

Yes. Yes. Okay. And these were all normally developed fetuses, correct? Yes. What organs did you harvest from these fetuses? Well, I didn't personally harvest any, but a whole range of tissues were harvested by coworkers.

Okay. And these pieces were then cut up into little pieces, right? Yes. And they were cultured? Yes. Okay. Some of the pieces of the... fetuses were pituitary gland that were chopped up into pieces to

okay included the lung of the fetuses yes okay included the skin yes kidney yes spleen yes heart yes and tongue I don't recall but you probably yes so I just want to make sure I understand in your entire career, and this was just one study, so I'm going to ask, I'm going to ask you again, in your entire career, how many fetuses have you worked with approximately? Well, I don't remember the exact number, but quite a few when we were studying them originally before we decided to use them to make vaccines. Do you have any sense?

I mean, this one study had 76. How many other studies did you have that you used a border fetuses for? Oh, I don't remember how many. Are you aware that one of the objections of vaccination by the plaintiff in this case is the inclusion of aborted fetal tissue in the development of vaccines and the fact that it's actually part of the ingredients of vaccines? Yeah, I'm aware of those objections. The Catholic Church has actually issued the document on that which says that individuals who need the vaccine should receive the vaccine. scenes regardless of the fact and that I think it implies that I am the individual who will go to hell because of the use of aborted tissues, which I am glad to do.

Okay. Do you know if the mother is Catholic? I have no idea. Okay. Do you take issue with religious beliefs? Yes. You have said that, quote, vaccination is always under attack by religious zealots who believe that the will of God will of God includes death and disease? Yes.

You stand by that statement? I absolutely do. Okay. Are you an atheist? Yes. Well, I'll tell you, I stand by the statement that our religious rights are constantly under assault by atheists like Stanley Plotkin and the like that have no respect for our religious beliefs.

But they are important to me. They're integral to me. They're first and foremost important to me. And many people out there, therefore we've got to fight for our rights here. But this is not, if you want more. evidence? I'm going to show you more evidence because that's what the high wire does is they bring the receipts. I'm going to show you the receipts. Let's look at the varicella vaccine. The evidence is available for everyone. When I debate pediatricians, I just go to the package

insert. So can you. Because here's what the package insert for the varicella vaccine, Verivax says. The product also contains residual components of MRC-5 cells, including DNA and protein. So what is MRC-5? It's the way they dehumanize a child like this 14 we called male fetus that was aborted to become the endless production substrate for the varicella vaccine and many other vaccines. And here's an example of some of those other vaccines that are made using the MRC-5 cell line. Chickenpox, hepatitis A and B, typhoid, MMR, rabies, shingles, and smallpox vaccines. But this is just one of many fetuses that were aborted. As you saw from the testimony, under oath of Stanley Plotkin,

hundreds of children have been aborted. Now, he said 76, but we know that you take WI. 38. The 38 indicates at least 38 children were aborted to obtain that tissue line that became the substrate for vaccine production. WI.44, another 44, the MRC 5, five of those children. This is the pattern that you will see. They're coded. So I think a lot of doctors don't realize that these cell lines are dehumanized in their code names,

so they don't realize that it's actually baby dough, a 14-week-old male fetus, that was sacrificed. And the other thing that they love to say is that, well, this is from the 1960s and 70s. No, it's not. It's ongoing. And there's a reason why it's ongoing. If you look at the bottom of that list, you'll see Walvax 2, as early as 2015, a child in China, no less, was being aborted to become a new cell line. Why are they looking for a new cell line? Well, because the old cell lines are being contaminated with tumor genes that are a real problem as they're injected into our children over and over and over again in the first years of life.

So look at this list. Here's a list of all of the vaccines that are children and also adults are receiving that are tainted with abortion, tainted fetal cell lines. Look at this long list. There's a bunch of them in here. But, you know, again, they're dehumanizing the children in this. Let's not do that. Let's give some visualization to the children that are actually sacrificed to create these cell lines. So again, MRC 5, 14 week old, 3 and a half month old child. This is not a clump of cells, ladies. and gentlemen. This is a child that's living. P-E-R.c6, 16 to 18-week-old aborted fetus. We don't know what the sex of that one was. We don't have as much information. Then you have W.I. 38 and W.V.X. 2. These were 12-week-old, three-month-old fetuses. Now, the Wauvex 2, again, that's a recent cell line from 2015. These are, this is a real reason to object to the injection in our children

in our cells of these abortion-tainted fetal cell lines in so many of our vaccines. In fact, they're in so many of the medical products in the world today. And we need to be aware of them. And there's some more expertise that we probably need to bring into this story. And that's the work of Dr. Teresa Dysher, who's been on the high wire before, is a pioneer in the discovery of adult cardiac-derived stem cells and an absolute expert in the effects of residual DNA injected into the human body. And the Highwire made a very compelling video speaking to this issue.

I'm Teresa Dysher and I am a scientist, the president and founder of Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute. So a vaccine consists of a virus. The virus is a long chain of nucleic acid and nucleic acid is what makes up our DNA, what makes up our RNA. And it's too long to make in a test tube. make in a test tube. So we mimic nature's way of propagating or growing viruses and we infect cells. What there is in the final product when we use cells that have been made from an aborted fetus are human fetal DNA fragments and cellular debris and in quite high levels.

MMR, chickenpox, Zostovacs, that's shingles from Merck, all hepatitis A containing vaccines, pentacell, the polio component of that, and one of the rabies vaccines. What you have are procurement companies who are working side by side, literally, with the abortionist. And typically right in the building. So what happens with the heart is that it will actually go into this contracture. And once that happens, you can't get good data from it. You can't get cells that will beat and work. So the tissue really becomes useless.

It has to be flushed and put into a preservative that stops the heart within two minutes. The baby has to be born alive or they're not going to be able to get the heart and get it rushed and get it in the blocked solution, right, so that they can preserve it for processing. Well, a fetus born intact is definitely dead when they cut its heart out. They're not given any anesthetic. I would never do this to a mouse or a rat. I would not be surprised that we might get some hard numbers, not in the same. not in the so distant future that abortions are delayed later and later so that the scientists and the procurement companies can get better late-term tissue.

Well, it's not an old technique. Some of the cell lines that they're using for vaccine manufacturer were made back in the 70s. They're starting to kind of poop out, so they're actually have to make new cell lines to replace. those. On a daily basis, aborted babies are harvested and exploited for biomedical research. And the practice continues because we close our eyes to the ethics of vaccines. And when we do that to people who don't share our moral outlook, there's no difference between an abortion done in 1970 and abortion done yesterday.

We absolutely know that the levels of DNA in these vaccines get into our children's bloodstream at levels that are above sometimes 100-fold higher than levels of fetal DNA that has been demonstrated to massively activate the immune response, causing a general cytokine release and cytokines are toxins, and we are giving children 10 to 100-fold higher concentrations. We absolutely know tolic receptor 9 will be activated. The pharmaceutical companies have never measured cytokine release, and they've never measured that acute autoimmune response. That's exactly right.

They don't measure what they don't want to find. You don't go looking for something if you don't want to find it, And that's what's happening. And we absolutely know, reflect on our words, we absolutely know that we are injecting our children with 10 to 100 times greater levels of this DNA from the cells of an aborted fetus into our children. And part of Teresa's work, which is so powerful, is how much she has found and the evidence that she has for the amount of this residual DNA that's found in these vaccines. In her work, she has identified. billions of double-stranded DNA fragments in the MMR2 vaccine, the measles mumps Rubella vaccine. And there's 400 billion single-stranded DNA fragments, 8 trillion fragments in the Varavax chicken pox. We looked at that package insert earlier.

These are trillions of fragments of human DNA micro fragments. In fact, in the Veracella vaccine, that Verovax vaccine, there's twice as much human antigen being injected into our children, twice as much human antigen. from these aborted fetal cells as there is the varicella antigen. Let that sink in, ladies and gentlemen, twice as much human antigen, being injected into our children multiple times throughout their life. And could that be a problem? Well, nobody knows because the people that should be providing the oversight

or not providing the oversight. The debate is not being had. There is no discussion because the discussion is censored. And that's what's destroying real science and the health of a population in this world today. It's all about the debate. We have to have the discussion. So you remember when Robert F. Kennedy was recently on Joe Rogan talking about this exact

kind of problem. None of the vaccines are ever subjected to true placebo controlled trials. It's the only medical product that is exempt from that prior to licensure. All these controversial opinions that you have, have you had anyone debate you publicly about any of these? Nobody will debate me for 18 years. nobody will debate me. In fact, I've scheduled many, many debates and I've asked Hotas many, many times to debate me. And I think you've asked him here, why don't you debate Robert Kennedy? And he said, because he's a cunning lawyer or something like that.

But I've debated Hotas on the telephone with, you know, with kind of a referee. And, you know, his, his science is, is just made up. He cannot stand by it. He can't stand by it. He can't site studies. Yeah, when your science is made up, you don't want to debate somebody that can, you know, really bring the facts and the evidence with them, as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. can do. But, you know, that wasn't the stopping point of this discussion. They tried to incentivize Dr. Peter Hotez to kind of get into this debate. So it started with Joe Rogan offering $100,000, but still Peter wouldn't take the, he wouldn't take the offer $100,000 to the charity of your choice. It eventually rose as many people just piled on and said, yeah, here's, here's 500,000,

250,000. We want to see this discussion. $2.62 million were offered to the charity of Peter Hotez's choice if he would just simply discuss and debate. This gentleman that's been out there promoting vaccines his entire life and he will not debate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. someone that's out of his area of expertise and in Peter Hote's area expertise, but Peter doesn't want to. He's running and hiding. But, you know, somebody that didn't just couldn't stay in hiding, couldn't stay away from the debate, was Dr. Paul Offutt.

Dr. Paul Offutt, he's one of the four authors of the, or editors rather, of Stanley Plotkin's vaccines, the Bible of Vaccinology. And if you don't know who Paul Offett is, well, watch. this. We are live streaming with the legend, the Mac Daddy, the Pea Daddy, the Pea Ditty. Paul Offutt. Dr. Paul Offutt. Dr. Paul Offitt. Let's bring in Dr. Paul Offett. He's a position at the Infectious Disease Division of Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. And a member of the committee that gave advice to the FDA on the vaccine. You're one of the world's leading experts on vaccinations. I was fortunate enough to be part of a team here at Children's Hospital Philadelphia with Stan and Flachin and Fred Clark to make a rotavirus vaccine.

The rototac, which was licensed for and recommended for use in all children in this country in 2006, and then for the world by the World Health Organization in 2013. You spend 25 years of your life developing a vaccine that saves lives, that saves, I think it's been estimated, hundreds of lives a day. Dr. Offutt holds a $1.5 million research chair at Children's Hospital funded by Merck.

And future royalties for the vaccine were just sold for 182. million dollars cash. So you don't think you have any conflict of interest here as a guy who created a vaccine as someone who would be seen as not wanting to speak out against this particular vaccine. Of course not. What motivated me to do that and the reward from doing that was of course not financial. My interest is in trying to represent the science of vaccine safety so that parents can understand it. So they won't make bad decisions that put their children at rest. Tell us about your yes vote and what you expect to come next in terms of timing from the FDA.

Today we have no clear evidence, at least in this trial, that there was any serious side affecting tens of thousands of people. So I think it was a pretty easy decision to do that. I have no problem with mandates. I'm all for them. I think at this point, it's not a matter of saying, look, vaccines are safe and effective. I think that should be obvious at this point. So you have to compel them to do the right thing. Yeah, the only thing that's really obvious is how conflicted in your interest you are, Dr. Offutt,

and, you know, how we should really be debating this issue. He couldn't stay silent as the debate is he tried to go in and defend Peter Hotez, so he weighed in with this substack article, should scientists debate the undebatable? Well, somebody read that article, somebody that knows the facts and the evidence and has, in fact, fought for that evidence in court and won, and his name is Aaron Serian. Here's what he wrote. Virtually all childhood vaccines on the CDC schedule, including Rotatech, We're not licensed by US FDA based on a placebo controlled clinical trial.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is correct on that point. New York Times, stat news, Dr. Poloff at Peter Hotez are all dead wrong. That is exactly a brilliant statement. And it escalated from there. And I'd like to bring on Aaron Siri to tell us about that escalation and how that played out. Aaron, welcome to the high wire. You're always here. You're always such an integral part of the high wire.

First thing I'd like to do is as a fifth degree black belt, I'd like to award you your first degree black belt because I recognize what you did in that tweet. You hit him with a left hook there right in the ego with that rototech tweet. He decided to go after Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. In an article that said, you don't debate the undebatable.

In which Dr. Offutt is saying, there's no point in debate. because the facts are clear, crystal clear. And he was really referring back to what Mr. Kennedy said about placebo-controlled trials. And what Dr. Offutt wrote is he wrote, quote, all vaccines are tested in placebo-controlled trials before a licensure, end quote.

That's what he wrote. And he wrote that saying, see, science is settled, it's clear, you should not debate that point. Problem is for Dr. Offutt is not true. And it didn't take much to show that the tweet you just read, I put out there and I made a categorical. I was clear that he is dead wrong in making that claim. It is not true.

And so after I tweeted that out, he eventually changed his claim from all vaccines to most vaccines are tests in a placebo control trial before I sure because I showed examples that made clear that's not true the reality is is that that's still a categorically false statement categorically false well both statements yeah you showed in that both statements were right yeah yeah and here's the thing about rhodotech they were using rhoda tech as the example of a placebo controlled clinical trial they the media doctor ral others out there were using rotatech because the truth is that if you're ever going to have a vaccine that you're going to use that you're going to test in a placebo cancer trial it should be something like an oral vaccine

like rhodotech which unlike virtually every other vaccine on the child's schedule is administered orally so how simple would it have been to just put drops of water or sugar drops that's it instead they didn't do that they use all the other junk that was in the product and they left it in there They just took out the antigens. There was no need, including the growth medium. There was no need to include that stuff in there. It has no therapeutic or medicinal reason they're in there. But nonetheless, they leave that in there.

And so even on the lowest hanging fruit, they can't really say, yeah, it was just, you know, a nothing, a sugar water or a saline injection. So that's also why I use rototech. And, of course, as you pointed out, it's also his baby. It's the vaccine he invented. Right, which I thought was part of the brilliance because it really probably, you could see in the montage that we did before that kind of sizzle off it. He gets really defensive when you bring up these conflicts of interest in him. You can see how he gets, he really reacts. He thinks he does protest too much.

Well, after we had our exchange on Twitter, I've sent up the initial tweet in response. He responded to that. And then I sent back a little bit of a longer tweet in which I said, focus on this idea of a placebo as immunologically inert is really just trying to focus on efficacy, how effective is the product, right? Not on safety. If I inject somebody with Gardasil vaccine, and then I use as the placebo as they did, as the control, a injection that included the aluminum adjuvenate. It's a proprietary product, AHS, in the Merck's Gardasil vaccine,

and include that in the injection, the purpose of the adjuvant is to cause an immune response, right? But nonetheless, they use it in the control. And then after they do the trial, they found that 2.3% of the girls, the thousands of girls I got Gardasil, and 2.3% of the girls

who got mostly just this injection of aluminum adjuvant end up with a suspected a systemic autoimmune disorder. Well, aluminum magic, we know can cause autoimmunity. In fact, they injected into lab animals to generate autoimmunity. And so by not using a saline placebo in that exam, that's one of the examples I tweeted in response to Dr. Offent. I said, look, by not using a saline placebo, which you ended up with,

is sure, you ended up with a vaccinate group and a crone troll group that had the same rate of harm. So for the purposes of FDA standards, safe because they're equally harmful, but from the perspective of any rational, normal thinking, caring human being, not safe, not safe at all. That's exactly right. I mean, this is the great fraud of the entire vaccine program, in my opinion, is that it's, they've never done the proper studies, the, they've never used truly inert placebos to determine the safety. And then they're basing the safety of the next You called him out on Prevnar 7 and Prevnar 13. You pointed out, you brought all the receipts in this, you know, so as as you rocked off it in that first

interaction, he starts deflecting to the placebo issue. Now he's trying to, trying to discredit the need for placebos. And it's, you know, I mean, you called it right out. You said, this is, and this is what we've always complained about. You're masking the injuries. When you're comparing, you know, Prevnar 7 to Previnar 13. when you're using Gardasil and you're injecting a highly active aluminum adjuvant, polysoride 80 control group, you're masking the harms and you're trying to obfuscate on the idea that, yeah, see, we killed and harmed. No more women and young women, healthy women between 9 and 26 in the Gardasil vaccine in the control group that got this active, this active control that had the aluminum adjuvant, that had the polysylate 186, Everything was in that control group that was in the Gardasil vaccine itself except the antigens.

It's a critically, deadly serious, important issue. Yeah. Because if the baseline control that you're using in the clinical trial is not something inert. It's not something where you're like, yes, that's a safe thing. It can mask potential harms that the product can cause. So as an example of Prevnar, right, the Prevnar vaccine. The initial Prevnar vaccine, Prevnar 7, was clinical trial against, and this is, sounds unbelievable, but it's on the FDA website.

It was clinical trial against another experimental vaccine. If I was going to make up something crazy about vaccines, I wouldn't even have dreamed of making that up. But there it is. Right there in the FDA's own licensure document, and it's for the world to see in the FDA website. Just got a lot. So the original, the original Prevnar 7 was, was the original clinical trial was the control group got a meningococcus vaccine that was experimental and was it ever approved by the FDA? Not that I'm aware of.

And then in that clinical trial, the adverse event rate that occurred between the vaccinated, the experimental group, the Prevvvonar 7 group, and they, control group, they got another experimental mental vaccine. That was, as long as, since that rate of harm was the same, it was deemed safe. Then when they went to license Prevnar 13, they used Previnar 7 as the control vaccine. In that clinical trial,

actually unlike most clinical trials of childhood vaccines, they actually assess safety for six months. They look for serious adverse zones six months. And the truly concerning finding was that 8.2, percent of children that got Previnar 13, something like that ended up with a serious adverse event, and something like 7.2% of the children that got Previnar 7. Well, that should have made alarm bells go off at the FDA because you don't really know the baseline of safety for Previnar 7. And it is not normal for entirely healthy children. That's the kid you recruit in these clinical trials.

Babies, within six months, six months to have a serious adverse event, 8.8,7, 8.8.7. percent of them. And serious evidence under the FDA definition means something very serious. It means death, disability. You can look it up. That's also on the FDA website. So, and this is the problem. Once the FDA has licensed the first one and then now it's done the second one, is it really going to go back and tell the American people, oh, by the way, oops, sorry? You know the product we told you to inject your baby at two, four and six months of age? Yeah, we kind of made a mistake. That's the, That is, that becomes, this whole machine kicks in once the product's out there. Pfizer's making billions of dollars on this product.

The CDC estate and the FDA state their reputation on this product because they've licensed it and recommended it told everybody to get it. Going back, which is really hard. The normal check on that would be when it causes harm, the product liability in class action laws would sue the pharmaceuticals would sue the pharmaceutical companies, sue Pfizer for the harm, but they can't do that typically because of the 1986 Act. So this isn't the gotcha on Paul Offit. This is, you know, using, we just used to guard us, so we just had Previna and 7,

and we can go through all 17 vaccines, categories of vaccines that are currently on the childhood vaccine schedule. There's 17 types of vaccines, each has a number of products that are licensed, and they all virtually, every one of them suffer from this exact defect I just described. From the very first shot on the schedule, which is hepatitis B vaccine, licensed based on five or four days, of observation after injection with, you know, that's the, it's laughable.

And you can go down the list. It would be funny if, again, it wasn't such a serious concerning issue. It really is. And these are not just products that you can take or leave often. Often if you don't take these products, you can't go to school. You can't become a nurse.

You can't become a doctor. You can't go work in a hospital. So these are, you know, these are serious. And if the pharma industry and the health authorities, quote-unquote health authorities have their way, you won't be able to do anything in American society without taking this product. That's right. And as I put as I put in that tweet, the link back to the article, it links to the the FDA documentation

for every single one of these vaccines in the clinical trial. The proof is all categorically there. And all Paul often had to do was look at the FDA's own licensure documents for a man who sits on the FDA's committee that recommends and decides whether the license child to vaccines, that should be deeply concerning that apparently didn't look at it because he's continuing to say that most licensed based on clinical trials, which isn't true. Yeah, well, I was watching this in real time. I read every one of those 17, you went through a 17 part tweet where you brought all the evidence. And, you know, the question I had is, did Offit not know this? I mean, he made such an egregiously wrong series of statements. And I think he started to

figure that out. I think you educated Paul Offutt. Maybe tomorrow he wakes up and says, man, I've been wrong all this time. A lot of doctors have during this pandemic. No, I don't think so. I don't think, I don't think, I don't either. I think cognitive dissonance is an extremely powerful thing. Yeah. I mean this. You know, when you take a position, when somebody takes a position about an issue and they do it not from a place of knowledge, but a place of assumption. When they're challenged, they don't draw knowledge. They typically draw their emotion. And that emotions can be more powerful than any type of intellectual.

It takes a lot to overcome, especially if somebody's taking a public position in that way to come out and say, oh, sorry, I'm wrong. I think that's probably unlikely. He is self-schema, his self-worth is, I think is all wrapped up into the idea that these products are, you know, God's sense. and, you know, he's part of saving the world, admitting issues, I find to be unlikely. Yeah, I agree with you. And unfortunately, I think it's just, it becomes an emotional argument for many of them.

He's spent too long in this area, profited too much. He's, you know, he's, the bias is strong in that one. And I don't think anything changes from that position. But what you did do, and thank goodness you were on Twitter, and everybody should go read Aaron Siri substack on this, because he provides all the evidence. It's really one of the most succinct exposés on this tobacco science that the childhood vaccine program is built on. The lack of true vaccine safety studies being done, Aaron exposed that beautifully. And he really, you know, as I said, this was number three on the list of editors of the vaccine.

So I'm looking forward to you bringing some education to Walter Ornstein next. That'll be a 4-4-4 brother. That's a, I will award you your second-degree black belt. Well, as I proposed to Dr. Offutt, I welcome to Dr. Ornstein also. If he wants to sit down on a stage anywhere, anytime, for as long as either of them would like, I keep that invitation open with evidence. We each have an opportunity to present all the evidence to show the main points that they often like to talk about.

You know, they talk about how these vaccines are properly clinical trial before licensure. Well, let's go through that. Let's share evidence. Because clinical trials are so important. And I just, again, it's not a, it's such an important substance point. If I could put another point to it and it's this. The only real way, the main way that you determine whether or not a product, medical product causes an injury is you have to have a clinical trial.

Because once it's licensed, you can't conduct, certainly not. not a placebo control trial. And without that, you cannot determine causation between an alleged harm and the product itself. That's why the clinical trials are so important. They're so critical to do before licensure, because after licensure, they'll tell you it's unethical. You can't do it.

It's a licensed product now. You must give the standard of care. And so the clinical trials and doing them properly before you go and inject them into millions of babies typically is so unbelievably important. Once you do pharmaceutical apparatus of making money kicks in and their PR machine and the regulatory agencies of promotion and they stake their name on it,

they're not gonna change. All you get after licensure, the best indication of what the product safety is after licensure for the most part is not from studies. There's not many studies done, Pharmaceutical companies have no incentive to do the studies. The federal health authorities don't want to do the studies.

Literally, you know, you can't sue vaccine injury. You sue federal health. You literally sue the Department of Health and Services. You sue the federal health agencies. So they do any signs that shows that a vaccine cause an injury. They're basically making an admission against interest. So where are you left with? Well, there is a regulation out there.

And there's a regulation that provides that a pharmaceutical company is to provide on the package insurers for each vaccine, only, this is the federal government's regulation, only those adverse events, which it has a basis to believe there's a causal relationship with the vaccine. When people pick up those package interest,

they say, oh, they just list everything. No, they're not allowed to. They're only allowed to list those things. They have a basis to believe there's a causal, not correlation, causation relationship. And when you pick up those package insert for those childhood vaccines, vaccines administer its babies and you look in section 6.2, that's where they describe, where

they disclose those issues. 6.1 is they're described with clinical trial in section 6.2. There's over 100 serious adverse events that these pharmaceutical companies, which is mostly Merck, Sonofi, Pfizer, and GSK are saying that they have a base to leave these products given at one day old, HEPP, at two months old, five to six shots, at four months old, five to six shots, six months old, five to six shots. Over 100 serious conditions they believe could be caused. They have a basis to believe are caused with this product. And you know what those harms are too?

Those are the same harms that parents often complain the vaccines are causing their children. And you know what doctors like Paul Offutt and all the other doctors and all the other health authorities tell them when those parents come and complain? They say, oh, that's just anecdotal. That's just correlation. You have to prove causation. And you know the only way for them to do that? A clinical trial. Yeah.

Oh, but that's not done beforehand. And you can't do it afterwards because now it would be unethical. Yeah. It's an incredible state of affairs. And it really heartens all the way back to this exchange with pull off it and why this discussion about placebo-controlled trials

is not just a gotcha. it's not just like a one, you know, one step in the safety procedure. No, is the critical essential element for assuring safety. Because once you license without it, there's really no going back and ensuring the safety. At the least, I would say, we've got to make sure parents have choice. Amen. Before they, you know, in terms of these products. Yeah.

Well, Aaron, you're doing great work in the court, winning so many freedoms for us. You're doing great work outside of the court, bringing the truth to the misinformation as it gets presented by some of the leading experts on the other side. And we are blessed to have you. Thank you for being here. And keep up the great work. I'm going to keep following you closely. It's fun. Popcorn time when Aaron Siri is tweeting.

God bless you, man. Thank you. Now, what we've got coming up is more of the evidence of what's being found in the vaccine. we're going to bring Kevin McCurnan, an expert, preeminent expert in medical genomics, and we're going to find out what he found in the COVID vaccine vials, and what he found is alarming. But next, we have the Jackson Report. Oh, Jeffrey, I've been looking forward to this moment. It's so good to be back. I just treasure your time on the high wire every time you're teaching me something, you're teaching my whole

family something, all the way down to my 10-year-old grandson, who will just, you'll just, mimic the Jackson Report every time you come on. So come on, brother. Give us the information that we need to be better humans. Jim, it's good to see your face again, and this one goes out to your 10-year-old grandson. Oh, thank you. Isaiah is his name. Isaiah, all right. So during the COVID response, we saw, we saw America build and deploy the largest government big tech censorship apparatus this country has ever seen. And we're we're continuing to unravel this as more information comes out, as more internal emails be made public. Just recently, Jim Jordan, he's part of the subcommittee on the weaponization of government.

He co-chairs that committee, and they've been doing some great work exposing this. The reason we're exposing this is so it never happens again. So we can just look at the true nature of what we really were up against and make sure it does not root and continue. And this is the headline that just was recently made. Facebook bowed to White House pressure, removed COVID post Wall Street Journal. So we have the emails now that shows this. This is behind the headline.

And we look at Nick Clegg, president of Global Affairs at Facebook. And this is an email that is now public in the public domain. He says this. In 2021, can someone quickly remind me why we're removing rather than demoting labeling claims that COVID is man-made before May. And one of the employees, right, it's back at the top there, it's highlighted, and says to him, because we were under pressure from the administration, that's the Biden administration and others to do more and it was part of the more package.

We removed four claims that multiple fact checkers had labeled false even though we didn't have a harm assessment. We shouldn't have done that. I'll say. And that was one of the things that had us removed from Facebook at the time. That was our main streaming platform. Over 100,000 people were following us on Facebook terminated for questioning the origins of the virus during COVID. And then it goes on to say this. This is from the Surgeon General of the United States. This is Dr. Vivek. So this is a communications from, again, internal communications from Facebook, under the words true information. They actually labeled it, true information that says this. The Surgeon General wants us to remove true information about side effects. That's vaccine side effects, by the way. If the user does not provide complete information about whether the side effect is rare and treatable, we do not recommend pursuing this practice.

And as we know that they did pursue this practice. And it's funny there because if you try to sue and you go into vaccine court, yourself and your lawyer have to go up against health and human services and prove, be on a shadow of a doubt and bring the science to the table and prove this vaccine injury happened. That's kind of what a certain general is saying here. If someone wants to even post on their own Facebook account a story about their harm from a vaccine, they have to tell whether they have to provide complete information.

They want all the information. They want to provide everything. Otherwise, get it out of here. Yeah, well, that's a way for, that's fascist, by the way. This is what's happening in our country is we're allowing this tyrannical overreach to silence all of the opposition. The harm assessment was not done. The harms that they do by silencing any opposition to the contrived consensus is very dangerous. It's dangerous to this republic.

And we can't tolerate anymore. You said it, Jeffrey. we can't we we got to hold them accountable because we can't allow this to continue again and we're seeing what was implemented we're seeing the push and poll of how this stuff was getting implemented but then we have this kind of like the wish list of what these authoritarian wanted to do through their emails through their own words this is another headline new facebook files reveal links white house was willing to go to to try to control COVID narrative on social media that brings us to rob flatterly he's the white house did uh director of digital strategy And he writes this in a message to Facebook employees.

Rob, that makes sense. Fascinating. He says, I'm curious. New York Post churning out articles every day about people dying. What is supposed to happen to that from policy perspective? Does that article get a reduction? Labels. Of course, they're talking about the died suddenly articles,

the articles of kids falling victim to the heart inflammation, heart attacks, things like that. New York Post is writing. They're doing journalism. And this guy comes along and saying, can we get these things labeled and demoted? because we don't want this type of journalism. Here's another Facebook employee.

They're talking about these things called demotions, where you can post something on Facebook, but they demote it on the back end, so not many people see it. It says this, we remove content that can lead to imminent physical harm. Now, they have to do that. That's per the law. But then they say this, during COVID,

they added a whole separate category for the health COVID response vaccine conversation. And they say this. For content that doesn't meet that threshold, we instituted borderline demotions. For example, someone sharing negative effect post, that's negative side effects of the vaccine. Similarly, post questioning whether you should get a vaccine under a mandate, whether it's government overreach, we demote those. So again, if you look at the court cases we've been covering, even some that ICANN has been part of, the court rulings have said that these are government overreach in so many terms.

So Facebook didn't want that kind of conversation on their platform. They demoted those full stop. But then here's Rob flatterly, you know, going to the Santa Claus of Facebook for his Christmas list. He says this, if you were to change the algorithm so that people were more likely to see New York Times, Wall Street Journal, any authoritative news source over daily wire, Tommy Lerrin, polarizing people, you wouldn't have a mechanism to check the material impact. So he's, this is what we want. And I'm sorry, more authoritative news sources like New York Times, Wall Street Journal, they're record. the past three years has destroyed them. Their integrity is out the window. People do not trust them anymore. And that's what's led to the rise of independent citizen journalism. And polarizing

figures, we want those in this conversation. But wrapping this all up, we have the GOP lawmakers have introduced a bill allowing federal officials to be personally sued for censorship. So we're going the legal route. The legal route was mildly to extremely successful during lifting the these COVID mandates. So it looks like they may be trying to just put this into a bill and saying, you know what, let's just sue these people because we can't get around this section 2.30. We're having problems with that. Let's just get them out of here and bring them to the legal act. We've got to do something about this, Jeffrey. I mean, here you have the White House directly involved in, and, you know, contriving the consensus for censoring voices that didn't support their

narrative. In fact, they, that, you know, malinformation designation. That's just true information that they just simply wanted to label and censor because it pushed against the narrative. It didn't support what they were trying to do. How is it that our government, the administration, the White House itself, has become so complicit in this censorship on social media. It's intolerable. And it seems to reach into several levels, several layers of the administration as well as regulatory agencies. But, you know, this isn't something in the past. This is still going on when it comes to individual people.

And this is nothing new to you or I or audience. We've seen doctors who come forward speak out. They get their careers destroyed. They no longer publish in medical journals. They get their research taken down. Their funding cut. And so this is something that we covered here. This is Senator Ron Johnson's Roundtable Forum during COVID about the harms and the issues

around this COVID response. He held this in Washington, D.C. And there is a pediatrician, a veteran pediatrician named Dr. Renetta Moon. She's from Washington State, and she was called personally by Ron Johnson to testify. Take a listen to her testimony at that time. I saw probably two or three cases of myocarditis prior to 2021 in my entire career. I've practiced for over 20 years, very experienced, lots of inpatient care, as well as clinic work. What I'm seeing now, and so what I've seen, and what I directly know about cases of myocarditis, they've gone very high.

It's been very high. There's clearly been a massive increase. I would like to, if it's okay, to show the package. No, you've got the props, yeah. Yeah, thank you. I have the audience. What a standard packaging set. Yeah, this is the package insert that Dr. Gortler was referring to.

And I do think it's important to show. So I've been an advocate of vaccines for my entire career. Typically, when you open up, box of the vaccine product there's a violin in it and there's a box and then has a package insert and this is an example of one that it's sealed and you know honestly for the most part we don't always read it because we've already looked at it and and so it goes in the box with the stays in the box that so when I we open this package insert a typical package insert looks like this so that's

a great deal of information on it in terms of adverse reactions the components of it and I'll let Dr. Gortler expand on sort of where this comes from in terms of the FDA. In other words, a lot of information, kind of like your terms of use for your Apple products. That's right. So there's a lot of information, but we do expect to see this because what in the world are we being asked to inject into our nation's children? And that's my question. So a few months ago, I looked at the package insert. I pulled it from the box of MRNA product. And, you know, it was sealed just like I'm showing you here. I unsealed the box. that the entire thing came in,

and then I pulled this out. And this is what it looks like. So I'd like to show this to you. It says intentionally blank on it. So how am I to get informed consent to parents when I have, this is what I have. I have a government that's telling me that I have to say safe and effective.

And if I don't, my license is a threat. How am I to give informed consent to patients? We're seeing an uptick in myocarditis. We're seeing an uptick in adverse reactions. We have trusted these regulatory agencies I have from my entire career up until now. Something is extremely wrong. Wow, Jeffrey, I mean, you know, here's what I got to say to Dr. Moon. Thank you for standing up and speaking your truth.

We took an oath to do this, to do no harm. Many people have woken up during this pandemic to this kind of malfeasance from our government and the pharmaceutical industry. Well, what happened to her after that, so this is just a pediatrician. a veteran pediatrician saying, look, in my own practice, I'm seeing more cases of myocarditis. Can someone please, you know, look at this? I can't give my patients informed consent.

And so this is an article from informed choice Washington. They're doing great work over there. These individual state health choice groups doing their own reporting, this is how we win things. Headline, pediatricians contract terminated by Washington State University after reporting to Senate Roundtable on COVID harms. So directly after that, testimony you saw, she received a letter from Washington State University, and we have that letter

thanks to informed choice Washington. And it says here in this highlighted section, there were components of your presentation that could be interpreted as a possible spread. That's a spread of misinformation, by the way. As such, we are ethically obligated to make a report to the WMC to investigate possible breach of this expectation. Then it goes on to say this. There were components of the round table, not even heard, other people of the round table that were inconsistent with expectations of the evidence-based medical education expected in developing a future generation of physicians. The express views will require us to review your teaching assignments in the frame of the education our students it writes. So the future generation of physicians, are they teaching them not to

give them for him consent? Because that's all she's saying there. And so that was the letter she received. She has since been terminated. They did not renew her position or contract. And so she is seeking legal action at that point. But as you said, what else is going on? She's not the only one. This censorship thing is not in the past. We have this, breaking news at the Highwires website, news section, American Board of Internal Medicine

targets doctors, Merrick and Corey, citing claim of spreading misinformation. And this was through their FLCCC protocols, the frontline COVID critical care protocol. They're saying the board is saying that that pre-treatment, early treatment protocol that had to be constructed with against against the the health regulatory pushback was not consensus driven scientific evidence remember if anything we should have learned from this COVID response is that consensus can be

manufactured and indeed it was so they're facing you know these are two guests very near and dear to our show uh Dr. Corey wrote a book on ivermectin the struggles to get this this early treatment protocol just recognized and help because they're using it all around the world and so Well, let me say this, Jeffrey. Let me say this. Paul Merrick, Pierre Corey, Peter McCullough, these are some of the most brilliant, most cited, most published, tip of the spear, impenetrable armor in terms of their academic, their medical credentials. But this is the example that's being set. If you step outside of the lines of this consensus contrived, you know, medical establishment, you're going to be struck down. That's the message that they're

trying to send to all physicians so they don't speak up, they don't honor their oath, they don't tell the truth, they don't say, look at this explosion in myocarditis that's happening in a population of young people that are statistically zero risk of having a severe case of COVID-19. And you want to talk about that, you're not following the consensus, and these, you know, Washington State University, you should get sued. You know, Paul Merrick, Pierre Corey, they should sue the medical boards that are trying to strip them of their license. And we've seen this, this targeting of the degree class, the medical professionals. This has happened before COVID.

They were doing this in California for physicians writing medical exemptions. They were putting them up again, putting them up for investigation. But in all, the COVID response, this was really what summed it up because people had lost trust in in a system that they formerly, a lot of them did have trust in. And this was an Atlantic headline. If people remember this, let's declare a pandemic amnesty. This set off a firestorm. and people were saying, look, we'll forgive you if you tell us what you did wrong, which they never did. So one of the cartoonists really just captured this.

This is Bob Moran. He was a cartoonist for the telegraph. And he had this picture. I mean, every once in a while, there's a cartoon or an art piece that captures a moment. And this is it right here. You see it says Amnesty at the top. And it has two witches burning at the stake. You have two Puritan-looking fellows, one with a torch saying, oops, turns out they weren't witches after all.

And then the second picture as the flames engulfed the witches, they say mistakes were made on both sides. Well, for things like this and for speaking out and trying to get kids back in school, trying to end these lockdowns, Moran was fired. This is the headline Telegraph Sack cartoonist Bob Moran over Twitter post targeting NHS doctor. And this is his most recent tweet. He says this, thank you, Telegraph, for firing me when I tried to defend children against those who wish them harm through lockdowns. Great to see such ethical consistency. What's he talking about? Well, lo and behold, the Telegraph is now regularly reporting articles that look like this.

And this is what he linked to that post. Lockdown was our generation's greatest error. Another one from the Telegraph, lockdown harmed emotional development of almost half of children. So you can see on a long enough timeline, the truth continues to rise to the top. And those people that were early targeted are being vindicated one by one. conspiracy theories are coming true and this is why we keep unraveling and showing this template all the time because this template is seeping into other things like the climate narrative we're going to talk about in just a second other narratives as well as being pulled you're seeing glimpses and shadows of this

this this dark three years that we just went through we're seeing it being teased out and put into other narratives to try to to control these control this information space so two years ago almost to the date august 2021 kids were trying to get back to school as they are right now, and there was a lot of questions, is COVID contagious? Are they going to continue the lockdowns? Are they going to mask them? Vaccine for these kids was just on the horizon for emergency use. This was our reporting back then, trying to show people, cut through the fear, cut through all of the scare tactics the media was using and the government, with all due respect, and try to show parents, look, this is not a big deal for kids. Take a listen. Some of the points

that really drove this home for me were in these next slides. This is the American Academy of Pediatrics. This is their mortality rates for kids. And they do state-level data reporting for children in COVID-19. This is basically one of the major things they're doing right now during this pandemic. And this is what they had to say. This is directly from their report, their updated report. It says, quote, the available data indicate that COVID-19 associated hospitalization and death is uncommon in children. At this time, it appears that severe illness due to COVID-19 is uncommon among children. Please take this to your school boards. Continuing with the quotes, mortality, 43 states, New York, Puerto Rico, WOM reported. That's 43 states. It's not all of them.

Among states reporting, children were 0.00% to 0.25% of all COVID-19 deaths, and seven states reported zero child deaths. In states reporting, 0.00% to 0.03% of all child COVID-19 cases resulted in death. So bottom line there, it wasn't too much of a big deal. Obviously, it was a big deal for the, for the children that passed and our hearts go out to those children in those statistics. But in the greater picture, when we're talking about locking down mental health, depression, suicides that came from that, on a scale, we can't really even compare those two. But now a new study has come out and we're looking at it was looking at the clinical severity of COVID. And it looked at these timeframes.

And the researchers wrote this. During the months of March 2020 through March 2021, 65,675 COVID-19 cases were reported in children aged zero to 18 years in the Jerusalem district in Israel. And it says this. The case fatality rate in children was 0.076 per 1,000 confirmed COVID-19 cases. Here's the big line. There were five fatalities reported among the COVID-19 cases in children, all with an underlying major medical. condition, two patients with malignancies, age 11 years old, three patients with complex genetic disorders, age one month, seven months, and 16 years. And so reading between the lines on that, in this study, looking at the children, not one healthy child had a fatality, not one healthy child. These were kids with underlying conditions. That's right. And that was also March 2020 to March 21. So that 12-month period in which we were still facing the Delta variants, a more severe variant for everybody. It's become a much less virulent variant and even less risk to our children. This, you know, and this data has been coming out for, you know, three years now.

We had Marty Macri's of Johns Hopkins study of 45,000 children that came to the same conclusion, you know, two years ago. And many other studies in German schools in Switzerland and Sweden. And we have the great Sweden experiment that they proved we didn't have, you didn't have to do any of this. that everybody did better when government was not locking us down, masking us up, shutting down our schools, closing our businesses. That's the message. I love the way you're putting this stuff together. You're getting me so excited because this is the kind of narrative we've got to keep hammering on.

You know, here's the data. It didn't work. Don't try it again. We know you're going to try it again, but we're going to be standing here ready this time. And we knew this was the data. And the other scare tactic they used was, well, maybe kids aren't really dying from this but they're going to go there and they're vectors they're these dirty vectors and they're going to all just exchange this COVID this SARS

COVID2 virus bring it home to grandma and kill her so you can't let them go to school so this week we have the journal the American Medical Association comes out with another study looking at the prevalence and risk factors of school associated transmission remember they never tested the vaccines to see if they stopped transmission before they rolled them out so we rely on studies like this and this is the new one it says this for fall 2020 and spring 2021 8 k through 12 public school districts 70 schools with over 33 000 enrolled students participated in the contact tracing study get this 29 contacts 74.4 percent were deemed possible or probable school-associated transmissions so over 33,000 kids 29 contacts you do that a little math crunching there that's

0.088 percent yeah roughly a school transmission. So we're not talking about wildfires of COVID transmission here, but it goes on. It says for fall of 2021, four K through 12 public school districts and one pre-kindergarten through grade 9 private school, 34 schools with over 18,000 enrolled students participated. 44 were deemed possible or probable school associated transmission. Again, you do the math crunching. That's 0.24% possible or probable school transmission. So again, nothing going on in these schools. anything close to what the media was trying to scare us into. And back behind the scenes, there was a lot of people. So we had the Great Barrington Declaration. They were trying to, they were saying, don't open

these, don't close these schools because it's going to hurt low income children. It's going to lead to mental health disparities. It did all of that, looking back in history, unfortunately. But there are also other people, policy advisor and the president of the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity, Ovik Roy. He, I had the opportunity to interview him recently in Memphis at the the Freedom Fest and he dropped a bombshell on me. He was working to get these schools open even before all of this was going on. This is what he had to say about that. This was his experience.

Take a listen. We estimated that 50 million kids were able to have in-person learning in the 2020 to 2021 academic year because of our work. Now, we obviously didn't win in every state. California state lockdown, New York state lockdown. Because there are the teachers unions had a lot more power. Yes. In those, I can tell you, there were a lot of blue states.

where the governors actually wanted to reopen schools, but they were so beholden to the teachers unions that they couldn't. So behind the scenes, it wasn't just the red states. There were blue states where we were fighting those fights behind the scenes. We just couldn't get over the hump of the teachers unions. This is the thing that we've always known

the teachers unions are not helpful in a lot of ways, but there's no doubt that if you come, coming out of the COVID experience convinced me that the teachers unions are the single, greatest obstacle to the educational prospects of Americans. I remember when we when we've launched our school reopening paper, which I believe was July. Okay. I was invited to present the data to a bunch of public health experts. Big names that you would know and people who follow this these arguments would know. Yeah. And I'll never forget a guy who was then an academic public health guy but then

went on to work for the Biden administration leading the COVID response for Biden. said to me after I presented all the data showing that in every country that had reopened schools unlike the US there had been no increase in COVID transmission none yeah France Germany's South Korea Finland take your pick every country where this had been studied there been no increase in transmission so you could safely reopen schools didn't matter whether you kept the kids six feet apart or zero feet apart it didn't matter whether they more Warmaster didn't in every case this transmission levels did not increase yes so we went through

this data comprehensively I present all this data and then this guy says, Ovik, you ought to be ashamed of yourself. You're going to be responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children in this country. And it's just appalling what you've done here today. Yeah, I absolutely agree with Mr. Roy. Teachers unions are a parasite on education on this country. They've been controlling too much of the narrative. We've got to stop listening to them and start getting rid of some of those bureaucrats

that wouldn't know how to analyze a medical research paper, not to mention a eighth grade science document. We just got to stop listening to them. They're controlling too much of policy. And they're harming children. They're harming children. They harmed millions of children in this country. And remember, they were right in there alongside the CDC,

literally crafting the language for the school reopenings so they could shut them right back down if cases spiked again. So they were, as he said, said they were very responsible, if not the number one culprits, keeping these clothes. But let's get to the real issue here. And this is an issue that's still ongoing. Heart inflammation, myocarditis. Up until then, we've been covering this for years on this show and bringing in experts like Dr. Peter McCullough. So up until now, we've had boys, young boys, adolescents, men in their 20s, second shot. That's when this thing really happens.

That's what the CDC has been looking at. That's the data they found. And that is primarily the data that's been out in the public. But now we have something new. This is in the European Journal of Heart Failure. I have to say, you know if your vaccine product is being written up in the European Journal of Heart Failure, you got a problem. This is called sex-specific differences in myocardial injury incidents after COVID-19. This is Moderna's booster vaccination. And it says this. M-RNA, Moderna's vaccine associated myocardial injury was adunicated, found basically, in 22 patients with 20 cases occurring in women and two in men with a median age of 46. This sex difference was statistically significant.

It caused the authors to conclude this. In conclusion, they say, using active surveillance, Moderna's vaccine-associated mild transient mild-carnial injury was found to be much more common than previously thought. It occurred in one out of 35 persons and more frequent in women versus men. So we have a whole flip of the narrative at this point. This should stop everybody in their tracks. This thing is no longer selectively targeting young boys.

We have females now with a median age of 46 that are having mild cardio injury. Statistically significant, they say in this paper. One in 35. Jeffrey, one in 35. And this is no longer a side conversation. We're trying to like, you know, punch up to get people to pay attention to. It's mainstream conversation now. And because of that, we're going more in depth into this next week.

We're going to have for the first time, never before, in the studio at the same time, Dr. Gert Bandenbosch and Dr. Peter McCullough. They're going to talk about the future predictions of COVID and the latest science, what they're saying, alerting the public to the possible mounting issues of these vaccine, these MRI vaccine technologies. Why does this matter, though? This matters because let's go to Rebel News, independent media outlet doing great work through the pandemic, still doing great work,

headline here, COVID vaccine mandates persist at over 100 U.S. colleges three years into the pandemic. So what are they getting that information from? This is no college mandates. This is their Twitter page. It says this. There are over 2,674-year colleges in the U.S. below is a list of 100 colleges. There are the only colleges in universities mandating students to take COVID vaccines for fall. Being told, that list is now down to 97. But that, That's the list right there. And if you go to their website, no college mandates, you can find all the resources. They've been tracking this from the get-go.

They have letter campaigns, petitions you can sign, legal resources, even exemption resources, and how to understand how those work. And also what colleges never mandated these vaccines. So if you're a college student or a parent and you want to put your money and your time with colleges that actually stand for your ideals, they have a list of those people there. So they've been tracking this countdown. And most, on a side note, most medical students, no matter what college they're at, they still have to adhere to these COVID vaccines. I mean, this is like, at this point, it's like the ultimate sacrament for this dogmatic religion.

Yeah. Let me tell you. I mean, I'm talking to these medical students, writing medical exemptions. Many of them have real medical conditions that absolutely demand it. Many of them have, as we talked in the first part of the show, they have real religious objections to these vaccines and many of the vaccines that they didn't know about. You know, there's, we have got to have resources. These colleges, you know, follow the money. There's more money coming to them. If they get a certain percentage of their, you know, student body vaccinated, it's all about money driving this because I tell you, it's not science.

The science says you are doing absolutely the wrong thing to a population of people that have statistically zero risk of having a serious case. And you have 133 times greater risk of developing myocarditis than from the virus itself. That narrative has got to go away. You got to get the right science. If these colleges and universities would watch the high wire and they would read the Jackson report material, this problem would be solved. So let's get some legislation to mandate the Jackson report. And you know, Jim, we're hammering this almost every week. We're hammering the reckless vaccine rollout. The issues that are still mounting. We're still finding issues with this thing, the censorship debate, because we're continuing taking these threats.

and weaving them back into the current conversation, the current narratives that are happening. One of them is the climate change narrative. Again, a lot of the same, the ideological thoughts, if you will, were told there's settled science, we're told there's a scientific consensus, yet there's major debates going on, massive amounts of fear.

Just last week we showed you the UN Secretary General came out and said this. Climate change is here. It is terrifying, and it is just, is just the beginning. The era of global warming has ended. The era of global boiling has arrived. And for scientists, it is unequivocal. Humans are to blame. Okay. No. I mean, this is exact. The global boiling crisis, this is their new, this is their new mantra. I mean, this fear-mongering is ridiculous. Jeffrey, it's ridiculous. Anytime I see media or officials

within positions of power trying to scare people that badly. People should listen to this. People should question this because fear has no place in an open scientific debate. I don't care how dire they think it is. Remember, that's the continued excuse they used during COVID. Well, it was an emergency. We had to push this vaccine out. We didn't have time to test it properly.

We had to lock these kids down. It was emergency, don't you know? So let's go back. We did an expose on the Club of Rome. A lot of people point to this as kind of the unofficial start of the climate change narrative. And one of the members, the co-founder of the Club of Rome, was Alexander King. Alexander King wrote a book called The First Global Revolution. In that book, he says this, or I should say he writes this,

the common enemy of humanity is man. Remember, global warming is your fault. In search for a new enemy to unite us, we come up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. In their totality and in their interactions, these phenomena do constitute. to a common threat which demands the solidarity of all peoples. But in designating them as the enemy, we fall into the trap about which we have already worn, namely mistakenly symptoms for causes.

All these dangers are caused by human intervention. It is only through changed attitudes and behaviors. There we go, that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself. So that's when we get the word anthropogenic global warming. This is human cause. It's your fault. It's the carbon.

It's the CO2 we're putting off. It's the basic form of your life structure, just being here. We're not the problem. The people are always the solution. At this point, we don't even have to go down a rabbit hole anymore because I'm just going to show you some headlines here. Okay, so basic narrative, you think about this. You're sitting there. You're told you're the problem.

You human are the problem. And it's the carbon. The carbon you put off. Carbon humanity puts off the problem. Got it. Okay. So we reduce carbon and we save the planet. That's the take home message.

Unfortunately, you start seeing. headlines like this. Solar panels produce five times more carbon dioxide than previously thought report claims. Remember, solar panels are very important for net zero transition. It says in this, it says in this article that solar panels aren't. It says research determined that if the nation grows in solar manufacturing, the world will see up to 18 billion tons more carbon emissions by 2040, all related to the PV industry. Well, that doesn't sound very good. It seems to go against the narrative. Well, like you said, rules for thee, not for me. Banks are getting in on this too. Remember, anytime you buy a plane ticket, you have your little carbon allotment that you show,

it's going to cost you to fly in that plane. Even some credit card companies are showing for each purchase, how much carbon you're using on those purchases. And banks have just done this. This is Reuters. So exclusive. Banks vote to limit accounting of emissions in bond and stock sales. All right, Well, that's an interesting headline, but then you start reading into it. It says this, banks working to develop global standards on accounting for carbon emissions in bond or stock sale underwriting have voted to exclude most of these emissions from their own carbon footprint. Three people familiar with the matter said, well, how about that? Then it goes on to say the majority of banks comprising an industry working group backed a plan earlier this month to exclude two-thirds of the emissions linked to their capital markets businesses from being attributed to them in carbon accounting. This is almost an accounting version of what we see from like Bill Gates and Leonardo DiCaprio.

They fly around the world in these carbon emitting jets just to lecture us about not emitting carbon or the super yachts that you're seeing from people that are just driving around. They're the special people. And we're the useless eaters, Jeffrey. And that's the way they see us. That's the way, but that's not where we're all beautiful gifts made by God to do amazing things. And we're the hope for this, you know, for the world and for the few. We are the hope.

I don't know what they're doing, but, you know, again, it's all about they're going to hurt us in. The noose is tightening. The banks are, you know, coming into this. I love that you're covering this area because it's all related. It's all about tightening the noose, hurting us into big cities, mass surveilling us, controlling everything that we do, every step that we take, hand scanners in our supermarkets. You know, you can't participate in the market unless you're paying with your hand or your forehead.

I don't know. there's a book that says something about that. I've read it many times, by the way. So let's not fall for this and keep going, Jeffrey. Sorry, I get excited. Oh, no, this is okay. This is you should be excited. You should be concerned and you should be passionate about about this type of information that contradicts the fear they're trying to shove down your throat. So let's look at, let's look at some charts. This is central England. These are the temperatures. So we're being told CO2 emissions are causing global boiling. Well, Here's a chart. This is data from the Met Office Hadley Center. This is a UK climate change research

center. And it's looking at the timeline at the bottom from 1659 to 2009. And you see around 18, I don't know, 55, 1862, you see CO2 emissions, global CO2 emissions starting to go up. That's obviously the industrial revolution just starting to kick off, get their engines revving, and it just shoots straight up from there. But unfortunately, the temperature does not change very much. You see a very limited line going up, not very aggressively at all, even at the end there in response to massive spikes in carbon. But that's not all. So we have more information here. This is a graph from the Energy Information Administration. And this is looking at CO2 emissions from the year 2000 to 2020. You can see on the left side there in the blue and red, that's Europe and U.S. respectively. And from 2020 to

from 2000 to 2020, we see that lowering. Now, Europe and the U.S. U.S. are receiving perhaps some of the most aggressive propaganda and laws reducing anything from our gas-powered generators to our gas-powered cars, light bulbs, stoves. We're getting our standard of living really kind of cut for this. The rest of the world, you know, you see on the right side, China, the rest of the world, they're not. And you can see that they're admitting a lot more. And by admitting, you want to read that as their industry is growing.

industries are growing. But now let's look at the predictions for 2035 if this trend continues. We see this chart. Again, U.S., Europe still dropping, but China and the rest of the world, we're talking three, four, maybe five times the rate of what we're seeing here. So again, you have to question if this is so bad, why the Europe and the U.S. are good little boys and girls here, but we don't see the same from China and the rest of the world. Why is that? Are there they just not playing ball? We have to ask these questions. But then we look at our economy and here's here's a document. We've covered this in the show before, but I think it fits nicely right here. It's called the feasibility of a net zero economy for the USA by 2050. This is written by

an emeritus professor of technology at the University of Cambridge. He was a chief scientific advisor in the UK. And he says this. The scale of this project, again, for the U.S. to get to net zero, The scale of this project suggests that a war footing and a command economy will be essential as major cuts to other favored forms of expenditure, such as health, education, and defense will be needed. And then it goes on to say a fourth project is to secure the buy-in of the public that will, for what will be 30 years of social disruption, diminish living standards, and living under a command economy. That's what we're looking at here. That's the scary net zero carbon base cuts that we have to make for the planet. We're going to have to cut health care, standards of living, military spending, all of this, just to reach this.

And if you read the report, it says it's probably not going to make a difference anyway. That's exactly right, Jeffrey. Oh, go ahead. Sorry. No, no. But why wouldn't it make a difference? So we can cut all the carbon. We can measure people in incandescent light bulbs.

We can do all of this stuff. The problem is there's natural forces that work too that only now is the mainstream science community willing to even admit this as this narrative is starting to roll. Let's just take one, for example. In the South Pacific, there's an island, a kingdom of Tonga. So this small chain of islands. And there happens to be a volcano sitting under the water, about 1.2 miles under the water. And this was just last year, virtually unreported in the media. Without warning, without really any type of beforehand warning, this thing exploded in spectacular

fashion. How big? Well, we had to look at it through satellite imagery. Check this out. We're going to put this on a loop. This is the Tonga explosion. And if you see off the right limb, it actually sent a shockwave. It happened so large, so fast.

again, it had to travel 1.2 miles under the ocean above surface to blow this thing up. And if you're seeing this, it's above the clouds. You're right, because researchers did some research on this after it happened. And let's take a look at this research paper. It's the actual volcano is called the Hungatanga Hanga Tonga Hanga Ha'apai hydration of the stratosphere. Reached into the stratosphere. He says the violent Hangatanga, Hanga Tanga, Hunga Pai eruption of 15 January, 2022, not only injected ash into the stratosphere, but also large amounts of water vapor breaking all records for direct injection of water vapor by volcano or otherwise in the satellite era. The massive blasts injected water vapor up to altitudes as high as 53 kilometers. Using measurements from the microwave

limb sounder of NASA's aura satellite, we estimate that the excess water vapor is equivalent to around 10% of the amount of water vapor typically residing in the stratosphere. Unlike previous strong eruptions. This event may not cool the surface, but rather it could potentially warm the surface due to the excess water vapor. So think about that. Last year, 2022, we have this thing explode into the stratosphere. This year, and the scientists saying this might lead to some heating, and now scientists are telling us we're global, we're global boiling. Not saying this is the cause of this, but there's some natural factors at work. And there's some big natural factors at work. perhaps one of the biggest ones is this, the sun.

So the sun, just to give you an idea, that's that little dot there is Earth. That's us, that little tiny dot in the left corner. Sun is roughly 109 times the diameter of the Earth. Put it in another way, you can take 1.3 million planet Earths and fit it inside the sun. So now science is understanding and coming to terms to the fact that climate change on Earth happens also with the ebbs and flows of, solar cycles and the sun's energy that's being radiated. We have coronal mass ejections, solar flares,

all of these things happening on this ball of fire. And to think that that doesn't really affect the climate here on Earth. It's not really a big deal. This is ridiculous. So this is the debate we're trying to have. This is the debate that we're going to bring experts on to even expand on is the full scientific debate without fear, without censorship, as we saw recently the Nobel Prize winning physicists,

was cut for saying things about climate change that didn't fit the narrative. We're seeing the censorship of credential professionals in this area too. So this is, we're going to give them a platform here as well to try to have this full conversation because they are targeting our lifestyle on this. They are targeting aggressively our standard of living. And just like COVID, the science is not settled. There is no consensus. Perfect. Perfect example of how this tyranny is manifesting in all aspects of our life. and perfect example of how to counter it. You bring the information to the people.

Thank you so much, Jeffrey. I can't wait to see you next week. I'll be sitting in my living room or my office watching and cheering you on again because you are amazing. All right, Jim. It's been a pleasure. Oh, well, thank you so much, Jeffrey. He's so amazing.

And this whole high wire movement is absolutely amazing. And I really want to tell you how important it is to me and to my family. And I hope I don't get too emotional here, but you've got to get behind and invest in this kind of truth. Because we are fighting against a world that is trying to deprive you of this kind of education, this kind of information, this kind of legal action. When you have the informed consent action network setting their funding action to win religious exemptions in Mississippi. And believe me, that fight is coming to every state. That's a template piece of legislation that's going to be coming after you. It's coming after your children.

If you don't have something like the highwire, and this is a one-of-a-kind thing, this is a one-of-a-kind news, high-level journalism, that if it weren't available, think about what this world would be like right now. Think about how many of these battles we never would have even known how to fight. Think about the amount of tyranny that would be forced on our children, depriving them of school, of air as they were forced to wear masks, or all of the other nonsense that transpired. I want you to really think about donating to the high wire.

$276. I'm asking all my friends, all my family, $276, $23 a month. But let's do 12 months because we've got a bunch of states to fight legal legislation in that's probably going to come deprive you of your rights and your freedoms. The Constitution is under attack. The High Wire stands for the Constitution. Jim Eamian stands for the Constitution. Dale Bigtree fights for it every day as he reaches out with education and educating the masses.

Please dig deep. Donate to the Highwire. $23 a month. Less if you can't do 23, but if you can do more, let's do $276. Let's really drive into this thing and let's win this country back, freedom back. So please, everyone, go to thehighwire.com. Click on that donate button. Or you can also text, donate, the word donate to 72022, and you can make your donation that way. Whatever you do, however much you can donate, please donate something to keep the hope for this country and the future of our freedom alive. And so we've got, you know, billions of people that have been vaccinated in this big experiment. And what were we told throughout the entire pandemic? What were we told? Well, here's what we were told.

Pfizer announced today that its vaccine is safe and 100% effective. The FDA says Moderna's vaccine is highly effective and says there are, quote, no specific safety concerns. Johnson and Johnson's vaccine have been studied extensively and are safe. Every single vaccine available in Canada has been approved by Health Canada as being both safe and effective. If there's one message that needs to cut through all this, the vaccines are safe, I promise you. What the vaccine is doing is just helping your body do what it naturally does. It's not doing anything different.

It's not changing who you are. So that means that the DNA is not being affected by the message of that RNA. It doesn't touch the DNA. It doesn't go into the DNA. It just does not do that. It's physically impossible for it to do that. do that. It's all garbage. No truth to the fact that the mRNA vaccines are modifying our DNA. The CDC's website in bold

states that the MRNA vaccines do not affect or interact with our DNA in any way. This vaccines have been given to billions of people in the world. And so we have an excellent safety record. In the world of medicine, the world safety means that the benefits have to clearly and definitively outweigh the risks, and we know that to be true here. When you are offered a vaccine, You should take it because it means it has been studied and has been determined to be both safe and effective by all the best authorities that we have.

The best authorities. There's one part of the narrative. There's the approved narrative. But you know what? There's another part of this story. And another part of this story comes from a preeminent scientist, someone that's doing deep sequencing of what's in the vaccines themselves. His name is Kevin McCurnan, preeminent scientists. I'm telling you, this guy early in his career started with MIT's medical genomics, the Human Genome Project. That's a high-level endeavor, one of the biggest endeavors in science and history. He is an expert. He did some studies of the vaccine vials, and I think what he has to say and what he said before the FDA, the Verbach Committee recently, is something everyone should consider.

Next is Mr. Kevin McCarnan. Thank you. I have 25 years of experience in the genomic space. I've worked as a team leader of R&D at the Human Genome Project at Whitehead and MIT, and I have over 57,000 citations to publications in my space and multiple patents on PCR and sequencing. In February, I used MRNA vaccines as they can spike in control for some RNA sequencing libraries and to my shock discovered that the expression vectors for the vaccines are still

in the vials. I looked at this in over a dozen vials, and it appears that it's a lot of the virus. this expression vector is above the EMA guidelines and the FDA guidelines. You can see this in this preprint that's described here. The EMA has a ratio metric limit that looks at RNA to DNA ratios and you can measure you should expect an 11.5 CT offset between the spike and between the vector. What we see is only 5 to 7 ct difference, which means there's an 18 to 70 fold over the limit of the 330 nanogram per milligram recommended by the EMA. The call to action here is all of these primer sequences are now public and people are done.

downloading them in trying to reproduce this work. You can reproduce this work in 60 minutes with a microliter of the vaccine, which is one three hundredth of a dose for less than $10. I encourage everyone to try and do this to understand what we have at foot. Thank you for your time and consideration.

So that's a compelling testimony before FDA. And I wanted to talk to the scientists that is bringing this information forth. So I wanna introduce you to Kevin McCurne. Hey Kevin, how are you doing? Doing very well. Thank you for having me, Jim, very much appreciate. appreciate you giving some air time to this. Well, I don't see any bruises or bleeding. I mean,

you've been fighting in this war for a little bit now here, I'm trying to bring some of this truth. And I got to tell you, I followed everything. I talked to some experts that are, as I see you are, are confirming what you're finding. And I really like the approach you brought to us. I think your background is very interesting. You started on the Human Genome Project, endeavor? That's correct. So I started the Human Genome Project in 1996, working under Eric Lander and Trevor Hawkins at the Whitehead Institute, Center for Genome Research.

I was a lab that was actually funded by Francis Collins, so I'm disappointed to see some of the emails that have come out, but I can assure you at the time, he was very much in favor of personalized medicine. I don't see that in the herd mentality we have now with herd medicine going on, but anyway, we sequenced the human genome there in a fairly quick span of a few years. racing against Craig Venter and after that was all complete, I spun some of the technology we developed there out into some startup companies, one known as Agincourt Biosciences, which became one of the larger commercial DNA sequencing companies in the country. That also received

NIH funding over time to become one of the five genome centers that were funded by NIH. So we have a lot of experience doing genome sequencing, and we even have built a few DNA sequencers ourselves. Some of the work that we worked on at Agingort built a next generation sequencer known as the solid sequencer, which went to market and competed with alumina for a fair amount of time. So long history, 25 years of performing genomics in the field and publishing a lot of the work focused on cancer and detection of microbes and viruses. Yeah, I think that's an important background, too. The fact that you were actually, you were building sequencers, you had to know the technology so deeply that you were capable. of building and improving on the existing technology that you would that you had worked on.

I think that takes your expertise to a different level. As a former programmer and, you know, somebody, you've got to know this subject matter so deeply to be able to, you know, to build the machinery that does it. So that's really interesting. And then the other thing I found that was interesting in your background is you wanted to do with some of the medicinals like cannabis, kind of a cannabis genome project or something of nature to kind of fully characterize the genetics of important medicinals that that's right so we got very very quickly solid sequencers got

deployed at sequencing tumor biopsies to try and find drugable mutations that were unique to the tumor that did not exist in the patient's genome so you could hopefully select a drug that would target the tumor and not the patient now when you look at a lot of the pharmaceuticals involved for cancer they don't thread the needle very well between killing the patient and killing the tumor so my my my got turned on to cannabinoids from a few friends of mine who had cancer, that were fighting this and noticing that these compounds actually help alleviate a lot of the symptoms of cancer, but there's also a lot of literature out there suggesting they are anti-neoplastic.

They can actually shrink tumors in some cases. And the safety profile for these compounds is like nothing we've seen in cancer. The LD50s and the therapeutic indexes are quite impressive. It's very difficult to overdose on these things. So that's when I realized the cannabis genome hadn't been sequenced. we didn't really understand which genes in the genome made these compounds, and if there was a way that we could improve the resurrection of many of the cannabinoids that were bred out of existence through prohibition.

Prohibition of the plant has made plants that predominantly make THC because that's how it was prosecuted. However, there's another 100 cannabinoids in the plant that have suffered in their expression in the plant because everyone focused on THC during prohibition. So sequencing these genomes are now public. We've put them public so people can comb through those and look at all the different cannabinoids synthase genes that are there. And they're finding their way into treating viruses, just like COVID. There's papers out there with cannabidial working with COVID. There are papers out there showing them

having effect on other viruses. And there are even some FDA-approved versions of these that are working with epilepsy. That's fascinating. You've taken your expertise. You've expanded it. Now, how in the world did you get into analyzing what was in a COVID vaccine vial? So that was a bit serendipitous. I published a paper with Peter McCullough back in 2021 that was just interrogating the differences between the sequences and the vaccines versus the sequences in the virus because they're actually quite different in terms of how they encode the spike protein. And since then, people were offering to send us vaccines to sequence and we never really accepted those offers. Some people sent them to us anonymously anyway. And I just threw them in

the freezer of thinking, well, rainy day we'll maybe use these. We had an experience. that we were digging into trying to discover which the pathology of particular viroid that's devastating to cannabis field right now. And those experiments weren't running correctly. So I needed an MRI I could spike into those experiments to troubleshoot what was going on. And instead of ordering one online, I had some of these in the freezer, so I threw them in. Now, by this time, the vials were expired. So there is that caveat to the work that we've presented. However, other people have since replicated this work on different vials and the ones that we have. But when we threw those MRNAs into the reaction, we quickly recognized there was this unexplained

DNA plasmid that was present that matched the vector sequence, or I should say the vector map that Pfizer had provided to the EMA. They did not provide the whole sequence, however. They just provided a little picture of what was in there that had a couple of components that matched what we found. It was the same length as well, and it had enough signature for us to know that was, in fact, the expression plasmid because it contained the spike protein sequence as well. well. Now, that surprised us. We didn't think that would be in the final product that they're

injecting into patients. We have a brilliant audience here at the high wire, but a lot of them may not understand what a vector plasmid is. Could you take us kind of through that? What does that mean? Where does that come from? And kind of take us through that in more layman's terms. Yeah, so they actually ran the clinical trials with Pfizer on a PCR amplified piece of DNA that encoded the spike protein. That didn't scale up as nicely as they wanted to. so they then cloned that piece of DNA into a circular piece of DNA known as a plasmid. And that plasmid has some components in it that allow E. coli to amplify it so that they can effectively Xerox this DNA by growing it in a coli.

So it's about twice the size now. It's about 7,800 bases in length. It has an antibiotic resistance gene for immunoglycoside resistance, so that includes Kenamycin, gentomiasin, and neomycin. It has some components of the SV40 virus, not the whole thing, but about 466 bases or so of the SV40 virus is in there in the form of a promoter, an enhancer, an origin of replication, and a polyac signal. And then it has a T7 promoter and a various other component. So there is a DNA backbone that's in there. And I think the reason this is important is that when you grow DNA in bacteria, you have to get it out of bacteria before you can inject it into people. You

don't want to inject bacteria. And that process of removing the DNA from bacteria is prone to have contamination from something known as endotoxin, which can cause anaphylactic shock. And this endotoxin is very difficult to monitor. We haven't done any work to assay how much of that is contaminating, but we do understand that those assays are generally have a very narrow dynamic range. They're difficult to calibrate. And oftentimes the assays that are being used is an assay known as an LAL assay. To do this assay, you have to actually harvest horseshoe crab blood, which which tends to clot when this endotoxin is So it's a very arcane assay that's out there measuring this.

So we're a little worried that whenever we see plasma DNA, there's a concern that plasma DNA has its own clinical manifestations, but the endotoxin is the first thing that you should pay attention to whenever you see plasma DNA contaminating and injectable, is that you have to go back and look at the endotoxin data to see that that is in fact coherent and in fact below specification. The reason there's been a lot of focus on endotoxin is that the spike protein is known to exacerbate the impact of this endotoxin. There's many papers out there showing that spike protein tends to collect endotoxin and drive

or stimulate a more aggressive immune response when it's present. So the combination of endotoxin and the spike protein, in fact, could be what drives, could make levels that are lower than threshold that the FDA may have put in place. They may need to revisit those guidelines if they're injecting them with something that tends to exacerbate that problem. That's a separate topic. We haven't measured endotoxin. The DNA topic, I think, is probably better for us to stay on.

But the DNA topic, there can be risks with DNA being injected. This is known to stimulate an interferon response. There's some paper suggesting it can drive some clotting reactions as well. And the FDA has guidelines on this that it needs to be below 10 nanograms per dose. People are taking more than one dose of these, so those guidelines should probably be revisited. But also, the reason for them wanting this to be below 10 nanograms, it used to be below 10 nanograms, to be 10 picograms, which is 1,000 times lower. But over the years, the pharmaceutical industry has lobbied to increase this number.

But the reason it's in place is from a paper by the name of – authored by Keith Pettin from the FDA who has demonstrated what happens when you inject lots of background DNA is that you can get some genome integration events. And so they're most concerned about this integrating into the genome and what type of – that can lead to oncogenesis, can lead to a host of aberrant cell circuitry. if you end up getting genome integration events from the actual DNA that's in the vaccines. Let's back up a little bit. So the first thing that I want kind of our listeners and viewers to understand is that what Pfizer did is they're using e-coli, a bacteria.

A lot of e-coli is kind of a perfect manufacturing substrate for creating massive amounts of this DNA that they want to then turn into the RNA for the vaccines themselves. And what you found is that you're finding this DNA plasmid is in the vaccine vials. So two things. Number one, the fact that you're finding intact plasmids or so much plasmid DNA from the E. coli used during the manufacturing process is a risk factor or a warning signal that we might have LPS, lipopalicycary, endotoxin, possibly contaminating those vaccines. that would cause anaphylaxis and somebody that received that. There have been many cases of anaphylaxis.

Yeah, that's right. You know, we don't have evidence of LPS being there, but knowing that there have been very acute responses to antifalaxis right after injection, one has to wonder if it's there. And when you see plasmids floating around, that does ring alarm bells. Yeah. And then, I mean, and here's your thing. Nobody should hold you accountable for figuring all this stuff out.

That's what should be being regulated and being regulated and being overseen by our public health bodies. Why is it that it is you that is the first one to be bringing this forward is really the kind of the critical thing. It's like it's independent scientists that have moral integrity, a moral compass that are bringing this forward and saying, and I would say this is at your expense from the sound of things, as I followed your story. It is. And so when we saw that DNA was higher than what they reported, it makes this question what their LPS number. So to the credit, they are measuring this. However, I don't think the EMA of the FDA are doing those measurements. I think I think Pfizer is. Yeah. The pharmaceutical companies. And so they're taking

their numbers on face value. And we already can see that the numbers the DNA aren't right. So it makes this question whether the LPS numbers are right. Oh, yeah. I completely agree. We can't take we can't take Pfizer's, you know, working behind closed doors. I mean, we've already got the dump of the Pfizer documents. We can see they've been not telling us the full story. My understanding is there's several laboratories that have done independent analysis and our they're reproducing the same results that you're finding. Is that right? They are. That's the most important thing in this data. Half the papers that go through peer view can't be reproduced. So the most important thing is reproduction. And peer review can take six months to a year. It's very politicized

right now. So the better thing to do is to always design in your experimental methods, something that makes it very easy for another scientist to reproduce this work. So we took the extra time to design these quantitative PCR assays that would allow someone to reproduce this in a couple of hours for under $100 in another setting. And that's what's really key. If you're going to put out a very controversial preprint like this, it's not fair to leave controversy on the table that requires $10,000 to reproduce because it won't get reproduced. You have to take the extra effort to build these assays that people can reproduce for very

low cost. And then what you'll find is people will reproduce your work faster than peer review can even put its boots on. And that's what we've seen here. So Dr. Sin Lee at Milford Molecular has reproduced aspects of this, not all of it, but He did perform Sanger sequencing on some PCR amplicons from vaccine that he had available. That ended up giving him Sanger confirmation of what we're doing. Sanger is a gold standard method of sequencing, so that's important to have that done.

We had used an Illumina next generation sequencer when we did some of our work, and so it was good to see another sequencer come to a similar conclusion. His work didn't quantitate how much was there. He just could see that the vector was in fact there. A second researcher, a cancer researcher, Dr. Philip Bukholtz, down at University of South Carolina, had his own vaccines directly from a pharmacy. Well, you know, you recall some of the critiques over our work is that we couldn't really establish the origins of our vaccines because of the nature of how they were sent to us.

We could tell that they weren't tampered with because they had tamper resistant vials on them, and we could measure whether their integrity had been decayed, but we couldn't really give providence of the files. His vials, he had absolute providence over. He was able to actually not only reproduce our quantitative PCR data, and his to be totally transparent. His were right on the line. His were like 10 nanograms, and ours were higher than his. So our CT scores were a little bit lower than his. PCR, lower score means you have more DNA. So there is variance out there, and that shouldn't surprise people. When you look at the EMA's data on this,

they collected 10 vials of information from Pfizer, and it varied 815-fold amongst those 10 vials. So when people reproduce this, we're going to get different numbers, but all of them are seeing the DNA. Dr. Buckholtz also went on to do Oxford nanopore sequencing on them, and he was able to get sequencing data off of them to establish the average fragment length of these molecules. We're replicating some that work as well. We have seen, well, the average molecule size in our sequencing is around 214 bases. We are seeing fragments as long as 3,500 bases inside the sequencing, and we haven't sequenced very deeply. We've only gone maybe 866 reads deep. we can still see very long pieces of DNA that are present.

So Pfizer is trying to get rid of this DNA. They're using a reaction known as a nucleus, a DNAs, which chews up DNA. However, I think what we've stumbled upon is that enzyme doesn't perform very well when there's a lot of RNA present. The RNA kind of gums up that enzyme, and the EMA made note of this. They asked Pfizer to provide more evidence for how that reaction is behaving and to clarify what the procedure was because they're noticing that they notice that, they noticed that 815-fold variance was out of spec.

So Pfizer's aware that there's double-stranded DNA present. EMA is aware of this. The real question is how much and how much is it vary lot to lot? We need to have many more lots surveyed to get a handle on this, because right now we have some that are right on the line and some that are clearly over. So it sounds like Pfizer's manufacturing process, you know, needs to be overseen a little bit more closely, that they may not be adequately breaking down their E. coli,

plasma vector capabilities. They may be, they may not be looking at all the things that they need to be looking at from as many different angles as you've looked at it too. That's the other thing I was impressed with, Kevin, is that you looked at this from many different angles using a lot of different technology. Is all of that technology in your lab, or are you collaborating with other labs to use the different sequencers and the different approaches? It's all within our lab. And the reason we had to do this is, one, it's a very controversial topic. And two, my experience building DNA sequencers in the past is that whenever you modify nucleotides, the tools you have to measure them suddenly pull tricks on you. So this is a modified RNA. I'm sure your

audience is aware. There's an N1 methyl pseudioridine in there. So some of the tools you may use to monitor and quantitate how much DNA is there might get fooled by that RNA that's modified. In fact, I think that's what's happening. If you look through Pfizer's disclosures to the EMA, they are playing this game of cherry picking certain technologies to fit the actual specifications. So the right way to really monitor this is to measure the RNA and the DNA with the same tools. In our case, we settled on QPCR, even though we did a lot of this other sequencing, but we settled on QPCR because that's what Pfizer used to detect the DNA inside of their vaccines. However, when they go and quantitate the amount of RNA they have present, they switch to another

method that inflates the RNA. They switch to a fluorometry method. So I think the careful thing to look through all the substacts that we put out there is that you can change. You can the quantity of these estimates in order of magnitude by switching technologies. And if you know that, you can pick which ones that you show to the regulators to inflate the RNA and pick another one that deflates the DNA quant and try and skim through the regulations. However, if you use the same method on both, you recognize that you're over the limits. And that's where we ended up is we realized PCR is something everyone understands. We use this for COVID.

You can't tell us we can't use it to look at the vaccine. It's quite quantitative and you can measure both RNA and DNA with these tools. So the right way to do this is to measure the RNA-D-N-D-N-A ratio with the exact same assay as opposed to cherry-picking different assays to try to meet a particular, to gain a particular specification, if you will. Now, let me ask you, you know, a couple more questions, you know, and to kind of summarize here, Kevin, you've found a lot of DNA that should not be in the vaccine vials. You've found a lot.

And how much beyond the FDA's limits or the European Medicines Association or EMA's limits are we? Or are you finding? And I heard a lot of variance. There is. Yeah. So in fact, if you measure this with just fluorometry, you'll get numbers that are that suggests it's like 30% of it. That's, that's probably the least specific mechanism of measuring this.

If you use quantitative PCR, the EMA wants a ratio metric number, which is the ratio of DNA to RNA. So they want that to be one DNA molecule for every 3,030 RNA molecules. I don't know where they came up by that number, but that's what's in their guidelines. And they're over that by like 17 to I think 70-fold. The numbers are in our pre-print as to how we measured that. We measured that with RT QPCR. By any standard, by FDA or EMA standards, what you and your colleagues are finding in the vials is, you know, 4 to 10, 17 to 70, did I hear?

Times over the 11. That's right. Allowed limits of this DNA, which by the way is being injected into billions of people in this grand experiment that's playing out before us. Sounds like you've stepped up on a really big problem that we're now, you know, starting to realize we need better oversight. We need more scientists to reproduce your work. And for our government.

So on that regard, when did you talk to the FDA and the CDC and NIH and Pfizer, DERNA, how many conversations have you had with these people that should be calling you? Well, I presented it to the FDA, and I think it just fell on deaf ears. They seemed preoccupied with getting the next scuriant vaccine manufactured for XB1.5 or something. So I'm not certain much is going to happen there. What we have been doing is providing DNA, some of these quantitative PCR reagents to whatever pathologists is interested to see if they can be helpful in understanding long VACs versus long COVID. One thing, that has been troubling the field, a lot of the pathologist, is everyone has had COVID now.

So everyone has had spike protein, and a lot of people have been vaccinated. And sometimes it's difficult to discern if the spike protein in long COVID is actually from the vaccine. We can now discern that with DNA because the vaccine DNA is actually quite different than the viruses. It's only about 72% identical. So the quantitative PCR tools we have can differentiate, whether it's Moderna, Pfizer, Jansen, or whether it's from the actual. virus. So we can now discern the nature of any of the MRNA that's been found in breast milk or found in plasma 28 days later. That's something that might help pathologists understand long COVID versus long backs. But we haven't had direct conversations with any of the other

companies and manufacturers. We've just been putting the data public to see where the community goes with this. To be frank, this isn't something that we were set out to do. We kind of accidentally ran into this, realized the gravity of it, and decided we couldn't irresponsibly put up a immature preprint. We had to actually put out some protocols that would allow other people to reproduce it. And that's about as far as we've gone with it at the moment. Yeah. Well, so I want to ask about that SV40 promoter sequence that you found. That's an interesting and a problematic, notoriously problematic virus. And I know it's not the entire virus, like was in the polio, one of the early polio vaccines. But so tell me about the SV40 sequence. Was that reported to the

FDA or EMA, was that a part of Pfizer's disclosure? No, in fact, if it is, I encourage anyone to send me the information. I've been looking for this. The only information I can see is a plasmid map that they gave to the EMA that's notoriously missing that disclosure. Every other aspect of the plasmid is annotated with the exception of the SV40 region. And as you mentioned, SV40 has a notorious, you know, reputation in the polio vaccine. Okay.

So this disinfected maybe 100 million people. and there is a lot of controversy in the literature as to whether it was oncogenic and caused cancer. Now, we don't have the whole SV40 virus there. However, because of the polio program, there's now one, you know, somewhere between 2 to 20% of the population is positive with SV40. So they have the other components that the vaccine is missing, and now we're injecting more of its promoters and enhancers and nuclear localization signals with each vaccine. So our biggest concern is not that this is necessarily going to emulate the virus, as it has with the polio vaccine.

But the pieces that are in there are the pieces that we use in the biotech field to drive aggressive gene expression. So we have something here that's a homing device to get DNA from the LNP, which gets it effectively into the cell. And there's trillions of those LNPs, probably 1.4 trillion per dose. Once that moves the DNA without getting digested by any of the immune system or any of the nucleases,

it's gonna deliver it to a cell. And then this nuclear localization signal that's in there is gonna move that DNA into the nucleus. Everything that you're exposing here has clearly created a lot of backlash. What is that backlash felt like to you? Now, I will say from my perspective, man, you're a warrior. The way you, you know, the way you have kind of dealt with it, countered the ridiculous arguments, the fallacious comments and arguments. It's, you know, keep doing it, Kevin. It's really, you're doing great work and it's honorable work. You're even funding all of this yourself.

You know, what are they, so what are they coming at you with? Well, I'm glad you said that. Some of the folks on Twitter put my home address up for sale. So that's the one thing you're doing. They dogged you. Yeah. Yeah, that's not necessarily a scientific debate. That's a threat.

Yeah. So others are trying to associate the work with wilder, other wilder theories of there maybe being graphene oxide or maybe there's venom, all these other, you know, hypotheses that have less data behind them. If they can tag us with that material, then they can make us look as unsubstantiated as the other claims that are out there. But I think the important thing to see is that very serious scientists in the field that are credentialed have looked at this problem and have said this is serious.

This is something we need to, they've replicated it as well. So I think the people who are close to this know that this is not something to take lightly. It is a very fixable problem. I would only caution that I'm not certain injectable vaccines are worth fixing for respiratory viruses because I think the entire platform is flawed trying to solve respiratory viruses with injection. But if there are other, you know, vaccines or maybe other therapeutics that might require MRNA, there should be no excuse for there to be DNA in them because there are tools that can get rid of this. There are other nucleases they could be using. They could be

doing, you know, more enzyme, longer periods of time. This is something that is very, very measurable and quantifiable, and it's probably not that expensive to get rid of. I think the liability waivers they have and the speed at which they're running has painted them into this corner. They're not necessarily responsible for their being excess DNA in these things. And if they do, in fact, go over some of these guidelines, I am suspect that they'll be held accountable for it. So I think removing the liability waivers will get them to sharpen the pencil on the QC. And for anything that is going to be injected like this, there's no excuse for this. We have the tools to get rid of it. Yeah, well, I completely agree with you. They have no incentive to

make a safer, better vaccine. They have too much liability protection and immunity. But let's do this in kind of closing this out and summarize for me the four or five major points. Why do people need to be concerned about what you've found? What are the take home messages, Kevin, with what you've found contaminating the vaccines? And what do they mean to the people out there? So we don't have evidence of genome integration, but that is largely because no one's looking. So I do. think people need to begin looking. We have the tools to start amplifying. And what is what is genome? Just kind of explain genome integration. So if this, if this DNA makes it into the nucleus and actually integrates into a genome of a cell, that's something that should concern everybody because many years

ago, maybe only just before the pandemic, if you recall, they put a scientist in jail for making CRISPR babies. We were very concerned about genome integration then. We seem to have lost our concern over that due to fear of a virus that arguably is not that lethal. So I would encourage people to go back to those days and ask yourselves, do we want to be injecting billions of people with billions of molecules of DNA that could potentially integrate into stem cell genomes or into gametes? You know, sure, maybe there's some integration and some epithelial cells that turn over quickly and that's probably, you know, yelling fire in a movie place.

But when you start getting into stem cells and germ cells, you're in the territory where they put people in jail for doing this. And we've done this not on two CRISPR babies. We've now done this on billions of people who did not consent to this. The other thing I'd mention is this shows a sign of lack of oversight. We have, when there's liability waivers, you will not have oversight. So I think we all need to get back to the liability waivers and get those removed because they encourage people to cut corners like this.

And this is a problem that could be catastrophic but easily solvable. That's the whole crime in the solves. That this is a very fixable problem, yet it happens. And it's for about $100 and one hour of somebody's time with the right equipment. They can they can confirm. They could be PCR and checking for this. Yeah. And I say that the third thing is if there, we do need to help people who have been injured by this.

And so we're concerned about the blood supply. What's the vaccine contamination in the blood supply now? Is that going to be problematic for other recipients? What about fertility clinics? What about sperm donors? What about anyone who's doing work with stem cells? So there are tools we have now public that. can allow people to scan for these contaminating sequences to see if they're playing a role in any of the pathology that we're seeing in long COVID or long vacs.

I think that's going to be really critical. That, Kevin, is very critical. I mean, I think that's a major contribution. So some of these autoimmune diseases, cancers, I'm personally seeing in my clinic an explosion of cancers and young people with no preexisting conditions. So you are uncovering and producing some technology would help us to. better elucidate, what is the cause of that? Is it, is it the vaccine that's causing this explosion and cancers being reported by pathologists all over the world? This is true. We can use these PCR tools. They're on our website. You're free to download the sequences. If you need

help getting the reagents organized, we can also facilitate that. But the sequences we all put public for the world to use so they can go and track down if any biopsy has any evidence of this and if that might be contributing to the pathology of oncogenesis. There's other aspects of these vaccines that might be driving that. I can't say it's this DNA. We just don't have that data yet, but there's multiple things at play here. We've got a potentially oncogenic sequence that could be inserted into a genome that has been tied to this concern in the past. We also know that the vaccines have, they lower white blood cell counts. The Pfizer trial showed lymphocytopenia and neutropenia. So that's a problem. And then there's other data suggesting the spike protein interferes with the guardians of the genome,

P53 and Braccom. all three of these together and you could be creating a perfect storm for this contributing to an increased rate of cancer that's being seen right now. Yeah. Kevin, what about, so what happens, you know that many of these vaccines are authorized for children as young as six months of age. So what happens if you inject this, you know, this kind of, as you found, the contaminated Pfizer-Maderna vaccines in a six-month or young child? So I'm most concerned about the children, Because the vaccine doses, while they lowered them for the children, they did not lower them linearly according to their weight.

All right. So the children are much lighter in weight and they may have cut the dose only in half or third. So they are getting a much higher dose of this. And they're obviously at a much younger age and there's more time for this to result in chronic problems. And likewise, as you're well aware from a lot of the work the high wires put out, there is no risk for these children from the virus. So this is all downside.

for the children. So I think they should halt immediately giving these to any children, arguably to anyone at any age, just based on the recent numbers we're seeing from myocarditis. But yeah, the fact that they're using children as human shields is repulsive. There is nothing about this vaccine that stops the spread. And the argument that they need to be vaccinated because their vectors is something that it looks quite Malthusian and repulsive. Amen. I agree. Kevin, I think your work is amazing. it is a huge contribution to something that I don't think other people are overseeing. And I think a lot of scientists could have found what you did and not have handled it the way you did.

Personally, I think you're a hero. We need people to speak out, to rise up, to, you know, share their truth as they see it. And I think you've said a perfect example for many people in doing that. So thank you so much for what you're doing. Well, thank you for saying that. Yeah, very much appreciate it. I will say we were not perfect through this. At one time in this, we were moving very quickly and we found some data that made us think there were full plasmids

and we put a substack up there that we've since corrected. But we've not yet found full-length plasmids, so that probably got out of the gate a little too soon. But who I have to thank for that are all the other scientists that threw critique at me. That's the part of the process. You make a mistake, you own it, and you know, you learn from it and you move forward. And that's the way we should all do. If we were all doing that, we wouldn't have the tragedies that we're seeing in medicine and the failure of medicine, in my opinion, that's been going on for so long.

So keep up the good work. God bless you, Godspeed. And is there someplace where we can go to follow your work? Yeah, Twitter and Substack are probably the best places to follow us on this work. If you're interested in any of the medical freedom work we're on, we do host a conference every year called CanMed. So this is a group of physicians that have been in this fight for decades because they treated cannabinoids like horse paste long before Ivermectin came along. So these physicians know the game. They know how to get access to cannabinoids and alternative treatments for kids who need them.

And I think there's a lot that that community can learn and share notes with the community right now that's just kind of seeing this all unfold with ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. Medical freedom means more than just those particular compounds. There's a lot of compounds out there that we can get from plants or from fungi that can have a big impact in medicine. And that conference is meant to help expose all of those alternative methods. medicines, if you will. So CanMed is the conference we hold every year. And you can see there's five years of videos that are up there. We put every talk that's allowable, we put public so that everyone

can learn from it, even if they can't get to the conference. So if you want to learn about the medical freedom side of things that we've been fighting for since 2011, I'd point you to that site. Great work. We're a hero in my book, Kevin McCurney. Keep it up. Keep fighting for the truth and keep delivering it as you have been. Thank you so much. Appreciate it. Take care. All right, that was a great discussion with a real scientist, a real hero. I think that his work is going to contribute dramatically to improving what's going on in this world. But you know what else is contributing to improving the world is the work of Shannon Croner and her new book, I'm unvaccinated and that's okay.

I want to officially just make this statement, I'm unvaccinated and that's okay. Tonight we're celebrating Shannon Croner's book. I'm unvaccinated and that's okay. It talks about a little boy and what his journey is like in today's world with all the pressures to being vaccinated where he's unvaccinated and has an older sibling who's vaccine injured. We need tools that parents can use to show their kids that it's perfectly acceptable and well within bounds. to make a decision for their kids to not be vaccinated. Being able to see it in a cartoon specifically for children,

they're able to relate a lot more. They're like, hey, this kid is just like me. I made a decision with my parents, and we shouldn't be ashamed of it. This book is one that everybody, regardless of your age, your concept of what you may believe, you've got to read this book. It is something that we all really, really need.

What a wonderful book. What a wonderful message. Beautiful illustrations. great content, great information. Target is already sold out online. I can, they sell it on their store online, and they're already sold out. They're ordering a thousand new books.

This book is touching the hearts and minds of so many people. The message is just right on time. For a world that's ready to receive it. Oh, ladies and gentlemen, buy that book. We've got several. We have them in the office of our medical clinic. Your children need to be armed with this information, so they can't be bullied and harassed

to believing that their choices, their freedoms are not the right choice for them. Buy that book. And while you're at it, get some of this awesome merch from the high wire. By the way, I'm taking this cup. It's got my germs all over it, and I'm going to take this cup because I love the highwire. And it's been such an honor to be here today. You can't, there is no substitute for Del Big Tree. But I'm honored to be a part of something that has been so important to my life.

Highwire, you guys are a part of what has allowed me to learn and protect my children and my patients. I value that tremendously because as I've learned and dug into the science, I realize we're not being told the truth. And I realize how important it is what you're doing is, how important it is to this world and to the health of our children. So it's been an honor to be here. Thank you so much. I love to see the growth in this. and the viewership, and I pray that it will continue, and I pray that all of you will be blessed and protected and be educated to the point that you'll just rise up and resist what you have to,

to protect your children, to protect your freedoms, and to protect our future. God bless you.