The Highwire with Del Bigtree - Episode 335: HEROES AND ZEROS

Episode Date: September 1, 2023

Texas Bills Reinforce Freedom; Censorship Concerns Creep Back Into Spotlight; Who is Elon Musk, Really?; COVID Vaccines For Pregnant Women?; ICAN Unearths 2021 CDC Presentation Revealing Health Agencies Knew The Shot Wasn’t ‘the way out.’; Dr. Meryl Nass Exposes the Larger Agenda Behind the W.H.O. Pandemic Treaty; New Freedom Files Coming Monday! Guests: Jackie Schlegel, Meryl Nass, M.D.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

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

Wherever you are out there in the world, it's time for us all to step out into the high wire. Welcome. You know, as we look around this world today and try and figure out where we stand, I think a lot about the statements from the art of war, right? Know your enemy. I think it's also, though, just as important to know your friends. As strange as they may be, and whatever religion they're involved in, we've got to all accept each other. This became very clear to me when I watched a little segment from Fox 5 this week. Take a look at this.

I think the message from is get the shot if you want. If you want it, go ahead. Don't get it. You're going to get another one? I just said, I'm not going to ask anybody if they're getting their shot. I won't wear a mask, but I'm going to get the shot. You are? What number shot is this for you?

I've had it every, so I'm one in October. I have one in April. How many? What's the total? This will be my seven. Seven. And I've had COVID three times. Coming up.

I mean, you know, everybody's got their religion. Some of us, you know, on Ash Wednesday, have the ash on our forehead and walk around and others have different traditions they go through. And there's going to be this huge group of people, really nice people like Harold Ford, that apparently just think getting a vaccine every couple of weeks is the way he should be living out his life

to be doing the right thing with whatever God he believes in. You know, when we look at this, we think we should start seeing these people. little bit differently than we do as they're out there in public. But honestly, what I want to say about this is that we're all trying to figure out how to enroll people into this issue. And obviously Harold Ford is going to be of no use to any of us that are working on scientific integrity and proper safety testing. And what I want to say to you is don't waste your breath, right? If this is your friend, really good friend, you've known each other since college or high school or elementary

school, you don't have to lose your friend. I mean, it is what it is. But if they are this deeply ensconced and this religion, I don't think there's much you can do about it. Move on to someone that is a little bit more open-minded. I mean, this guy clearly, and we all, I mean, I know people like this, right? They so clearly know this vaccine doesn't work, but for some reason, they just go through this traditional penance on a bimonthly basis for whatever reason. And so when we think about how we're going to build a movement, I would just want to do that. to remind you. I don't care if there's your brother or your sister, your mother, your father. I get it. Their family, best friend. But if they are fully, deeply indebted and in love with the

entire pharmaceutical, you know, intravention world that they live in, then leave them alone. I mean, we can't change that. But there are millions and millions of people we can change. There are millions ready, standing in the line ready to get on to the arc of change and move into that promise land together. The rest of them can inhabit whatever is left. So stay focused. Focus on those that are ready to change. All right. Speaking of change, speaking of, you know, reaching down and being your inner hero, which this is all about, we've all got to find that thing that guides us, that drives us.

So many of you come up to me and you say, Del, what is it I should be doing with my life? I mean, I feel like I want to be a part of this, and I say the same thing. You know, we all have different talents. I don't know what your talent is. Maybe you're a software designer, and you can design something that can change the world. Maybe you're a great speaker, or you want to start a podcast. All of that's fine. I'm Dell.

I started a podcast. It turned into this. It doesn't mean we're all going to do that. But what's awesome is when we see people that just seem to step outside their comfort zone and decide to make a difference in this world. That is exactly what my mind. my good friend Jack Lee Schlegel decided to do with her life. Take a look at this.

Our guest today is Jackie Schlegel. Jackie Schlegel. Jackie Schlegel. This is Jackie Schlegel. I'm just a mom. And like you, I'm here to fight like hell for my children. As a medical freedom advocate in a parent, a baby child with special needs and complex health care challenges, this bill is incredibly important to me. Why do state legislators believe that they somehow know my children best?

better than I do. And so when I'm out in the community, they're questioning what they're seeing on the news or in the media or the push to override their rights. The tactic over the last 15 years was small bills that did not gain a lot of attention. The stage has been set heavily against us and we have got to fight for Texas. We were forced to drive almost two hours to find a pediatrician who would accept her as a patient. Did you just say that a doctor wouldn't see you because a child didn't have HPV? They wouldn't let me in the door. Are you kidding me? I'm not. The mechanism of tyranny is the industry that seeks to own your body cradle to grade. Industry is carrying out their agenda

and we happily give them the freedom to do so. We've already gone too far. We've got to rally up And we've got to say absolutely not. You will not test me. You will not track me. Really? Not only love Texas. We love our country. We love what we were founded on.

I think that was one of the first thing that really struck me in this building when I first step foot in there. We stood outside the Senate doors. I was there for two days straight. It's been a very busy day at the Capitol have visited hundreds of offices. I'm here with State Senator Drew Springer. This is a chairman, Dustin Burroughs.

This is Representative Cole Hefner. Mr. Sid Miller. My friend, Tim Davis. A lot of resources here in the state of Texas have been used to promote this vaccine. We just want to know the facts. One of our groups went into an office and they actually refused to meet with us

because they felt like like maybe there could be a risk of disease amongst our individual. There was no risk that we posed to anyone there, except to maybe open a few minds. Texas has a duty to step up and give us the answers where the federal government has failed. We are on the last resort. If you lose this battle, if you lose Texas, I promise you, you'd lose the entire country. Today is the beginning of a revolution. That's really what we need.

This needs to be the start of it because there is a silent majority taking place and they don't know that they are feeling the same as their neighbors or their communities. Friends, it is not time for fear. It is time we take our power back. I love you guys. Thank you. You want to talk about a warrior mom and warrior mom talked me into getting a pedicure all the way back in 2000. 2016. This is us getting a pedicure during one of my first meetings. Come to town, I need to talk to you about what we're doing here. I am honored and pleasure to be joined right now by Jackie Schlegel,

executive director of Texans for Medical Freedom. I've said it before. You're probably one of the main reasons I moved to Texas. You have been at this for so many years, and the beauty of what I saw in Texas was that you actually had developed relationships in a way with the... Senate and the Congress, the health committees, that they were listening. I mean, whether or not they were ready to make giant changes, I just found that when I

went and testified that they were listening to what I had to say, which meant that you hadn't scared them away, like some of the other groups around the country. So first of all, what's your approach? How is it that you've developed that relationship inside our government here in Texas? First of all, thank you so much for having me here. It's so great to be back in studio. have the best staff. They are so wonderful. I agree. And seeing that video was a blast from the past. I mean, we've been at this for a while and we did. We met back in 2015, 2016. Really, I was just

getting started, like you said, and I'm just a mom. And I did. I called Mr. Victory and said, hey, you know, we got this event in Texas. Will you come out? And then picked you up in the airport. We ended up, my toes need to be done. You get a pedicure. The first pedicure I've ever had. But we've had lots of conversations. throughout the years. And to be honest, looking back when I first started, you know, I wasn't entirely sure with the best way to advocate was. But my gut instinct walking into that building for the first time was they really weren't going to be receptive to somebody who was angry, irrational. They, you know, they weren't going to want to listen to that. So my approach really was just one conversation

at a time. If I can walk into this building, into this office, and this office, and this staffer, this legislator, this chairperson, and I can share my heart, and I can do it from a place of compassion, and ask them what their experiences, meet them where they are, then I can start to win over hearts and minds. And let me tell you, friend, throughout the last eight, nine years of doing this, there's been a lot of ups and downs. They haven't always been receptive, but the one thing they can always guarantee, When I step foot in that office, they are going to be treated with respect. They are going to have their questions answered. If I don't have an answer to their question, I'm going to go find it.

And then we rely on experts to come in and bring the science and have the discussions and to show up and testify. We ask our members and our supporters to bring out their families and respectfully engage. And when you do that, you will slowly but surely start to see the tide turn. And I think COVID did help with opening a lot of ears and eyes. But had we not been here, boots on the ground, the last eight, nine years paving that way, I don't think we would have been as successful as we've been. Well, you wouldn't have been able to use it, right? You wouldn't have had the relationships in order to say, see, this is what I was worrying about,

this is what I was talking about. And it does feel like Texas. I mean, I think a lot of people, especially, you know, I lived in California, would think, Texas has got it easy. Why do they even need to worry about the vaccine issue? But you've actually been fighting here. And you had some success this year. What, you know, when you think about bringing bills and we brought a lot of bills around the country,

many of them don't go anywhere, but you actually got something passed this year. We did. This, I am so proud of House Bill 44. This is a bill that I've worked on for the last six years. Okay. It was very personal to me and my child, and it's very personal to the families that we serve. You have a vaccine injured child. I sure do.

And she is on the state Medicaid program. Okay. And this bill, we were having a. really difficult time finding a provider that would see my child based on vaccination status. Wow. And this was not an issue unique to me. A lot of family special needs, low income, for whatever reason, you know, this child was vulnerable. They're on this program. They rely on it. And providers were discriminating based solely on vaccination. Mind you, including vaccines such as HPV. Okay. So they had this blanket policy you couldn't get into the door.

And this was providing enormous hardship for our families. So we drafted this bill called the Medicaid Discrimination Bill. Over the course of six years, I locked those halls, I had those meetings. But we really picked up momentum with it. So to be clear, you've been pitching this to, you know, representatives for six years. I'm back again here this year. Because I think a lot of people don't realize how much time and energy gets put into this. You know, you're just, you keep showing up.

You keep looking to sign up more and more people. So six years at it. Don't get in the door, second, three. Man, it's amazing. You got to keep at it. So in 2021, we made really good progress with this bill. We had a great legislator. We had a great, you know, person who believed in the bill and wanted to advance this bill to the next level.

And we got several steps in the process, but unfortunately it stalled out. It timed out. But with that momentum we have, we came back this legislative session. We brought the bill. We got it through the House. We got nine Democrats on board with this bill. So when I say it was a bipartisan bill, it truly was. It was a great effort.

We got it moved over to the Senate. Again, met all of those milestones and got it to Governor Abbott's desk. And we're incredibly proud that tomorrow this bill goes into law, and this will protect our most vulnerable children and families with their right to access medical care. So this is all about choice. That the doctor cannot turn you away based on your medical status. For medicating chip providers.

Okay. So if you're on Medicaid, you're working with that. What's so ironic about this issue for you is under these circumstances, your child has all the medical issues that they have and need a medical physician because of the vaccine program. And now, and this is just a perfect example, right? all the side effects, or not all, but many of the side effects are listed to the vaccine, but as soon as it happens to you, you're all on your own. So it's not like, oh, sorry, you're one of the few that didn't get a good reaction. Come on in and we're going to take care of that. They're

like, don't ever come in my office again. You can't even get in the door, which is really how I framed the discussion this legislative session. We have always called this the Medicaid discrimination bill. This session, I presented this for what it was, which is access to care. There is a problem when you can't even step foot in the doctor's office to have the discussion about whether these vaccines are appropriate for your child. And in my discussions with the pediatricians who many were opposing this bill, you know, that was a big speaking point of how are you giving informed consent when you are stopping these families at the door. They are not even allowed in your facility. You're sending these kids to urgent care in emergency rooms for basic medical care. This is Texas.

In Texas, we take care of our citizens. Honestly, what's that costing, you know, the taxpayer and everything that's in the public system, right? Yes, 100%. The ICUs, ERs, whatever. When you look at, I mean, Texas, obviously, fairly conservative. But when you look at the writing on the wall, are there, Is there still a push? I mean, I've always said when I was moving here,

I'm not moving to Texas because I think it's just going to be free forever. I think they're going to attack Texas because if they can take down Texas, they can take down the world. They've got New York, they've got the two giant democratic centers of the world, California and New York. But boy, if they could grab Texas, the most conservative state in the union, then this is all over pharmacics over the world. Do you feel that pressure coming in here?

A thousand percent. I feel it in the legislature. I feel it in our community. Look, the federal government, the overreach, the CDC, they are not stopping just because Texas passed a bill that protects our right to inform consent. Ultimately, their goal is to shove these mandates down our throats whether you want them or not. We've seen that. It doesn't matter what the science says. I mean, they just, you know, completely railroad the science. They push through their agenda. We saw it with COVID. We've seen it with vaccine mandates. We've seen it with employer mandates. And so, you know, So 100% here in Texas all across the country, they are safer places, but there's no one that is off limits. And that is why we have to push back against the CDC and the complete overreach of government into our homes no matter what state we live in. A lot of people I run into are totally jaded now. Like the system doesn't work.

I don't want to have anything to do. There's no point in voting and all of this. Yet when people like you come in here and say, we just passed a bill, there's, I mean, do you, what would you say to someone that says that? Like it's just, they've just given up on the entire political system. You know, I hear this, I see it, I feel it. I've had advocates at the Capitol with me who burn out, but we don't have a choice. We do not have a choice. What we did this legislative session is absolutely proof that if we stick with it, if we stay with it, if we are the calm, voice of freedom, of liberty, of pushing back, especially here in Texas, we don't like our rights

infringed upon. That is something that we can agree upon. So we need to get active, we need to get involved. And it has been a very challenging time, but now is not the time to let up. Look at your children. Think about their future and think about what we want to hand over to them. And come and Join me at the Capitol. I have a lot of fun. You've been there before. I don't know if you would call it fun. Oh, it's fun. I actually really, that's what got me in all this. I really love talking to the different representatives because it's a game, right? You go in, throw out about and thought, try and feel out where they're at and find where that soft place is in them. Whether it's just they don't trust pharma or maybe, you know, they don't like products being rushed out on the market, whatever it is. You can find that that place or they have a soft space for, you know, children that are handicapped and having issues, which is part of the angle that you've brought in here. Jackie, it's always great

to hear that we're winning and that it's possible. You represent just this great body of warrior moms that have stepped up, figured out this political system. It's really, truly what makes me love this country. That is possible. And I love that you're here because you're proving it's still possible. We shouldn't give up. You obviously haven't six years to get a bill passed. Congratulations. Thank you for joining us today. I appreciate that so much. All right. Texas for medical free. Dot org. Check out the work that Jackie's doing and join her at the Capitol if you want to pass some more bills. And if you are in your own state or city and you're wondering what's going on, you've got to get involved.

You've got to get the Capitol. You've got to talk to those that represent you. All right. It's time for the Jackson Report. All right, Jeffrey Jackson. It's amazing, isn't it, to watch people like on the news admitting, like honestly, smiling, laughing, yeah, I know I got, I got seven of these things. You just wonder, how bad would something have to fail? I never thought we'd be here. It's beyond, like, we've talked about this a lot,

it's getting beyond my ability to reason it, right? I've been studying, I've been, really, I feel like I've been a journalist since I was about five years old. I was that kid that never stopped asking questions. I've been interviewing everyone I've ever met my whole life. And I feel like have a pretty good grasp of humanity. And now in this time, I just, I cannot get all the dots to work from a reasonable place. I just can't, I can't figure out how you explain how a nice, intelligent person, you know, is in government, and will continue to just take a product that isn't working for them. Anyway, we used to put some comedy into this, but it seems like people are like trolling us with their lives. We can't even make fun of it anymore because they're beating

it to the punch. Right. It's just a giant cartoon everywhere you go. How do you crack a joke when you live in a cartoon. All right. Well, there's a lot going on here, and we're less than two weeks out from an advisory committee on immunization practices meeting. That's CDC's ASIP committee where they make recommendations for vaccines. And it's anticipated that they're going to talk about a new annual booster there. That's what's being signaled.

And this booster hasn't been tested on anything but mice because it's been updated with the new variants. And really, the public has become aware of the transparency issues around the vaccination conversation, the testing. issues really during COVID. It's streamlined. And you know, you called that out. You said they're going to make the cookies in public before we had to really dig to show, but now they're going to do this full site. So no place has it really been more obvious than the testing around pregnant women during COVID. Remember, the CDC messaging, despite really lack of what they call robust data around

vaccinating pregnant women of the COVID vaccine, this is what the CDC messaging look like. Take a look. All right. No safety concerns were observed for people vaccinated in the third trimester or safety concerns for their babies. As such, CDC recommends that pregnant people receive the COVID-19 vaccine. We have no reason to suspect that these vaccines result in any infertility now or in the future. And in fact, it's implausible that they would. It absolutely is safe to get vaccinated.

So I would say, if you are thinking about getting vaccinated, there is no bad time to get vaccinated. Get vaccinated while you're thinking about having a baby, before you're thinking about having a baby, while you're pregnant with your baby, or after you've delivered your baby. There is no bad time. Amazing, the level of confidence that she has there,

knowing full well, I hope she knows full well that these videos will last till the end of time. Right, and if you think that's just a slip up on live interviews, This is the CDC's own Twitter account back in 2021. You can check this out. It says, urgent. If you are pregnant, recently pregnant or plan to get pregnant, get vaccinated against COVID-19 as soon as possible. So at any point in your life, just get the vaccine.

At that time, the data- And what's amazing, I just want to point out, she says we, you know, the third trimester, well, we looked at it. So they talk about third trimester. That thing, that tweet doesn't say anything about third trimester. It's like if you're thinking about it, you're the beginning of it. So this is just part of the scam that's going on here, right? Let's look at the most robust side of pregnancy and then see what happens.

I know you're going to get into that. I just want to point that out, though. You've got to start having the, you know, we're trying to teach you out there in the audience how the red flag goes up. What should trigger the red flag? Like, what time were you looking at? What grouping? Just listen to what they're saying when they talk about.

All right. Go ahead. Absolutely. Watch the words. And so during that time that these statements were being made, there was basically observational studies, meaning people had, they looked at the VAERS data reporting system. and they looked at the VSAFE app. The VSAFE app was basically an app on your phone

that we had the lawyers at the informed consent action network sued to get the data from the raw data. We put up this dashboard, you can check it out. There's still on our website, everybody. If you want to see the actual VSAFE data that was recorded from everyone that got the COVID vaccine or that and signed up to this program. Over 10 million people were in this program.

We've done a lot of reporting on this, but a gigantic group of them ended up reporting having to go to a hospital or seek medical care after vaccination. But that's a different story. And this is self-reporting. So this is people just, how do you feel today? I feel good. Smiley face.

And the other data that was from the vaccine safety data link, which is really close to the public, essentially. Researchers sometimes get a hold of this stuff. They can do it. But that was it. There was no like really big studies. And by the way, the B-Safe data, this is the headline. And let's be clear, there weren't pregnant.

You weren't allowed to be in the original trials of these vaccines. were pregnant, right? In fact, I think we've reported on it. You weren't even allowed, you weren't supposed to be, you know, having sexual intercourse while you're in the trial, which is a really odd demand, and we've talked some about that, but just that's how specific they were. Right, exactly. And the CDC has ended that V-safe reporting system. This is the recent headline that's really been going around here. So that V-Safe data is now, there's a bookend on it. CDC quietly removes COVID-19 vaccine adverse events collection from website. So think about this. Pfizer never did a proper study on pregnant.

women with the COVID shot, just like they never did to see if it stopped transmission before they rolled out the shot to the world. Now, in 2021, what also happens, so you have Wieninski saying all these things. The CDC is tweeting these things. Pfizer makes this big announcement. Again, the vaccine has already been giving out worldwide pregnant women. Pfizer comes along in 2021 and says this. Pfizer and Biointech commence, we're going to commence global clinical trials to evaluate COVID-19 vaccine in pregnant women. Huh? We're already giving this out. So you get going here and this is their grand plan. They say basically eventually the phase two three trial is designed as a randomized placebo controlled observer blind study and approximately 4,000 healthy women. Remember,

they get the healthiest people they can find. 18 years of age or older, vaccinated during 24 to 30 weeks of gestation. So that's basically. There it is. There it is again late on in. So all they're going to look at is when your baby is the healthiest it can be, not when it's just starting to form in the first trimester, which would be, you know, where you would obviously, imagine you would have spontaneous abortions and things like that. They don't even bother to put any of those into this trial. I mean, folks, this is how your regulatory agencies are allowing the pharmaceutical industry to do their science. They are literally cherry picking coming out of the gate. And remember, this trial isn't even started to millions and millions and maybe hundreds of

millions of pregnant women are already receiving this vaccine around the world. You know what? Maybe we should look at this. Let's do a totally fixed study so that we can make everybody feel good about what they already did last year. All right. And these were agreed upon things. This is the FDA saying, like, look, if you roll this out, you're going to have to do a study on myrocarditis. You're going to have to do a study, like really look into this Pfizer. So Pfizer's just say, we'll do this on pregnant women, sure. So they're looking at 4,000 healthy pregnant women. Now we go to clinical trials.gov. Now the study's on the way, clinical trials.gov. It's posted there. And you see this. You start reading. They're expecting 4,000 healthy women. That was the press release.

Now it says in approximately 350 healthy women, whoops, women 18 years of age or older, vaccinated at 24 to 34 weeks gestation. So they have the time frame, but they lost some people in the study. What happened? So the homework, Pfizer just submitted their homework in the end of basically mid-July of 23. The trial is over. They're analyzing the data. And this, when you go to the completed study at clinical trials.gov, you see this. Eventually, 348. So now we paired it down even two less, from 350 to 348. Maternal participants were randomized to receive treatment. 335 were infants born to maternal participants. So there's 13 pregnancies there that are unaccounted for. Let's hold that for a second. But if you have a trial with 348 people, obviously this is what's called an underpowered

study, you're not going to find much out from this when it comes to safety. Losing 13 people out of this study is a big deal. Let me just this whole underpowered thing was something I didn't fully understand when I got involved here. And if you're watching this for the first time, an underpowered study means there are not enough people in the study to determine really simple issues. Like, imagine if the vaccine ends up causing a spontaneous abortion in one out of 100 people that receive it, right?

You ask yourself if we're looking for a one in 100 problem. And remember, they like to say that the vaccines only have a one in a million problem. One in 100 would be a catastrophic problem. But if you only have 350 people in your study and you're dividing it in half into 175 in each half, you don't even have enough people to catch two people in a one in 100 problem. And I assure you, if in that 175, two of them spontaneously abort, they'll say, well, we don't have a larger. enough group of people to say that that would have been consistent across tens of thousands or millions of people. So it really probably is just an anomaly. This is how they're designing

these studies. They design them so they have absolutely no power to determine anything at all. So even if they see a problem, they just say, nah, you know, it could have happened as the background rate. You do something with 10,000 people in it, or even the 4,000 they started with. Now you have 2,000 people. If you have a 1 in 100 problem, that's 20. Right? Now you say, oh my God, Now let's look at the placebo group and we can start to see if something's going on here. If you're deciding, well, they have two over here and one over here. You see, this is what underpowered means. This is why we should not be allowing products that could potentially alter our DNA or make us spontaneously abort and only having 175 people in the group that gets the product.

We're looking through this data. We're finding more questions and answers, really. And Australian journalist Marianne Damasi wrote about this. She's been tracking this story, particularly in pregnancy and the data and the trials. And she wrote this headline, Pfizer drip feeds data from its pregnancy trial of COVID-19 vaccine. And we go into the story. Remember, it's 4,000 to 350, they reduced it to. There's a screenshot of the protocol amendment in this article.

And you can see protocol amendment, May 2021. The trial was announced on February of 2021. So it took them three months to do this. Reduce the study sample size based on regulatory feedback and evolving global availability of COVID-19 vaccines for pregnant women. Whatever that means. Evolving global availability of a product that is being given to hundreds of millions of people, the 350 people we have in the study, we had to kind of like jock your way around because of what, you know, there's vaccines everywhere. What are they talking about? Right.

All right. Again, more questions. So she writes notably, the study protocols indicate that Pfizer was given the green light as early as May of 2021 by drug regulators to scale back the trial and reduce the sample size. She reached out to Retzf Levy. He's an MIT professor. And he gave this quote in the article. To me, the wording in the protocol suggests that the FDA or another regulator basically gave Pfizer permission to do less. Three months into the trial, they amend the protocol to do less.

It goes on to say, of the 13. pregnancies unaccounted for, Pfizer reported one fetal death, a stillbirth in the vaccine group, and the outcome of the other 12 pregnancies remain unknown. It's a big problem. She finally says, finally, there were quite a few babies that were lost to follow up in the trial. 29 babies in the placebo arm didn't get to the end of the six-month surveillance period versus 15 babies in the vaccine arm. That's almost double. Again, this is concerning and requires a detailed and transparent explanation, said Levy. I can't help myself. I got to just step in here.

Folks, you start out with like 350 people and suddenly there's 13 of them are missing from the data. I mean, this is science that is determining the future of the world. It's determining whether or not this is safe. It's a bit like when I was working on the doctor's television show, I would scrub in. I would go in and shoot inside the OR surgeries. A lot of people don't realize this. At the end of the surgery, they do a count of all of the sponges and all of the

rubber gloves and all the scissors and things that came to the room because believe it or not, they get lost inside of the surgery all the time. So they have to sit there and one person that's going one, two, and they go, okay, we came in with 30. We have 30 sponges. We're good to go. This is like, you know, walking with 350 sponges. You do the surgery. You sew the person all up and say, we're missing like 15 sponges. Yeah, it'll be fine. This is how the science is being done. This is the best we can possibly do. Right. And so we look at the study protocol. This was what they set out to do. And you're thinking, okay, they're studying pregnant women. They're going to give them the vaccine. They're going to monitor these women for years. They're going to monitor their children. That's how it's portrayed in the media, robust science from the best agencies. This is the protocol. You go back to Pfizer's protocol for this study. And they say this, maternal participants who originally received the placebo, which was a saline placebo, will receive Pfizer's, vaccine at defined time endpoints as part of the study. Delder, they're vaccinating the placebo group,

so it's over. You're done. Long-term follow-ups over. They got the vaccine. So that is over now. Erase the evidence. I mean, that's it. We're looking for those babies they lost at this point. And that's what's going on. Wow, amazing. I mean, it's just, it's so incredibly shocking. I mean, just from the beginning, when we show that montage that we have a government that will recommend and say it is absolutely perfectly safe with zero actual science. And then when they do the science, far too late to actually do anything, they manipulate the entire study, cut it down to being absolutely worthless, and then lose people in the middle of it and say, okay, oh, and by the way, we've vaccinated the placebo group in some schedule we're not going to tell you about. The entire

purpose of science is so that we can see every single step you made. When these papers get published, the idea is that any scientists around the world should be able to go out and try and repeat your research and see if it holds up. But in order to repeat it, you got to know where every nut and bolt and how it was used and what time it was put in and everything. And these are just these shoddy things that my third great daughter could do a better job putting together. I mean, it's absolutely horrid. What is the state of science right now in America? and, you know, ultimately as the world is just following us, waiting for us to crank out the next great science study,

this is as good as it gets. What a shame. And the science in America was something we reported on last week. So we started to see patterns in the headlines, concerning patterns, showing that masks were coming back at universities, at hospitals, other places as well. And there was this drumbeat of this similar fear we saw on the headlines in 2020. And we said, uh-oh, it's time to rule.

really looked into this. And there was even a fact check after the show because so many people were looking at this. They had to go out of their way to say, hey, don't worry about it. Nothing's coming back. We're fact checking this. It's a fact. We're not doing this again. The lockdowns aren't going to happen. You know, this happened a lot of places. And by the way, folks, I mean, don't go back to sleep. Don't trust. If I have to say it, clearly already this far in the show, you should say, I don't know if I can trust my government. That's right. You're allowed to not trust your government. That's why it's the United States of America. If you lose the ability to not trust your government, you know you're in real trouble.

And they're literally, people are literally, organizations are literally still doing studies to see if the lockdowns work, the restrictions work, masking work. And one of those organizations is the Royal Society. The Royal Society is the oldest continually existing scientific academy in the world. It was started in 1660. And they just put out, think about this, in the middle of all these headlines over the last couple weeks, they drop this review. COVID-19. examining the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions. This is out August 2023.

What do they mean by non-pharmaceutical interventions? Well, that's masking, that social distancing measures, including school workplace closures, closing bars, closing sporting events, basically lockdowns, upgrades and ventilation. So that's all packaged in this one thing. And this is what they say. Again, this comes out right in lockstep with the headlines.

In summary, evidence about the effectiveness of NPI's applied to reduce the transmission of SARS-CoV-2, show unequivocally that when implemented in packages that combine a number of MPIs with complementary effects, these can provide powerful, effective, and prolonged reductions in viral transmission. But then they admit this, understanding all these other health and social and economic impacts of MPIs is, of course, extremely important and is a key question for inquiries being conducted around the world. However, this report focuses specifically on the impacts of MPIs on SARS-CoB2

transmission while acknowledging the need for similar analysis of all the other consequences of the implementation of MPIs. And if you can see how ridiculous this is, the Science Media Center took a stab at it before we did, and they said this, expert reaction to this Royal Society report. And they write, in that context, it looks rather ironic that this report and the evidence reviews that accompany it choose explicitly to leave consideration of adverse events

largely out of the picture, particularly social and economic effects. They mention, page 25, that the consideration of all the health social and economic impacts is a key question for inquiries being conducted around the world. But will those inquiries, most of which have strong political aspects, get to the bottom of that question? Well, we're going to get to the bottom of the royal society because as we've reported on the show for a long time now, there's a lot of studies showing that the masks are at best, highly questionable.

The Cochrane Collaboration report had 78 studies showing really not much difference in stopping flu-like symptoms or flu like influenza or COVID. But let's look at the Royal Society donor list. Let's start there. Companies, it says. Well, there we go right at the top. Astrosenica. Whoops, they make vaccines.

Google Europe. The people that made it for you. Google Europe. I tend to remember Google Europe and Google as a company in general, helping censoring the medical conversation online. That's interesting. Well, let's look at what the Royal Society has brought on for honorary fellows. These are very important people that work with the Royal Society.

Number one, you may recognize this gentleman. Tedros Gabrisis. He runs the WHO. Another person, we have Edward Holmes, Professor Edward Holmes. You remember him from this statement in April of 2020 from the University of Sydney, statement from Professor Edward Holmes on the SARS-CoB-2 virus. He says there is no evidence that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19 in humans, originated in a laboratory in Wuhan, China. And of course, Professor Eddie Holmes was one of the many virologists that was in the email chains that we've reported on from the unredacted emails at the beginning of the COVID response, trying to figure out how are we going to kind of hide these anomalies because it looks like

this thing may have came from a lab. And he even writes that in the email here, he's putting the paper together, which was originally the origins paper of COVID. He says it's fundamental science and completely neutral as written. Did not mention other anomalies as this will make us look like loons as it stands. It's excellent in science. So left out a lot of stuff, kind of cherry-pick the data. Let's keep going here. Another honorary fellow from the Royal Society, Sarah Gilbert. She actually was the creator of the AstraZeneca vaccine. This is the BBC article, the woman who designed the Oxford vaccine. That's AstraZeneca vaccine. You remember this vaccine from 2021 when major European nations suspended the use of the AstraZeneca vaccine in concert

because of some of the issues it was causing. And then currently- Astrozenica's funding the Royal Society and has the designer of the vaccine as, you know, on the, what was it? Honorary fellow. Honorary fellow. Okay. Yes. And, you know, speaking of AstraZeneca, there's even more in the headlines just recently. This vaccine is not doing well.

Astrozenica facing two London lawsuits over COVID-19 vaccines as Reuters. But then this guy, Sir Patrick Valence, he actually played a part in this actual study about MPIs. He's credited in the study. You may remember him from this headline, Sir Patrick Valence to step down as number 10's chief scientific officer after playing a key role in COVID lockdown. So this is the world's studies. So literally from the people that locked you down comes a study saying that we did it exactly right. Trust us. It was unequivocally really great.

Amazing. We've looked at, let's talk about masks for a second because they're still in the headlines. And we've looked at a lot of the science showing do they work, do they not? but how about the actual mask itself? A Korean researchers just looked at this. This study's been really going around. They measured, measuring the quantity of harmful, volatile, organic compounds inhaled through masks. So they say, if hazardous compounds are released from these masks, the human bodies at risk.

For example, di-methylformamide and diethylacetamide, which are organic solvents using the production of mass and have been detected in KF masks in South Korea caused reproductive toxic. liver toxicity and cancer in the human body. That's just one of these volatile organic compounds. Wow. But we go to the chart here that they show in this study, and they tested a lot of different masks. So you can see on the left side, the samples,

they letter them A, B, C, D, E. And masks A and B are the disposable masks. Essentially what everyone was wearing. You take them out of the little cheap plastic package, put them on your face, use them once, one use masks. And the rest of those, C, D, and E, those are copies, masks, polyester masks, those are a little different. And so we look at the testing results and we see this graph here. On the left, this is total volatile organic compounds. You can see A and B, especially A2,

B1, B3. You're looking at over 2,600, 4,800 in one sample. Now keep in mind, at around 3,000, the German Federal Environmental Agency has flagged those to be health concerns after 3,000. So two of those masks go, let's blow past that. Yeah. The other two in the 2000s are approaching it. So this is, this is. And the thing we were living in these things, right? I mean, people just literally living in them, in their cars, everywhere they went.

It's unbelievable to think you're just sucking these fumes down. And it said, obviously, the cotton masks were a little better. But, you know, for those people that are watching the show that either have to mask or still want a mask, that does say in full disclosure in this study, if you open the package of the mask and you let it sit for 30 minutes, it reduces those volatile organic compounds by 67%. So that is a technique if you're really not looking at inhaling these potentially toxic compounds for an entire day or your child, you leave that mask out after you open it. See, even the pro maskers get a takeaway here on the high wire. We cover everybody. We've got everybody. We're all inclusive. Yeah.

We're all inclusive. Unfortunately, one of the stories that reported last week, we're questioning the inclusivity of a platform, and that is X, Twitter. We did a long-form expose on all of the moving parts that we saw happening with this current narrative to remask and to, are we headed towards in our lockdown? What are the reasons? where maybe behind the scenes reasons. We actually showed the CEO of X, Linda Yacarino, and she was on Squawk on the Street and on CNBC. And she said some interesting things.

She's saying, we're going to demonetize awful conversation. She's basically taking a demonetization and a de-amplifying stance on the X platform. Now, this is much different than we've heard from Elon Musk, who became a champion of free speech when he, took over Twitter and said this is going to be open to everybody. We're not going to do any type of censorship, basically. And so when we stream this, as I'm speaking right now, this is streaming on the X platform. We've been streaming on the Twitter platform for a very long time. And something interesting happened after our show last week. We had the live stream. All things were well.

I was, to be clear, I was claiming that I thought I might be being shadow banned where I usually would get thousands of views on things. I was only getting, you know, five or six and things like that. So we were curious, we were talking about it on last week's show, calling out Yaccarino saying, is she changing the culture of X? So all of that was a part of our show to be clear. We weren't being nice to Twitter last week or X. Right. And we were just asking some open-ended questions that begged the question to be asked.

And now our shows, how this works after the live show, the feed, the actual video, still stays up on the platform. Anybody can re-watch it on the platform. And what was happening is people would hit play. It would spin, but there would be no more live feed. And that has continued to this day as I'm speaking right now. So it's been off the platform for a week, essentially. The post is still up there. We checked on our end.

We really didn't see anything we did wrong. So it's an open-ended question. It's a mystery right now. But this prompted a conversation between us all. Let's look into Elon Musk because this is a guy who he has his hands in a lot of things. he's doing a lot of things, most recently free speech. But check out kind of a background of all of the things he is really involved in. Take a look.

The story of Elon Musk is almost too incredible to believe. People have called you the real Tony Stark. On any given day, he could be the world's richest man or he could be the world's second richest man. Elon Musk is one of the most important entrepreneurs in the world. Elon Musk grew up in South Africa, studied in Canada, but then, moved to California and became a Silicon Valley superstar by creating the online commerce business PayPal. When eBay acquired PayPal in 2002, Musk took home $165 million. The young entrepreneur turned his gaze upwards and set up space exploration technologies,

or SpaceX, with a mission statement of enabling people to live on other planets. Since its founding in 2002, SpaceX has had many achievements. It's the first private company to launch, orbit, and recover a spacecraft. How is it possible that Elon Musk could launch two impossible businesses, SpaceX, a builder of rocket ships and Tesla, which could be the first successful car company startup in America in 90 years? All transport, with the exception of rockets, will go fully electric. I see the value of Tesla as a catalyst in that transition.

The Tesla Model S has been called the greatest car ever built. Now you've got solar city and the solar pack that people put in their housing. It's the largest provider of rooftop solar systems in the U.S. and the company boomed on Wall Street. It really needs to make solar panels as appealing as electric cars have become. SpaceX's satellite internet service Starlink has also allowed Musk to play savior in a new way. Starlink is a globe-encircling now. a circling network of internet beaming satellites

that is trying to get you online, no matter where you are in the world. It's been critical to Ukraine's armed forces. They absolutely depend on it so that they can coordinate their communications of their troops. In a strange way, gives Elon Musk an enormous amount of power. Elon Musk's brain implant company NeuroLink said on Thursday, it had been given a green light from the US FDA

to kickstart its first inhuman clinical study. We put a chip in your brain to control your mind. Over the years, Musk has publicly outlined an ambitious plan for Neurilink. He envisions its devices to cure a range of conditions, from obesity, autism, depression, schizophrenia, to enabling web browsing and even telepathy. It'll be about restoring functionality to people who've lost their connection between their brain and their body.

I think the concern that people have is, is this just leading us into this dystopian, transhumanist, humanist future. He bought Twitter in October 22 for $44 billion, funding some of the purchase by selling $39 billion worth of his Tesla shares. The world's richest man is now promising a Twitter makeover, renaming his own account chief twit and proclaiming the bird is freed, then fired senior execs once closing the $44 billion deal. The deal puts him at the helm of one of the leading global social media platforms. Having a public platform, that is maximally trusted and broadly inclusive

is extremely important to the future of civilization. Are you sincerely trying to save the world? Well, I'm trying to do good things, yeah. I'm interested in things that change the world or that affect the future in wondrous new technology, where you see it and you're like, wow, how does that even happen? How's that possible? Really quite an amazing person.

I mean, what a track record. track record. This guy can't miss or almost like he's not allowed to miss. He's been hitting the free throw shot for 13 years straight. He thought he'd never miss. Okay. You know, and he's really, you can see there, he's kind of been, he's been handled by the media lightly until really he went after the free speech and he allowed free speech on this platform. Then it really clamped on him. But let's look, let's go dig into this person and more of his business ventures a little more.

So in 2015, the LA Times did this article. So almost 10 years ago now, so these numbers are probably changed. But Elon Musk's growing empire is fueled by 4.9 billion in government subsidies. It says Musk and his companies, investors enjoy most of the financial upside of the government support, while taxpayers shoulder the cost. The payoff for the public would come in the form of major pollution reductions, but only if solar panels and electric cars break through as viable mass market products. For now, both remain niche products for mostly well-heeled customers.

So think about that. He has a product. He's getting a lot of government subsidies. It's only going to work if these things really get pushed by, say, you know, the headlines we're seeing from California. We're saying all electric by 2030. They're aggressively pushing out this electric grid, the electric cars. So that's really good for somebody that's on government subsidies

that has these products that really need to hit the home run. Otherwise, they're just going to fail. So just putting that there for a second. But in 2015, he was already drumming on the carbon tax, which is taxing people's carbon emissions. So this is a headline here. Elon Musk says robust carbon tax would speed global clean energy transition. So he was really interested in.

I mean, if you think about it, that is literally like taxing everybody that doesn't use your product. Fine, you want to use somebody else's product. There's going to be a tax on you that'll help pay for me to build more of what I'm doing. Right? I mean, I think you could see it like that. And remember, we cover the net zero transition. Because they're pushing it so fast,

that require a command and control economy. It says one of the reviews that we've covered, a war footing. People would have to really sacrifice to do this. So this is what we're talking about here. 2021 carbon tax. Again, Elon Musk, my top recommendation for reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a carbon tax.

And that sounds a lot like somebody else that we've covered before, which is also in 2021, addressing climate change through carbon taxes. Who wrote that? The World Economic Forum. They're all about that as well. And let's take a moment here to look at one of the heads or the head of the World Economic Forum,

Klaus Schwab, someone we've covered here for a very long time. This is him in 2019 talking about another aspect of what he calls the fourth industrial revolution that society is now in. Take a listen. Okay. It changes not only what we are doing. It changes us because it's a fusion of our physical, digital, and biological spheres.

It's an integration of those spheres. Just think of sensors planted into our brains. The opportunity is immense. Sensors planted into our brains, the opportunity is immense. Okay. All right. So nothing else has to be said there. Two years before that talk, we have Elon Musk and these headlines,

humans must merge with machines or become irrelevant in AI age. So just a few months ago, we had this headline, Elon Musk Neurrelink wins FDA approval for human study of brain implants. So this is where they basically cut out a piece of your skull. They replace it with a chip, a brain chip, if you will, and that's going to do a lot of things that they promise. Like the commentator said at the beginning here, it's going to cure autism.

It's going to allow you to browse your web browser, whatever. So there's an issue with this, and one of the issues is the testing. This was one of the headlines that came out. Musk's Neurrelink faces federal inquiry after killing 1,500 animals in testing. Now, here's some images. These images were obtained by Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. They're in a lawsuit this was discovery. These are images of monkeys used by Neurrelink and UC Davis,

which was collaborating to test these neuralinks on these monkeys. Physicians Committee response to Neurolinks, November 30. 20th, 2022 show and tell. This is a press release they put out, and they said this. An ongoing Physicians Committee lawsuit against the University of California, Davis, which partnered with NeurLink from 2017 to 2020, has revealed hundreds of pages of documents that show the horrors of the company's work. Neurlink employees drilled holes in recess, macaque, skulls, and implanted devices that often broke or caused severe infections. They failed to follow their own protocol, which resulted in at least one monkey suffering from bleeding in her brain and such

severe vomiting that she developed ulcers and her esophagus before she was killed. They go on to say monkeys suffered paralysis, seizures, and such poor psychological health that they pulled out their own hair. Ultimately, Neurrelink killed many of the monkeys used at UC Davis. Sounds like a product ready for warp speed to me. Let's get that out to the people as quick as we can get it. Right. And you know, this isn't, again, NeurLink is not the only company to be trying this brain shift, these neurosensors, but they're very public about it. And obviously, there appears to be some, issues with some of the testing, but this isn't specifically to the brain chip industry. We've seen this with Dr. Stanley Plotkin, as we've covered on this show before, the

godfather of vaccines. He admitted under oath that they tested on people under colonial rule, incarcerated people, people with disabilities. That's the modern day vaccination paradigm is resting upon that. So we're seeing kind of this is different as monkeys, but we're still seeing kind of these horrors going through. And now let's go to another video. Let's talk Elon Musk's rocket ships. This rocket launch happened and it's important for a couple of reasons. And you can see here the countdown and off it goes, ignitions and up into the air. The story here, researching this story, it really starts with an organization called Incutel. And we're going to look at this headline. Incutel names Dr. Michael D. Griffin as president and chief operating officer. Incutel is the venture capital

funding arm of the CIA. So it funds projects that further the CIA's objectives. That's what it's there for. Got it. So that brings us, now hold that space for a second. That brings us to a Bloomberg business article titled Elon Musk Space Dream Almost Killed Tesla. So in this article, Elon Musk went to Russia with some friends and they wanted to buy a rocket, an ICBM, intercontinental ballistic missile from Russia because they wanted to work. This was before space even started one year before they started. They wanted to understand how this technology works, maybe try to bring this into what eventually was SpaceX. Well, they got shut down. So they went back a year later in 2002. Remember, 2002 is when Griffin takes hold of Incutal. So here we pick up the

article. In February of 2002, the group returned to Russia, this time bringing Mike Griffin, who had worked for the CIA's venture capital arm Incutal, NASA's jet propulsion laboratory, and was just leaving orbital sciences, a maker of satellites and spacecraft. Musk was now looking for not one, but three missiles and had a briefcase full of cash, too. All right. So the story, this byline story follows Michael Griffin. And from then, he goes into NASA in 2005. He's appointed NASA administrator.

And that's the headline many NASA scientists encouraged by Griffin's appointments. Some people were excited about that. a year into his administratorship in NASA, he starts something that really NASA has never done. They opened up, they opened up the field for collaboration to commercial industry to get into orbit. So in 2006, they looked at what's called COTS, commercial orbital transportation services. So this guy goes from Incutal to NASA, and he puts this funding round together. And it says on May 5, 2006, the COTS round one finalists were selected. NASA made the decision to select two companies in order to allow for competition,

while at the same time being able to distribute sufficient funds of money to each partner for their development programs. On August 18th, Space Act agreements were signed with SpaceX and Rocket Plan Kistler. The companies were awarded a total of $278 million and $207 million, respectively. So SpaceX now is funded by NASA with the help of this program who Michael Griffin is running NASA as administrator. He's running around with Elon Musk before this, right, taking trips to Russia. Now he's working at NASA, and who does he give them money to? You know what? You know who's the frontrunner?

The guy I've been running all over the world with looking for a rocket. Right. With suitcases full of money, interesting, I would challenge anybody to try to get out of, go to a different, fly to a different state with a suitcase full of like $1,000 and see how that works. So we go now to August of 2022. Elon Musk has been launching rockets, SpaceX, I should say, has been launching rockets. It's from 2009 up to present day.

This headline in 2022, Team Mobile, SpaceX, team up to beam 5G from space. So now we're talking some pretty serious stuff. And that's the idea. They're talking about it. But in April of this year, it becomes a reality. SpaceX launches world's first 5G satellite to bring global connectivity to the internet of things. And just days ago, that video we just watch of that launch, this is why that's important. Here's the headline, SpaceX launches five.

thousand starlink satellite towards orbit and it says in the article 5,000 starlink satellites is a lot to be sure but the number is likely to grow far into the future. SpaceX has permission to deploy 12,000 starlink satellites and LEL that's low Earth orbit and it has applied for permission for about 30,000 more on top of that. So you can see these things up in the air when they launched these you can see them following a trail. They're basically canvassing the globe with with satellites that were to believe from the headlines that are going to be beaming 5G down. I'm not sure of any scientific studies that show the safety of that, but that's what's happening. And SpaceX has worked very closely.

In fact, over $5 billion from NASA, from the U.S. Navy, and it's basically working with the Department of Defense as well. They bring payloads up there and classified payloads. So we kind of don't really know exactly what's being put up. We know the satellites are. But the final piece here is, obviously, Elon Musk is very, very smart when it comes to money. So during the beginning of COVID, there was a race for a vaccine. Tesla jumped into that. And this was the headline on that one.

It says Tesla becomes manufacturing partner for biotech firm Kurevak working on COVID-19 vaccine. These are these printers that they were trying to get out. It didn't actually take off like they wanted it to. but Elon Musk goes on April 2023 on Twitter and says this. This will make some people upset, he writes, but I need to emphasize that accelerating synthetic MRNA technology was another silver lining. It is a revolution in medicine like going from analog to digital. The COVID-MRNA vaccine dosage level was too high,

and having a zillion booster shots was idiotic, causing more harm than good IMO, but I am convinced that synthetic MRNA is the surest path to curing cancer, among other things. So we have that piece in there for the, for the, for the COVID response. And during the COVID response, right the beginning of 2020, we have Richard Horton. He's the editor-in-chief of the Lancet. And he writes this.

The article is called The Coming Technocracy. He says, as the response to the pandemic unfolded, it has become all too clear that the work of scientists, that the work of scientists has put a powerful constraint on political action. Presidents and prime ministers now fear to step outside the boundaries set by science. technocracy is replacing democracy. Now, taking a moment really quick, technocracy is basically ruled by experts, ruled by scientists.

And in that paradigm, as a thought exercise, Elon Musk would be a king in that paradigm. If you really put that, his companies would be. I mean, look, you think about this. I mean, he's got, you know, you've got In QTel, which is a CIA-funded group working with him. He's gotten funding for his electric car from the government that then passed his laws

that you have to get electric car in order to live in the society. Everything he's doing appears to be intertwined with CIA government. Now he's going to have more satellites in space than any businessman in the world. He just bought a communications company with Twitter and he's turning that into X. And now he's going to have more satellites literally running the Internet of Things, which is that interconnect of every camera that follows us. All of these tracking systems, everything we're talking about, who owns it?

Elon Musk. And so this brings us back to a study. Now we go way back to the beginning of the 1930s. The depression just happened in the United States. People were looking for another way to govern themselves. And there was an organization that came up called Technocracy Inc., Technocracy Inc., and their idea was to have, it was a movement, an educational movement, they called themselves, but their idea was to have no borders, no countries, just one gigantic continental landmass

called the Technate. There's actually a map here from the 1940s. This is the technate. It's basically a techno-utopia run by engineers and scientists and experts. And they wanted to organize the world economies on the basis of not money. They actually didn't want people to have like jobs where they get paid money. They wanted to organize these world economies on the basis of energy consumption, where each person would receive a monthly energy allotment, kind of like a universal basic income.

Everything would be priced in energy, and that would be what they had to use each month. There are a couple of books. I want to just show the covers of these books, because I think it's interesting when you look at them. Look at this. This is technogos. It's one of the books they put out up on the top right. Science built civilization. Science must save civilization. I mean, we're talking about like automobile technology back then. Construct the New America, right? I mean, this is what this thinking is. Remove the borders and let scientists run this new space.

not politicians. Is that essentially the idea? Yeah, absolutely. And then they had a lot of other branching off ideas. But when you look at it, I mean, it's, there's a lot of similarities to what the World Economic Forum is talking about. There's a lot of similarities between a lot of organizations. But we go back to this article and this was in the CBC as Canada's, Canada's reporting. In science we trust, it says back in the first half of the 20th century, a group called Technocracy Incorporated wanted to reorganize society by putting scientists in charge. The movement flamed out, but its underlying message still appeals to many in Silicon Valley. Joshua Hattelman was a leader of Technocracy Incorporated in Canada from 1936 to 1941,

but eventually became disillusioned with both the organization in the country and packed up his young family to start a new in South Africa. In June of 1971, Haddellman's daughter, Maeve, gave birth to his first grandson. His name is Elon Musk. Wow. I mean, you just got to let that sink in for a second. I mean, just for, you know, and look, coincidence? Maybe. But look at this guy's coincidental life, right?

Now it turns out his grandfather had a dream of a technocratic world where science runs the world. His grandson is somehow being given gigantic funding projects by our government, by the CIA, all of which are advancing this technical world. that is giving him more and more power. And when you think about it, other than the pushback on Twitter, he has just been giving a free ride everywhere he goes. Until he talks about censorship, which is a subplot in itself, until he starts to allow people to have free and open debate

on one of the biggest social media platforms. So there's a lot, there's no clear ending to this, but there's a lot of intertwining stories, which I think people should find really interesting. That's amazing dive there, Jeff. And look, I want to point out we're not making any accusations here at all. All we're doing is laying out what I think we should all know, as we try to figure out what we think of the people around us. As I said at the beginning of this show, know your enemy and know your friend.

I mean, Elon Musk has been great. The Twitter files have allowed for some lawsuits that are really helping, you know, different organizations push back against the government. We'll see where that all goes. And again, I'm always torn. I want to believe that everyone is in this for the right reasons. I get this sense from Elon that he's trying to do what's right, but what does his right mean? What is his right compared to the rest of our right? Does it involve nature at all? Am I going to have a choice when you keep pushing an MRNA vaccine technology and advancing these things? And when we're

rushing science, imagine a world run by scientists that as we've shown so far up until this point in the show, where science isn't actually being done, where everything that's forced upon you, was tested on 175 people and 13 of them are now missing. Right, right. And looking at the history of Technocracy Incorporated, it kind of flamed out in the 70s. And at that time, it was the Vietnam War, it was there was an oil crisis.

And so the people's faith in leadership was kind of hitting an all-time low. And the idea of giving more power to these really smart leaders, these scientists, people were like, no, we're done with this. So that is kind of where we're at right now in society. people do not want to give up more power. So the idea of at least a soft technocracy coming in and saying we will be the savior, I don't think people will buy this. But, you know, how something might that might come in in another way? That's a conversation I think we have to have. Yeah. Jeffrey, great reporting. Amazing. I am so lucky to have you on our team here at the high wire. Keep up the good work and we'll see what you dig up next week. All right. Well, I have to make a correction.

This is something that we do officially when I or someone on the show makes a misstatement. I made a misstatement last week. Off the cuff I referenced the two weeks ago an interview with Geert Van Den Bosch. I talked about the fact that he brought up that, you know, essentially everybody has been vaccinated is a petri dish in a gain of function study. And I mentioned the fact that he had worked for the WHO that it comes from way up on high. he did Ebola vaccine trials, has probably one of the most impressive resumes of almost anyone in the vaccine and immunology space. But he reached out to me last week and said, Del, I did not work for the WHO. This is actually the email I received. Dear friends, see below,

it's indeed not true that I worked for the WHO. I do not come from that organization, but worked with them on several occasions. For example, as a consultant, and more importantly, during my term as senior Ebola program manager at Gavi, please correct as I don't want to give them any chance to pretend that I've been lying to you. I appreciate it, Gert, thanks for clarifying. I am sorry that I made this misstatement. So he was with Gavi that worked hand in hand with the WHO during these Ebola trials, but he was never working for the WHA. I promised Gert, I would make that clear. And so there you have it. We, of course, every single week essentially are releasing some new incredible find that has happened through our legal work. We're doing a lot of investigations.

We are constantly bringing Freedom of Information Act requests against people inside the government agencies. For those of you that don't know what a FOIA or Freedom of Information Act request is, it's essentially because our government works for us. We are their employers. I get to ask what Tony Fauci wrote in an email. Those are emails are my privy. I get to look at them. So we put in certain requests. And if you are on our newsletter, this is the type of thing you find out the moment we put it out. All you have to do to be a part of our newsletter and get this breaking news when we find out something no one else in the world knows at the moment. Just go to highwire.com. You just scroll down the page. Just as simple. Type in your email right there. Bam. And now not only do you get

these legal updates, you get all of the evidence we provide in the show. Every article we talk about, Every video that we play, you get a direct link right in your email box so that you can go back and look at something that really grabbed your attention and share it with your friends. I've said it before. I don't want you out there saying this is what Dull Big Tree said on the high white. It's ridiculous. What you should be able to say is this is what the CDC printed in a study. Here's the CDC's own pregnancy study and they still can't find these 13 pregnant women. You know, this is how this works.

And so anyway, those are the types of things that happen. I actually mixed that up. It wasn't a CDC study. It was a Pfizer study. But so this week, we actually, in our FOIA request, got a very, very revealing and important email. So this is the press release that we put out. Internal CDC presentation shows it knew for months that COVID-19 vaccine efficacy was waning and kept it a secret. Here's a paragraph that makes this make a lot of sense. In fact, the data shows that for the final week of July, fully vaccinated individuals made up an estimated 73% of COVID-19 cases and 63% of COVID-19 hospitalizations in the 65-plus age group.

Remember all of that? It's the unvaccinated filling the hospitals at not true. The presentation goes on to show evidence of rapidly waning immunity as infection rates. Five to six months post-vaccination were twice as high as infection rates in the three to four months post-vaccination. So this email wasn't covered in one of our requests. It just pops up. We were looking at some information, and then this just pops up because it has some of the words we were searching. Here's what that email looked like. Let's dive into this because everybody that's anybody was talking to each other in this.

This is a huge one. Marianne Gruber, right? There's the director, Office of Vaccine Research Review Center for Biologic, Evaluation, and Research for the FDA. And Phil Krauss, you've got Peter Marks, who is, you know, the voice that we've been seeing for the FDA the entire time telling us, oh, the vaccine works great. If you don't get it, then we can't stop the infection. So all of this, they get the email. What is this email? Well, here's what we found in the email. Basically it lays out, this is from an outside study that was done that the CDC is funded.

Our observational study, VE findings, show a very significant decrease in vaccine effectiveness against infection and hospitalization in the Delta phase. Remember, this is before Omicron of the pandemic for individuals vaccinated with either the Pfizer or the Dernia vaccine. They both suck for those five to six months post-vaccination versus those three to four months post-vaccination. So they're reading this, right? This study has been funded and looked at by the CDC.

I recognize that this information, which we brought to the CDC three weeks ago, three weeks ago with weekly updates since, is coming to you on a very short notice prior to the the upcoming Burbank, your FDA meeting. Please feel free to contact us if you would like to further discuss or even present our summary findings on Friday. So this is the FDA. They're all sitting there the FDA. They've just received this study that tells them right there in, you know, early 2021, that it doesn't look like this vaccine is working very well at all. It has serious weighing in immunity. Most of our hospitalizations now are the fully vaccinated individuals above the age of 65. Well, there's a newsflash, right?

This is how they talk about it. Well, let's show what they're looking at. They also have graphs looking at this. So it's not only that they got words, these are scientists, right? They're running our regulatory agency at the FDA, and it shows how in this 80% vaccine above the age of 65, so what they're saying is the vaccine rate of those that were above the age of 65 was 80% of them were fully vaccinated, yet an estimated 73% of COVID-19 cases occurred in fully vaccinated individuals.

It goes on to talk about the Delta Breakthrough Infection Weaning over time in 65 years and older. Breakthrough infection rates, five to six months post-vaccination are twice as high as three to four months post-vaccination. This thing's a disaster. It's absolutely going south on them, and they have all that information. This is what we've uncovered. What is Peter Marks at the FDA have to say about it? Remember they're saying you're about to go to a Verback meeting. You should have this information.

Well, it would have been nice to know the Department of Defense, and Jake was convinced. conducting this prior to now, which I'd know which CDC was talking to us, like we've been promising the world they are, also might have been nice for CDC to share the data. But better late than never, I guess. As I said yesterday, the totality of the evidence is remarkably consistent, meaning we are seeming waning everywhere, right? Is that what they told us? No. Right after seeing all of this information, they took to the television to tell us this. We absolutely need to stay focused on continuing to get COVID under control around the country. And that includes sticking with our prevention measures that we know work. That includes masking. And of course, that includes getting vaccinated, getting your family vaccinated, getting your booster if you're eligible.

As I've said over and over again, the way we will get to that form of control, whatever that number is, is by getting vaccinated. Because we have a very good, highly effective and safe vaccine. Today, 66 million Americans still have yet to get that first injection. And today we are losing about 1,500 people to COVID-19 deaths. That's like, you know, five jumbo jets crashing every day and all, for the most part, preventable because almost all of these are unvaccinated people. Vaccinating younger children against COVID-19 will bring us closer to returning to a sense of normalcy. Parents and guardians can rest assured that we've conducted a comprehensive and rigorous evaluation of the data on the vaccine's safety and effectiveness and that this vaccine meets our high standards. Based on immune responses in children 5 through 11 years of age, the vaccine appears to be 90.7% effective in preventing COVID-19.

While we are heading in the right direction, we're still not where we want to. to be. And what we need to do to ultimately get to a better place is we need people to go out there to get their vaccines and their boosters because we are now seeing with Omicron in particular that these vaccines and boosters are saving lives and keeping people out of the hospital. Our internal drive here is that we want to bring this pandemic to an end as rapidly as possible and save as many American lives as we possibly can. And so that is what drives us to want to get everyone vaccinated across the globe. How can we get to that level of control? Obviously, you know what the answer is. It's vaccination. Now, I suppose guys like Harold Ford that we saw at the beginning of the show

are perfectly happy with the fact that all of that ended up to not be true. And we'll go on for seven, eight, and nine vaccines. I suppose it doesn't matter that the Cleveland Clinic has reported that the more vaccines you get, the more likely you are to be infected, meaning there is a negative efficacy now. You are going to get infected more. in that the five interview that he gave. He says, I've already gotten COVID three times, even though he's gotten seven vaccines.

And now we know why this was the science. They knew it wasn't working, yet they still lie to you. It's why there's a huge difference in this world to me between the heroes and the zeros. I wanna be honest with you, all of this work that we do, these FOIA requests were we out them and show you. No one else. By the way, you're the first ones to see this

information. If you're only seeing it moments after those that are actually on our new newsletter got to see it. But here's the point. We are breaking stories nobody else has proving that our government agencies officially lied to us, had the actual science in their hands, and went on to lie to us. Meanwhile, you are funding with your cable bill and keep that television going that you watch all of those news agencies that brought those scientists into your. living room to lie to you and your children. I hope they didn't brainwash anyone you know while they were in your house. So I think you need to do something to try and balance that out. And here's where we're at. We are spending a fortune, really, when you think about it, trying

to constantly bring the pressure on the government of the United States. We are the most effective nonprofit that has ever been in bringing lawsuits and FOIA requests against government health agencies. No one has achieved what we've achieved. These are illegal wins. So I want to thank Aaron Siri and the amazing team that makes this happen on behalf of the informed consent action network. But we are just, we are at the maximum load that we can do. And I'm going to be totally honest because you deserve transparency. We're doing really good as a nonprofit. We were looking at our numbers just a couple of weeks ago. And we found out because the people that, you know, our CPA and that work with our numbers, work with a lot of nonprofits.

They're like, you're the only ones that haven't lost funding, that you aren't like falling through the fort. Everyone else. These are very hard times. They're going down. You're maintaining, which is awesome. And I want to thank all of you for all of your support. But here's what I want to point out.

We are maintaining while the world is collapsing around us, where the pharmaceutical industry is gearing for the next vaccine and paying for the next politicians in every state you live in, to force that vaccine. They've already done it. You know they're gonna do it again. You got Elon Musk out there. He's gonna try and figure out a way to get into this game and who is fighting for you?

Who is gonna make sure that you are gonna be allowed to walk down the street free and never have to wear a mask again? Never have to be vaccinated again. Who is pressuring your government? Who is suing your government? We are. So I guess it's okay. If we're just maintaining right here

and we're doing the maximum that we can do, that's great because God knows why we would wanna accelerate right now while we got them on our heels, why we wouldn't want to just charge over the hill where they're planning their next scheme on us. No, let's just wait here. Let's just stay right where we are because that'll work out just fine for all of us. I'm talking to you. I'm talking to you out there that know what we're saying is the truth. You are totally excited about the legal work we do, and you keep saying yourself, you know what, next week I'm going to start funding I can because they keep doing such amazing work. Well, right now we're maintaining and we're going to keep working

as hard as we can, I'm going to keep the law from doing exactly what we did last year, just like last year. Or do you want to help us get over the hill to see what they're doing next? Instead of finding out in our rearview mirror for a FOIA request, how they lie to us, we can catch them in the act. We can get right in there and stop it before it happens. We can't do that without you. We can't do it without every one of you that is watching this show right now, that is funding Fox and MSNBC and CNN and all of them to lie to you, why don't you put down that Starbucks cup, just look at it and say, you know what, once a week I'm going to drink one less cup of coffee,

and I'm going to give this $22 to the informed consent action network. That's what we'd like you to do. Thehighwire.com, just go up, hit that donate button. Say, I'm going to make a difference in this world. I'm going to sue my government, make sure they never, try to take my rights with the rights of my children away. I'm going to go to the most effective nonprofit that has ever been in this space,

and I'm going to decide to give $23 a month, or $10 a month, or $1 a month. It all works. It all matters. It all makes a difference. And if you're out there and you've done really well in life and you're starting to get really nervous about the world around you, you didn't make all this money to have a beautiful house

and a beautiful family, only to watch your free speech disappear. We have some special projects that you can get involved with. Maybe we'll even put your name on it if you want. So reach out to us at info at I candecide.org. And we will talk to you directly. We're doing great work here. I want to thank everybody.

Look, you know, we are accomplishing amazing things. And anyone could brag right now. I'm just not into bragging. I want more. I'm not satisfied. I won't be satisfied until, Tony Fauci's in jail and we're free to walk down the street however we want. All right, that's how I'm wired.

Okay, speaking of heroes, there are those doctors that always stand up that have stood up against the system and put it all on the line. They're out there, whether it's getting us ivermectin when we need it, when no one else will touch it, or just telling the truth and writing articles about it, or informing us where the world is actually going. My next guest is one of those superheroes that has put it on the line. She has stood in front of the European Union, our own government. She's been on news programs doing nothing but speaking her truth. I'm talking about Dr. Merrill Nass. And this is what she looks like in front of a camera.

Hello. My name is Dr. Merrill Lass. Dr. Nass. Dr. Nass. Dr. Meryl Nass, a physician of internal medicine. I tended to work for hospitals at first in the evening. and then as a hospitalist, 25, 30 years. On the side, I had become interested in biological warfare and trying to prevent it.

We have many opportunities using repurposed drugs, herbs, supplements, vitamins, to treat most conditions, and certainly to treat COVID. The drugs are available. You're just not being able to access them in most cases because of suppression. The new boosters that FDA has told manufacturers to start producing and testing are likely to have twice as much messenger RNA in them as the original shots. It's very likely that the side effects will be significantly higher. Nowadays we know that the vaccinated are

developing COVID at higher rates than the unvaccinated. Nobody's really talking about in public but the scientists are talking about it behind closed doors. There's absolutely no reason to get this vaccine. This information has been suppressed, deliberately suppressed, and people like me who try to get the information out are labeled as misinformation spedders. Everything I said has turned out to be absolutely accurate, but they didn't like it. You're a noted physician. You have testified all over the world. Rulers of many countries have been wantonly breaking the law over the last three years. Somebody above the level of our government is giving me the orders.

The WHO has become a trap to entrap the nations such that they lose sovereignty over health. We're undergoing a soft coup, and the idea is to create a whole new set of laws and ignore the existing human rights laws. And everybody else now has to start understanding that the globalists seem to be playing for all the marbles. Dr. Merrill Nass wrote an incredible article about the WHO. And, you know, this is the title. W.H.O's proposed amendments will increase man-made pandemics. This is a tour to force this article. It's really outstanding.

And it gets into a lot of some of the things we've even covered today. What's really behind it? Where is this all going? It's my honor and pleasure to be joined right now by Dr. Merrill Nass. Okay. Thanks for coming in today. It's really great to see you. to see you out on the speaking circuit, if you will, a lot.

This is the first time we've really gotten you in studios, so I want to thank you for making the effort being here. Yeah, well, I appreciate greatly the fact that you've invited me because even though I've been working on biological warfare and pandemics for 35 years, this issue of the WHO is the most important issue I've ever worked on. And it has important for everybody in the world.

So I'm glad you've given me your audience. Before we get into that, I just wanted so people have a sense of what it's like to, you know, do the work that you do. Your license is currently suspended. Suspended. In what state? Maine. In Maine. And what is the usual reason?

What are the reasons that they've given you? So the original reason, the reason what was suspended was spreading misinformation and also prescribing Ivermectin and hydroxychloric. Oh, man. Why'd you go and do that? we can't have things that work out there. That's right. You know, I took an oath to take care of patients, and they seemed to think I was supposed to break that oath.

But in any event, sprinting misinformation, I want everybody to know this. Misinformation is not a crime. Misinformation is mistaken things. I actually was telling the truth, so there wasn't any misinformation. But the federal government and the states are trying to make everybody think. Misinformation is a crime.

Right. And you should be reporting doctors and professionals who are spreading misinformation. So strangers reported me to the board. Oh, she was spreading misinformation on the Internet. We have something called the First Amendment. Free speech as well as freedom of religion and the press and assembly. And it's against the law for governments to suppress your free speech. And the Board of Medicine of the state government agency.

So they were actually breaking the law. And now we are suing them. for a malicious prosecution in which they used their role, you know, under cover of law as a state agency. Here's one of the headlines, Docs, I spend it for COVID misinfoos, cites freedom of speech. You're actually suing the medical board.

And is my understanding also each individual on the board? Every individual in their personal capacity. I love you. Can I just say that? I love that. You know, it's time to turn the tables here and go after the people that are suppressing free speech, especially when people that watch this show,

I mean, say you've got the FDA already basically saying when they're under oath, we never stopped anyone from using Ivermectin. In fact, we said you can use it whenever you want. So how is it a medical board is even allowed to say that it's misinformation? And to be taking someone's license without scientific studies, peer-reviewed, double-blind, you know, whatever, randomized controlled trials that show in the beginning that Ivermectin is dangerous, which would be difficult to do since millions of millions of people take it every, you know, was almost every day for lupus and things like that and then you've got hydroxy

chloroquine similarly all of these things are being taken all the time and yet if it's not dangerous and everyone's using it for all sorts of different things off-label why would you lose your license so exactly right so it isn't illegal it's perfectly legal to prescribe those drugs and the board should have known that that three lawyers on the board and a doctor on staff and then they had about eight doctors on the on the members so they all knew they were writing off later or maybe they didn't know a lot of doctors don't know very much about the legal underpinnings of medicine yeah but in any event by the

time it came to a hearing they dropped all of those charges they did not want to litigate against the First Amendment they did not want to litigate against off-label prescribing and they said the last you know we don't want to talk about the vaccine either take the vaccine out of this case even though they had been saying, you know, terrible things about the vaccine. But they knew, you know, they knew what the law was. So they were heavying me, you know, and I was supposed to roll over and give them, you know, a win that they could put in the national news, which my case went into the national news.

And I think they were shocked that I actually fought back. That wasn't part of their equation. I was 70 years old. clearly it was going to cost me more money than I'd ever be able to make in the rest of my career to compensate. And Children's Health Defense said they would fund my defense. And that was what allowed me to do this. That's great.

So taking it back at them, we'll continue to track that. Now let's get into your research and the work that you've done. This is an incredible article. And it's really, for me, you know, we're always trying to connect the dots here on the high water. What is really going on? Who's behind it? What's the goal? What does gain of function mean?

First of all, why write this particular article? So I've been begging other people to write articles that connect the dots because so many things are happening to us now, not just the pandemic, but we've got this transhumanism. We've got the gender identity issue, the CBDCs, you know, getting rid of money. I mean, there's so many things happening. and is it all part of the same thing, or is it all these things by chance just happening together? So I've had that in my mind, and I also am very interested in how the WHO

has been used to try to gain sovereignty over the nations of the world through public health. Right. So a new version of a proposed pandemic treaty that the WHO is managing came out to my country, months ago and I read it line by line and pondered it and I said oh my gosh this is unbelievably terrible I'm going to have to write about it and so I started writing about it and then I realized oh my goodness no this is too important now I have to add the background and I have to add the links

and I have to explain the details and it wound up to be this very long article but I did connect a ton of dots. You did. And I'm hoping people will read it because it takes 20 or 30 minutes to read. Yeah. But it gives you a ton of information on the history of biological warfare, gain of function, and how things are going now and what the plan is for the future, what the globalists are trying to do with the WHO, with vaccines, and other things. What are they trying to do? Well, I think the globalists, as we saw with COVID, already have control of most, if not all, of the developed countries' governments. And they have control of the bureaucratic structure of the WHO. And so the WHO is 85% funded through voluntary contributions, most of which are earmarked.

They're only getting 15% of their budget from the nations as assessments. So the WHO is already owned by private interests, and some of that money comes from nations, but still it's the nation's special interests. What is happening is there's a PNEP. So the WHO and its nations claimed that there has been a terrible catastrophe of the pandemic, and it's due to nations not cooperating with each other, and we have to do better. So we're going to make a treaty and it is not going to be like anything we've had before where the WHO gives nations recommendations. This is going to be binding.

So the WHO will give orders and every nation has to carry out the orders. So no Sweden allowed to sit there as an outlier and then just sort of laugh at all of us when they didn't lock down and end up having lower death rates than Europe and the nations around them. Or forget Africa, which just sailed through this thing almost unlawful. unscathed, didn't get vaccines, you know, barely at all across, you know, Africa and have one of the best outcomes. They don't want to have that. We got to have uniformity. If we're all going to die, we're going to die together. And they're particularly interested in Africa, by the way. Yeah. So, in fact, the idea is, so everyone's going to get vaccinated, of course. The vaccines are going to be developed in only 100 days instead of the 10 to 15 years they normally take.

And factories are being set up in Africa everywhere, local factories to make vaccines. So Bio-Intech has already sent a factory in, I think, 12 containers to Africa to start making MRNA vaccines. There will be enforced surveillance. So nations will have to swab their people and animals to see whether there are any viruses around that might be dangerous, which they call potential pandemic pathogens. They'll have to swab the animals, check the wastewater, but they also have to perform surveillance of our social media, of our electronics, and they're required to censor us.

They must only put out the WHO narrative on public health. Which is like YouTube and all of these social media we've been reporting on, or literally writing in there, we're going to follow whatever the WHO and everything else is missing. It doesn't matter that almost everything the WHO said throughout COVID proved to be wrong, which ultimately is misinformation now. That doesn't change it. We're still sticking with the WHO. And this would potentially supersede the First Amendment, which is a complicated issue. Yeah.

But my organization, Door to Freedom.org, has a poster that explains the legal underpinnings of how this pandemic treaty and new amendments to the existing WHO international health regulations could supersede the Constitution and U.S. law. So, you know, that's... Let me think about it. If you're going to homogenize a response across all nations, and it involves the civil liberties of every people in every single nation, we being having one of the strongest constitutions that's out there compared to somewhere else that's got a doubt.

dictatorship, how are you going to get that homogenization where we're all acting the same if this treaty doesn't, you know. Right. Provide it. Provide it. Right. If it doesn't break through, we can't have whatever documents your country's founded on getting in the way if we're going to have everybody acting the same way. Exactly. So Tadros is going to be your doctor. He will tell you what vaccines you must have, what drugs you must have if there's a pandemic, and what drugs you are not allowed to have. So you can first. forget ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine next time. Right.

There's a lot more to it than that. It's the way they're going to push the 100-day vaccines is by shaving time off of every part of vaccine development, like safety and efficacy. Every single new, I mean, we just reported today, right? You have a new booster. It's being tried on mice. There's no human studies being done.

These are brand new forms of the virus, right? if we're looking at, some people would even argue that Armacron wasn't the original virus to begin with, so it's a different virus. And so whatever, it doesn't matter how much it changed or if it's totally different, we're just going to try it on mice because, hey, our human trials went so well. We don't ever have to do that again, right? Well, precisely, you don't want to test it on humans because you might find out it's not safe. Right.

It doesn't work. What I want the audience to know is that you cannot do safety trials in animals. It's impossible. Animals behave very differently than humans. You must vaccinate or give a drug to humans and then you have to watch them. And you have to watch them for a period of time, like at least six months to find out what are the long-term side effects for vaccines? You often get autoimmune effects and they can take a considerable time to develop. Yeah.

So testing on mice is like not testing at all. So if we want to be bound by these new amendments and a new treaty, basically we're going to be. Basically, we can say goodbye to democracy and freedom. Now, the amendments require that the head of WHO, which would be Tedros, has to declare a public health emergency of international concern before he can then issue orders. Right. But with the current draft, there's no standards for him to do that.

They just did it with a virus with the death rate of 0.35%. They did it for monkeypox. Right. That's right. Right, monkeypox. I didn't even know anybody that had that issue. Yeah. No, he's declared three in the six years he's been in office. Wow. But for the pandemic treaty, he doesn't have to declare anything.

It is going to be in force all the time during pandemics and between pandemics. Really? I know. It's extraordinary. Why would you do that? Wow. Yeah. Now, both these documents will be voted on by the members of the WHO next May. And it's very likely that we will not see a final draft because they're already up to like the third or fourth draft on the documents. They're worked on by committees behind closed doors.

And last year, the WHO members voted in amendments that had not been made public before. So an original version has to be shown to the members and made public at least four months ahead of time. but then when they change it, you don't have to see the changes. So we are likely to find out what's in these documents next May after they are voted in. This is what's amazing when people feel like they can just sort of, oh, we made it through COVID. When I look back at it, you watch the president of the United States of America wipe away any, you know, body autonomy or right to privacy that you have, forced everyone he could to get the vaccine, everyone he felt like he had reach into, whether it was, large businesses over 100 people, working in the health care system.

So your government has now shown you they are fully down with forcing to take a product. Now, what I find concerning is something you talked about, it's some research we're doing. This isn't just, you know, and you have to imagine the next vaccine, whenever they think they really got something they want us all to get, but the technologies they're working on, they're working on vaccines that they can give to one person, but they spread it to everybody else, right? Yes. So we know for a fact that Pfizer was working on self-spreading vaccines. We know that self-spreading vaccines have been placed in bait for rabies to vaccinate wild animals against

rabies. So they've already done that. It's been done, I think probably for a couple of decades, maybe. Wow. So the technology exists. And a polio vaccine technically that they use, right, that they're using in the Middle East and the third world is designed. They know they can't get to everybody so they expect some shedding to be going on. Well, yes and no. So the oral polio vaccines, which are cheaper to make and are being used in poorer countries, in some people they set, these are live vaccines.

So they are attenuated, weakened strains of polio. And in some people, they set up a permanent infection in your gut, and you are releasing that virus in your stool. All that, it could be for a week or month, a year, or for your lifetime. Most people don't do that, but some do. So those live attenuated viruses get into the wastewater and sometimes they mutate back to be virulent. And so the majority of polio cases in the world are from mutated vaccine strain polio viruses. There's a much smaller number of cases that are actually the naturally occurring polio. Now, we had those cases.

in the United States until 1999, when finally our public health agency said, look, the only polio we're seeing is the vaccine strains, let's get rid of them and bring back the injected, killed poliovirus. Turns out that one doesn't work as well as the lives. So now there's a question, how many Americans who've been vaccinated with the injected vaccine are in fact susceptible to polio?

So that's another issue. It is. All these. issues people don't and I think it's interesting because they'll talk about polio running people we eradicated polio no you haven't that story is not over yet I mean not that I'm wishing you know a fate on the world right but they are claiming victory when they haven't actually achieved the victory and now we're seeing I think you know I saw some articles saying that they're seeing polio and wastewater in New York which means there may be trouble ahead on these issues

there's so much in this article but one of the things that really stood out to me that I kind of freaked me out a little bit was was you talk about Nixon and that when, you know, Nixon basically was the first one to sort of put a ban on biological weapons and things. And the reason you gave is essentially because they're easy to make. And he wanted, we had this advancement and we were in nuclear. We had nuclear weapons down and not everybody could afford to knew how to do that. But he wanted to stop this new technology that was coming. That would be easy for countries that didn't have money.

So that's why he set the ban. Tell me a little bit about it because I never heard that. Yes. So you have to remember that Kissinger was his advisor. Right. So, you know, very strategic guy. And he's in the, he's, you know, come into this war that he didn't start and he doesn't know how to get out of it. And he's getting a lot of pushback.

And so he wants to look good and came up with this idea that we could ban biological weapons. And we're going to be so, you know, we're wonderful. we're going to ban a whole class of weapons of mass destruction. We'll never have to worry about them. Again. So the idea was behind that that biological weapons were called the poor man's atomic bomb. And almost anybody could make them. They were used in World War I, actually, against horses.

They were developed and they were used in China by Japan in World War II and before World War II. And so they've been around more than 100 years, biological weapons, and any country or even small groups could potentially make them. So this would enable us to just get rid of that problem. So the poorer countries, people without a lot of money, would no longer have access to biological weapons. That was the idea. But in order to make it work, you had to have what they call challenge inspections.

So one country has to be able to challenge another, say, I think you're making biological weapons at this facility and we want to go in and look. And that's what is done with a chemical weapons treaty. So that was supposed to be put into the biological weapons treaty, but it never was. And so all these countries said we agree we're not going to make biological weapons anymore, but the way the treaty stands, it was a question of intent. So you're still allowed to do research on biological weapons. biological agents, you know, you weren't supposed to make quantities of weapons, your intention

was supposed to be peaceful. You know, I'm working on vaccines. Right. You know, but. Like I'm working on nuclear power. Exactly. Exactly. Exactly.

Exactly. Exactly. Exactly. So, so that's what happened. And then genetic engineering was developed right after Nixon came up with this idea, like the next year. And all of a sudden, we had this biotechnology. industry that was way advanced from everybody else. And so now we could actually potentially make better

biological weapons. And so the United States blocked the addition of provisions to that treaty that would have added the challenge inspections and other mechanisms to actually make it work, make it solid. And they've never been added, even though there are conferences every five years and their job of the conference is to add these things and strengthen the treaty.

So we're stuck with a non-workable treaty that we know the U.S. and Russia have broken in the past. And what we need right now to end biological warfare and end deliberate, because of deliberate pandemics, pandemics from labs are biological warfare. Right. And, you know, we call them gain of function, you know, research, so we don't have to say biological warfare or germ warfare research. Right. But it's the same thing.

So this is a biological warfare pandemic we've been living through for the last three and a half years. So we have Nixon is saying let's outlaw it because we're better at nuclear weapons. We'll hold on to our arsenal control of the world. Then all of a sudden we get really good at it a year later like, wait a minute, we can start doing things with this where we'll be able to beat the world here too. So let's not sort of ban it anymore. But we've come full circle because you talk about now in the WHO, Whereas we lived at a time where every nation was saying, we are not going to make biologists.

We won't do gain of function essentially. We won't mess with these viruses and bacteria because it would just be dangerous. Now you're saying that in this treaty, the WHO is basically sort of mandating every nation is going to make the, and we're all going to agree we're going to just keep making biological weapons and look at each other as long as we're all honest about it, it's going to be okay. Yeah, this is, you know, one of the totally crazy things in this treaty. And, you know, most people who don't have the background don't really see what they're doing. So what the treaty says, well, if your country is doing gain of function research, you should be sure to do it safely, you know, and do your best to prevent pandemics.

But at the same time, get rid of these administrative impediments to the gain of function research. They also say, you know, go out and surveil things all the time to find potential pandemic pathogens. And when you find them, share them globally with the WHO and all the other governments. What that is is proliferation of biological weapons. It's literally like open source gain of function research, right? Exactly. We're all just going to share. It's going to be okay as long as we all share what we just found and what we're,

we've just created so you can get into this game too, and we'll all do it together. And since we're all doing it, that's going to make us safer. And when another pandemic happens, we shared the pathogen. We don't know who spread it. Who do you blame? Every lab's got it and every lab around the world. Every country's working with it. I mean, it's absolute madness. It's insane. It's insanity. There are a few other crazy, there are many other crazy provisions in this treaty. So the draft that's now available, it's called the Bureau Draft, the WHO staff put this draft together. They want advanced commitments.

So let me tell you, they started this thing with advanced purchase commitments around 2004, and the WHO brought countries and vaccine manufacturers together and said, look, there's going to be future pandemics, and you're going to need vaccines. So sign on the dotted line, how many doses you want, and what you'll pay for them and commit to buying them, and then we can make sure these companies will be able to develop the vaccines you need for you

in a hurry when we have pandemics in the future. And all we have to do is have the WHO Director General declare a pandemic of a certain level, and that will be the trigger to make these contracts go into effect. So that's what happened in 2009. All these countries signed on the dotted line. We had this, what turned out to be a very much, mild flu, but they were very worried about it, called it, you know, another swine flu.

And countries had to buy billions and billions of dollars of vaccines. And the corporations got to make them very quickly, you know, in about six months or less. And they had no liability. The contracts took away all liability. And so that worked so well for the companies and the WHO, who is sponsored by them. Yeah. That they decided, and the U.S. government also, well, why don't we just keep doing that? We have people agree to things when we don't know what the things are going to be in the future.

Just agree to the future. You're buying your spot in the future. Yes. So we're going to create a committee called COP and they're going to make their own rules and they're going to decide what the provisions of this treaty are going to be. So just sign here. And we're going to make a third section of the WHO. we're going to build its own directorate.

We don't know what that's going to look like. We don't know what rules are going to make. That's just part of the treaty. You know, it'll all work out. Now, the U.S. government did the same thing. In the National Defense Authorization Act, which funds the Defense Department, last December, they wrote in a provision saying it is the sense of Congress. We're going to go along with the global biosecurity agenda,

one health, and whatever they come up with, basically, we're going to support. And the WHO. So the Congress, you know, in a 2,000-page, 1,700-page bill, who read it, probably no one, has already made U.S. law that we're going to follow the WHO's biosecurity agenda. You know, basically we're going to follow the pandemic treaty and the international health regulations. that aren't even, you know, finished yet. Yeah, it's crazy. Let me tell you something else. Yeah. This is another method by which the masks and the vaccine mandates got imposed on us. So remember, the federal government put out contracts in the CARES Act and in other acts

to schools, to doctors, organizations, etc. Sign on the dotted line. We're going to tell you in steps what you'll need to do for the pandemic and we'll give you this money. But if you don't comply with the terms of the contract. You can have to give it all back to us. So the schools took all this money, started remodeling, you know, buying tents and whatnot. And then in the second and third tranche is like, now you have to impose the mask mandate. Now you have to make sure all your kids are vaccinated. And they did. They would have to give everything back. They'd have to give back the money they got at front. Exactly. Wow. And the doctor's group's the same. This reminds me a little bit, you know, confessions of an economic hitman where we send

in people into third world nations say we're going to build you a whole electrical infrastructure, you know, water, power, and all of this. And we tell them, you know, you'll be able to afford it. We build it for them. They can't afford it. When they can't afford it, now they owe us. And we can take whatever resources we want. And in this case, resources are our children and the education and our freedom. And it's not only third world countries. I mean, I mean, that happened to Greece. You know, they had to give away their airports, their ports, their infrastructure, because Germany wanted it.

Germany had loaned the money. This is a paradigm. And yes, it's happening to us right now. How many people have lost their homes to hedge funds, you know, and vulture capitalism? Yeah, huge, huge problem. I mean, the fact that I think they're saying that, you know, Black Rock, Vanguard, State Street will own something like 60-something percent of our homes by 20, They're going in making cash offers, beating us all out of it.

And so the WEF is right. If they get their way, we're all going to be renting and we're going to like it. We won't own anything. Only the giant corporate monoliths. When you look at these things, and I think one of the things that, and I have a question about this, when we've looked at the World Health Organization in this treaty, it looks like our health agencies here in America are part of writing it. Yes.

Right? So it's... Absolutely. In some ways, it's not like it's being done to us. We're doing it, but what's weird about is it doesn't look like we're writing in control of it. Or are we? I mean, what do you think? Are we the head of it?

Or are we just a cog in this thing? Because I think in America, we always think, surely we're in charge of all of this, right? No matter what happens, we're America. Right. So as far as these WHO documents go, the United States has been. central in pushing them. Yeah. But they've lassoed the other countries.

They've corralled them and most of the developed ones and many of the third world ones are cooperating. Now, it's like who are we? I mean, are we Rochelle Wollenski and Joe Biden? No. These people have been bought, you know, Rochelle's husband got an NIAID contract for $16 million dollars, you know, in the months before they hired her to be the city. DC director. So this, I was told Tony I was told you'll have to give it all back if you don't follow through on all the

stages there are ahead of you. He didn't get it all at once. It was over time. So yeah, she had to go along with it. And, you know, we do not know what the mechanisms are for controlling these people at the top, but we know they're controlled. Now, so we probably have the best apparatchiks, you know, the best, uh, the best, uh, what, The people who we have these PR firms who decide on the message, but this has been going on a long time. You know, people were probably thinking about this after Nixon was president. You know, 20 years ago when the anthrax letters were sent, that was a root, those anthrax letters were a ruse to bring on a lot of this biosecurity agenda. The PEP Act and the Bioshield Act in 2004 and 2000,

2005 came in on the heels of the anthrax letters. There were no EUAs in the United States before 2005. You either had a licensed drug that had gone through a full FDA review or you had an experiment. No gray area. How can there be a gray area? But 2005 EUAs and no standards. For people that may be listening,

emergency use authorization meaning this ability to roll. rush your product to market before it's finished at safety trials because there's such an emergency, we just need to get it out to you. It doesn't have to start a safety trial or an efficacy trial. The law, the PEP Act, has no standards. The only standard is that the FDA needs to think it's likelier than not in an emergency that this product will help you. That's it.

Likelier than not. You don't have to inject it into one mouse. All the world hangs on likelier or not. Yes. Exactly. All right, so I want people to read your article. We could get into all the details. It's really deep.

How do you have hope? How do you have hope? Because I think this is one of the things I struggle with. Everywhere I go, people like really love what you're saying, I love what's going on, but the government looks owned. The UN looks like, it looks like the world is being taken over by globalists. What power do we have as individuals? Okay, so the globalists and their operatices have identified the

nodes of power in the world. What is operatic? I'll be honest. Sorry. That's a Russian word. It means they're henchmen. Okay. So the henchmen are clever, right?

They've designed this program for whoever the globalists are. You know, nobody's naming any names. We're not sure, but we think we know some of them. And they know how to do things. You know, they know how to legally get, you know, they know the games to play. They know how to get things through Congress. through Congress, they know how to get the right people elected, they probably control the bell, the electronic voting machines and all that.

But there are 8 billion people that want to say no. I mean, we don't want forced injections, we don't want to be damaged, we don't want to be mutated, and we want our kids to grow up with healthy food, clean water, you know, no mumbo-jumbo in their education, etc. And so to me, you know, They can't really control us if everybody understands what's going on. And the further along this path we go, as the news tightens, more and more people becoming aware. Right now, you know, you can, I mean, people are waking up.

If they really impose masks on us again, if they mandate, you know, this vaccine that hasn't been tested, the new one coming out next month, people will say no. But we have to talk to everyone we know. We have to make clear. We have to do much better education. You and I are working as hard as we can to educate the public. But I think it's this noose tightening along with the educate. And we have to do it better. I mean, it's complicated to explain the WHO and two documents,

and they have overlapping provisions. You know, and they're managed separately. They're voted in different ways. The Senate may or may not ratify them. blah blah, it's a lot of detail and most people can't take in the detail. Yeah. But I think they understand what's being done to their children. They understand what's been done to our food and our water and our air. Yeah. We don't know exactly who's doing it. We don't know for sure why.

But we know they're damaging us and we all, we just need to drop our little minor disagreements and realize it's us against this globalist cabal. It's the eight billion rest of us. Right. And we will win once we realize it and take our power. So I'm real hopeful. I just want to stop the damage before it gets any worse. Yeah. You're doing incredible work, so brilliant. The research is phenomenal. It's just it's great to know that you're out there so many like you. I will say at this point what gives me hope is it used to feel like, you know, you've been there for a long time. There's you and Sherry Tenpenny. There's this handful of doctors and

been putting it on the line for a long time. But you know, you've been there's just a handful of doctors. You're being joined now by Oxford and Harvard and Stanford. When I look at the amount of studies that have been done on this vaccine alone and all of the side effects of it, worldwide, Japan, Korea, everyone saying, I don't know. Houston, we got a problem here. I don't think you can stop that. The floodgate is open. Science is turning on this vaccine program.

I actually think the minority is these sick, you know, cabalists that are just trying to take up the world, but they're losing all faiths from people that are starting. still thinking and talented around them. I think you sort of, you cut that trail, you cut that path. It's a lot of scientists following you down it now. It's really exciting. So keep up the good work. Thank you.

Thank you for joining us today. Really amazing. All right, how do we follow your work? Where's the best? Oh, yes. So I have a substack, merrill nass.substack.com. And there is a new organization, which is door to freedom.org.

Goortaf Freedom.org. We are working on primarily the WHO and all the things that are happening and trying to connect dots. And we are growing. We are joined by Children's Health Defense, of course, in this effort, the Sovereignty Coalition. Great. And stand for freedom. So all of us are working together and we will be growing the network of organizations. We hope the Highwire will join us. And then we will. will push out international actions against this globalist plan. Thank you. Fantastic.

Keep up the great work. Really amazing. All right. Well, you know, we have the Freedom Files, which is a brand new set of short documentaries that we have interviews we conducted while we're at Freedom Fest. This week we're releasing two more on Monday. And if you're on our newsletter,

then you're gonna know when they're happening, when they're dropping, but you'll all be able to take a look at it. This week, we're going to talk to a freedom advocate that's from Africa, the country of Eritrea, where they used to be one of the greatest democracies in the world. Now they are under complete and total authoritarian rule. Angusim Tecklu is who we interviewed, an outspoken journalist that is bravely really risking his life to talk about authoritarian governments all over the world. He's trying to expose them.

Just an amazing guy and just one of the two great interviews that are going to be dropping in our freedom files. Take a look at this. I grow up in the space where there is no freedom of rest. There is basically zero freedoms that we know as human rights. So when I grow up, I mean, I and my colleagues decided we need to actually do something to create a space for alternative. news. Obviously that was very dangerous, which means we were always, always have to watch our backs. And it was actually a very dangerous work because once information starts to leave the country, obviously the government. They take notice. They were hunting us.

We live in an amazing time. There's so many brave individuals like Dr. Merrill Nass and all these people that are putting it on the line that realize how important it is right now at this moment. It's really important right now. If you can't tell what's going on here, I mean, you have our country and the nations of the world all saying, hey, whatever the WHO says, we're all going to go along with it. And we don't, why even call it a pandemic? Let's just go ahead and make everybody vaccinated anyway. Even easier, why don't we just make a vaccine that just sort of sheds all over everybody?

So you're going to be vaccinated whether you like it or not. the future. That's the future. You're about to leave your children. I'm about to leave my children. Why do you think I'm here? People say, you know, how is it? You're so passionate? I can't imagine not being passionate right now. I can't imagine what I would have been doing in my life. Even if I wasn't a journalist or something, if I just stumbled upon a show like the high wire and said, wait a minute, let me check out. Let me research it. Where's that studies? Let me get on that newsletter and see if that's actually true. The CDC actually did write that. Oh my God, that really is an email that they got inside the CDC see and they still lied to me? Are we going to live in this world? Will we actually accept that?

I mean, this is the moment in time where any intelligent species would step up and say, I think we're under threat here. I think I've got to step up. They've got to get outside of my comfort zone. Today, so many heroes that have stepped outside of their comfort zone compared to the zeros that are lying to us on a daily basis. I want to announce also one of our breaking legal We've been talking about the religious exemption that we brought back to Mississippi. Originally, it was a preliminary injunction, which meant we won, basically, on paper. The judges said, yes, I'm going to make sure everyone has to be vaccinated right now. But there was going to be a case down the road.

And there's always the change you could still lose that case, even though the judge is saying it looks like the evidence is on the side. I'm giving it a preliminary injunction. Well, it's all over, folks. It's done. They've thrown in the towel. They are never going to bring this thing to court. They've given up. And we are now officially forever until somebody else tries to come back and change the law. The law of the land in Mississippi is you have a religious exemption for your school children. Not preliminary. It's official. For some of you, it's like, that all sounds like the same thing. There's a lot of nuance to law. I'm still learning about it since I've got such a great lawyer to work with. But a huge win, similarly. I also want to point out that informed consent action network joined forces with PERC. In California, we've talked a lot about it, but the mandated HPV-Gardisil vaccine bill that went into schools. We worked with PERC. We hired a lobbyist, really for the first time, a top-level lobbyist.

So let's play this game their way. Well, first, we got them to not bring it to elementary schools, but then it was still going to universities. Then we got it against the universities, but there was still languaging. They have now tabled that bill. It has gone into the freezer. There is nothing going to be passed this year at all. So it is a total and complete victory and win. For everybody in California, I want to thank Amy Bond for really shouldering a lot of that work,

but bringing ICANN in. It was great work with Perk. There's victories everywhere. It's all happening. But we want to hire more lobbyists. You probably need a lobbyist in your state if you don't live here in Texas or in California. We want to get behind all these types of initiatives. you make that happen. You make it possible to push back against the WHO. Again, you may donate to different things. I want to ask you, what is the most important thing right now? Who is doing more for you? Give to whoever you believe that is, but we're on the front lines right now. And I was talking to a friend. Yes, so please, give $23 a month for $23. That's what we're asking for, but every single dollar counts. I was talking to a really good friend this week that was visiting. And,

Every once in a while we get our families together. And she was saying, you know, when you find yourself sort of stuck in a rut and it feels like it's all moving one direction, you've got to just make radical change your life. You've got to go out of your way and step out of your comfort zone and change your systems, right? If you're complaining about the world as you see it, the only thing you can do is get radical with your own life. I want to really request that you all try something, especially those of you, that are sitting there and saying the world doesn't seem like it's working and I'm losing all hope. I want you to get radical this week. I want you to do something that you probably never do.

I want you to read the entire article written by Dr. Merrill Nass. Yes, it's going to take you 30 whole minutes and I know you're busy. But instead of just grabbing a little smattering and say, wow, that was really an interesting conversation, I pretty much got the gist because of what Dell and Merrill said there right on the show. No, you didn't. No, you didn't. We need inform people. I need you to be able to talk about this.

You actually need to understand the details. But instead of taking my word for it, get radical this week. Do something different. Go that one extra step. We all need to start trying to be the best of ourselves. Not just okay. Not just, you know, I'm doing pretty good. I'm getting along.

Forget getting along. How about why don't we start being spectacular? So here's what I want you to do. If you haven't signed up to our newsletter, do it. See what happens. Get radical. Just say, you know what? I'm going to take that extra step for the next five minutes after I've watched this show right now. I'm going to go on the website, www.com.

I'm going to go down and I'm going to put my email in there so I have Merrill NASA's article right there really easy. And all the other great things that the high wire shares. But I'm going to read that article. This is the easiest way to do it. Then I'm going to go up to the top of the page and I'm going to hit the donate button. And I'm going to say, you know what, even if it's only a dollar. This is the experiment. Start with a dollar.

Just go ahead and say, you know what? I'm going to start being a donating part of this world. I'm going to get radical. I'm going to do something different than I've done. I don't usually give to organizations unless they have to charge me in order to watch my television. I wouldn't pay Fox on purpose, but it's the only way I can watch my TV. Get radical. Get involved.

Do something different this week for yourself. Just do it for yourself. See what it feels like. See if it actually changes how you see it. the world just a little bit. Because if you want change, if you're worried about where this world is going, it literally, literally starts with you. That's all the highwire is. The high wire was literally like two or three people. We all said, you know what? Let's get radical. I've never made, you know, I've never been in front of a camera, really. That's how I started the high wire. Let me sit in front of

the camera. I'm going to deliver. Got Catherine and Patrick to say, could you, you figure out how to run some things and we're going to try and come up with a little story here let's do something different and here we are the high wire winning lawsuits against the fdaa the cdc the n iH health and human services did i ever imagine this was possible i guess i had a feeling i knew that humanity is capable of great things and what would happen if i just started putting one foot in front of the other but i'll tell you we're living our lives inside here the people that work with me beyond our wildest dreams. Why? Because we started with a simple, radical effort. Try it on, and I'll see you next week.