The Highwire with Del Bigtree - Episode 338: TURBO TROUBLE

Episode Date: September 22, 2023

The Florida Department of Health has Boldly Recommended Against the COVID Booster for People Under 65 years old, Citing the Lack of Clinical Data. Dr. Joseph Ladapo Joins the Program To Discuss Why; The FDA Has Approved the COVD Booster With Virtually No Data. Jefferey Jaxen Breaks Down The Shocking Numbers They DO Have; A New ‘Fruit Film’ Lacks appeal; Oncologist, Dr. William Makis, Explores Potential, and Very Possible, Pathways by Which mRNA Vaccines Are Triggering ‘Turbo Cancers.’ Guests: Joseph A. Ladapo, M.D., Ph.D., William Makis, 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 to step out onto the high wire. You know, for years and years, many of us have really wanted to trust the science and believed that, you know, brand new products that were going to be released by the FDA or the CDC would go through massive testing, billions of dollars of R&D would be involved. But what if you started finding out that the FDA and the CDC were spending much, much less money on the actual science around the product and a lot more of it on the propaganda, of selling it. That appears to be what's happening with the new COVID booster that they could only afford the test on 10 mice, but they could all hit the radio waves to say this.

New vaccine booster shots could be available next week. The CDC has issued its recommendation for the updated COVID booster. The CDC recommended this evening that all Americans six months and older should get a new booster. Materna and Pfizer say their new vaccines appear effective against the new BA-286 variant, which has appeared in Michigan, New York, Ohio, and Virginia. What this booster will do is protect us against severe disease, hospitalization, and the data so far indicate that the booster is well-batched to those strains. If you get COVID after getting vaccinated, it's going to be much milder. You're less likely to miss work. You're less likely to miss school.

Second, you're less likely to spread it to others, so maybe you're not high risk. maybe grandma is. This recommendation was based on extensive data and clinical trials. As a doctor, a mom, a wife, a daughter, and head of the CDC, I would not recommend anything to others that I wouldn't recommend for my own family. Tell everybody, don't rely on the fact that you had a vaccine in the past. It will not help you this time around. I think we're going to start hearing the terminology changing as well, Chris.

than calling things boosters. I think that the CDC is going to try to communicate that this is going to turn into possibly an annual vaccine, much like the flu shot. Your annual flu shot. And so it's time for your annual COVID shot. Get them together. It makes the fall, the winter, the holidays, just much safer, much better for everybody. Well, obviously, we've reported a lot about the COVID vaccine and the booster shots. We have been critical of the science behind this, but we're not alone. A recent post coming from the health department in Florida written by Surgeon General Joseph Lattipo said this. CDC and FDA continue to push COVID vaccines that are not backed by clinical evidence, but blind faith alone with zero regard for widespread immunity. The American people deserve the truth,

but the Biden administration only wants to control your behavior. It goes on to say, in this letter based on the high rate of global immunity and currently available data, the state Surgeon General recommends against the COVID-19 booster for individuals under 65. Individuals 65 and older should discuss this information with their health care provider, including potential concerns outlined in this guidance. And of course, the mainstream media that tends to side with the pharmaceutical industry, almost 100% of the time, has had some shocking headlines on this. New York Post, Florida Surgeon General, goes on anti-vaccine rant against the

new COVID-19 booster. Other headlines former Florida Surgeon General rebukes DeSantis administration's claims on COVID vaccines. Florida's big lie on vaccines is a scary preview of how GOP would run America. Well, it is my honor and pleasure to be joined now by the author of Transcend Fear, a blueprint for mindful leadership in public health, Dr. Joseph Lattipo. Dr. Ladoop, thank you for taking the time to join us today. Hey, thanks so much, Dale. Now, I know it's not lost on you that putting out this recommendation from the health department in Florida would be met with some pushback. So why do it? Why put yourself in that level of controversy?

As far as I know, you're the only surgeon general in the 50 states, United States of America, coming out and making a statement against getting the COVID booster. So why do it? because sovereignty matters, because data and truth matter, and because people have every God-given right to make decisions that are informed and not by coercion and not by misdirection and not by making things up and twisting the language so that, yes, they're backed by clinical trials, as the director of the CBC said, but which clinical trial? Not ones of the products that your doctor is then offering you in the office. There's a lot of slight of hand and dishonest communication that is being used to get people to make, to not even make a decision, to make the decision

that they want you to make, which is not proper. You know, I found it shocking too when Mandy Cohen says, you know, this is backed by robust, you know, data and science and information when we know that ultimately this current booster, if you will, but especially, look, I mean, I think the fact that they want to call it a new vaccine means actually it should probably have more testing. If it's not just a booster of what we've seen before, it's something different. It's made for this year. And what are we talking? Something like 10 mice was the study that was done on it. And, you know, you've done a lot of research and science and medicine as part of your background. Do mice actually, like, are they a good representation for human beings when it comes to efficacy and safety of a vaccine? If it's good for mice, is it good for the gander, as they say? Well, don't forget, though, we're not just talking about mice.

We're talking about 10 of them here. Right. Robust, huge. This whole thing, it's really. it's like a it's just like we're in a in a parallel dystopian universe i mean the whole thing is completely ridiculous yeah the notion that clinical trials that were performed three years ago when there was no immunity and we were dealing with a very different form of the vaccine uh pardon me of the virus in terms of its virulence how sick it was making people is somehow applicable to where we are now

some people have already gotten more than half dozen shots and the landscape is completely different. I mean, that is just completely ridiculous. And you don't need to go to medical school or have a PhD to be able to see that one for what it is. It was possible to do clinical trials. COVID is always around. It was completely possible to do clinical trials. But somehow the CDC and the FDA did not force pharmaceutical companies to do that. And now they want to have people believe things that there is no evidence for them. And I just want to add one other thing about this guidance that we put out here in Florida. Yes, we don't recommend it for people under 65, but we don't encourage it for people over 65 either. There's so much uncertainty, and at least at older ages,

you can have more of a discussion. But it's really not. It's really not. It's, it's really not. It's It's not a product that, based on its safety, really that anyone, in my opinion, should be taken. You cite a lot of science in your letter. There's a bunch of studies on this. In your opinion, if someone's going to be talking to a friend or a relative about this issue, what would sort of be the top three points that you think your average person should get across about this booster, the science behind it, or what do you think is, you know, where do we start with this conversation when we say maybe you want to do a little bit more investigation?

We can talk about how cute the mice are. That would be one place to start. After that, the remaining points would be, first, it is really, so many people think that there are clinical trials for these boosters. They do not exist. There are no clinical trials that inform their safety or their efficacy, let alone the tiny, minuscule clinical trial data we do have from Moderna. There were safety events, and we don't even know what those were.

So there's no clinical trial data for these about safety or efficacy. People need to know that. I mean, so many people who are in doctor's offices receiving it do not know that. The second is that there appears to be a concern about negative vaccine effectiveness with a biological root. And what that means is that now there are multiple studies that show that individuals who receive the vaccine, studies from all over different countries, different parts of the world, that people who receive the vaccines are eventually at an increased risk of contracting COVID-19. This is completely abnormal.

It's never been acknowledged by the CDC or the FDA, and that's wrong. Multiple studies now are showing this. It's unclear. I really do believe it's probably a biological effect. I don't think it's a, it's an analytical finding or an anomaly. I think it actually is a very real finding with implications for health. That's another important point. And to be clear, I mean, we've been looking at the Cleveland Clinic study on exactly that,

which was done on doctors and nurses. Cleveland Clinic, I think, knows what they're talking about. They reported negative efficacy and increasing with the amount of vaccines, the more vaccines they received as doctors and nurses, the more likely they were to be infected versus not getting the vaccines at all. So those are really troubling findings. And it is shocking to have Cleveland Clinic, I think, one of the top research facilities in America. And the CDC and FDA refused to even acknowledge that study and all the other ones you're talking about.

So, I mean, it's right there. It's right under our noses. And yet the CDC acts like they're sticking their hands. I mean, they are sticking their heads in the sand. That is absolutely true. And, you know, Del, it's just, it's another example of how the norms, things that really should happen. that aren't happening are somehow being, being, continuing to happen. Right. And forgive me for the in eloquence there. But it's just, it is, you know,

it's eventually will be at a point where it'll be obvious that so many things that shouldn't have happened, happened, and somehow people allow them to happen. But we're not there yet, at least not widely enough. I do think more Americans do recognize that some Something's going on and they're not getting a straight story, but still you've got the FD and the CDC doing these things. And then the third point I can say, Dell, is that something else in that guidance is the fact that this subclinical mitochondrialitis, we don't understand it well. Now there are at least two studies that show it's quite common. You know, we're talking two, three, four percent of people potentially higher. And while the studies that have been performed show a low level of inflammation, they're actually

not optimal studies because these studies are catching the inflammation when it's on the way down, which is to say that we don't know how high the troponin peaks. That's the protein that is the measure of cardiac inflammation. It is so obvious that that needs to be studied. it's spellbound. It's unbelievable that that's not being studied. It's completely normal, this finding. And again, something that the FDA and the CDC are totally silent on. So it's upside down. It's twilight zone. But Americans absolutely have a right to be able to make an informed decision. And you can't do it when they're shoving it down your throat and not giving you a full picture of the risks. It's really amazing. My last question is I know you're on the run. You're busy. Really appreciate the time. You know, when you see these headlines attacking you, and I, you know, I do some of these interviews too, but you're doing these interviews. It's just, are they impervious to reason? How do you're, the journalist you're talking to listen to a study of 10 mice feel confident that they can attack you on being against that robust level of science?

Right, right. I'm the unreasonable one, right? Not the not the, not the. a billion-billion-dollar drug companies that are trying to pass on 10 mice as evidence that something's going to make you healthier. Yeah, actually, it's interesting because my wife and I, Brianne and I talk about this. And I think we are at a point now where there just seem to be some people who are completely impervious, completely impervious to reason, to thought, to data. And I hate to say it, but I'm not. I don't think that there's, I don't think that there's much hope for those people at this point

in the, in, in the post-pandemic period. Fortunately, you know, that, that, that, that, that, that, that movable middle, if you will, since the beginning of the pandemic, that move to movable middle has only gone in direction, right? They've only gone from either believing or doubting the FDA, CC, and all the doctors on television to solidly doubting it and even believing data and believing arguments that seem to be coming from a more benevolent place, a place that's looking out for your interests rather than for some agenda or for profits. And those people are moving and they keep moving and I don't

think we're going to see much uptake. And I'm glad to say it because, and I'll be glad to see it, because these are really terrible products that shouldn't be, absolutely shouldn't be in human beings. And the safety news, I'm sure, is only going to get worse. Well, I appreciate that under the circumstances that you are speaking out, you're in a position of both knowledge, contact with the science, you're aware of it. It's a part of your background, and you're using a very important pulpit, I think, to bring the truth out.

So thank you for your courage. Thank you for your great work. And I know that's one of the reasons why I always see is just red tail lights pouring into Florida as more and more people are moving to a place that still, you know, believes in freedom and certainly freedom of choice and body autonomy. Dr. Joseph Ladov, thank you for taking the time to join us today. Thanks so much, yeah. All right. Take care. All right, we'll have a huge show coming up. And as we're talking about, you know, it's one thing that thing doesn't work at all.

or even worse, causes you to be more infected, more often, as is the case in all these studies of the negative efficacy. But if that was the only problem, I know, I guess it would be okay to go out and make yourself more vulnerable to the virus. But what if it's causing cancer or even worse, turbo cancer? I'm going to speak to an oncologist that has been looking at these cases around the world, and he's very alarmed. Dr. William Macchus is coming up in just a few moments.

First, it's time for the Jackson Report. It's amazing, Jeffrey, as we sit here, you know, that anyone can believe in the science. I mean, we know that the CDC and the FDA confidence in these regulatory agencies are at an all-time low, but seriously, to stand in on television and say it appears that this is going to be good against the virus from, you know, 10 mice or, you know, our thoughts are. I mean, it's just, it's literally science has been reduced to wishable thinking. Yeah, it's interesting because Dr. Mandy Cohen came in from North Carolina to lead the CDC in the wake of Rochelle Walensky. And her job was to bring back integrity, bring back trust. And it doesn't appear that that's really happening.

And let's build on some of the things that Dr. Lodipo just stated. Let's take a deeper dive into this booster. We've been covering these booster releases now for over a year. They're basically chasing variants at this point. And they're always late, they're always late to the punch. Let's go to Collateral Global. Which, by the way, is exactly been the problem with the flu shot, right? So now we have two shots that will probably be less than 10% effective as people.

Again, same thing, just chasing the new variant and getting it wrong almost all the time. So now have two of those terrible vaccines. Low efficacy, can't test the safety data when you're uploading these new variants and they're in time, as we saw with this booster. So we go to Collateral Global. This is an outlet. It's been doing some great reporting. This is the headline here.

The CDC goes it alone with universal COVID booster recommendation. So the CDC's position is a global outlier. So they're contradicting the European Union. They're contradicting the WHO whose guidelines are only focusing on high-risk individuals. So we're now, the U.S. is now a global outlier. And you can see in that news package at the top of the show, they're trying to massage this message now and saying, they're not going saying, this is the sixth booster. This is the seventh booster.

So they're not using numbers anymore because obviously when you start saying that, the question is, why so many boosters? Isn't this thing working? So they're saying, you know, hey, it's just like the flu shot. You just take it maybe in the same arm if you want to. It's just a yearly shot because COVID's always with us. And you have Ashish Jha. He's really the point man for this. He's out there.

He's the former White House COVID response leader. He's out there saying this new booster will reduce hospitalizations. It will keep you from having long COVID. It'll the likelihood you won't spread the vaccine. the transmission, none of this. So he looks like a doctor. He has the credentials of a doctor, but he's not talking like a doctor because it's not, it's not supported by science, as Dr. LaDipo just said. So let's jump right into ASIP. So this advisory committee on immunization practices, the ASIP committee. And this is the CDC committee that's responsible for making these recommendations

continually on these boosters. Let's go right to their slide deck that they were looking at when they presented this data and they voted 13 to one to push this booster out. on six months and older. So we have, Jeffrey, let me just take a second because I know we have a brand new audience here to understand what we're talking when we talk about the advisory committee on immunization practices.

Everybody, we all know the FDA, the CDC. The FDA is the one that decides of a product is safe enough to be on the market at all. Like, does it even get to be on the market? So that's the FDA does. They have a body professional scientists and doctors that are supposed to be objective that come in to look at all the science

being presented by the manufacturer and say, you know what, it looks like this thing works. We'll put it on the market. Then it moves over to the CDC. And the CDC has a similar advisory committee of professional scientists and doctors that take in all of the, you know, again, Pfizer or Moderna or these companies,

manufacturers will make the product. We'll talk about all the great things it does and tell us that the science they did made it look like it's really effective. And these 10 mice show us that this product's going to be really effective. And then that committee then takes it all in and they vote. And that vote goes then to the body of the CDC. They can overturn it.

They never do. They go with whatever that advisory community is. So that's what we're talking about. What are they voting on? The ASIP, this group of scientists, all sat and listened to Pfizer or Moderna or whoever the product's made by, and all that they claim the vaccine can do. And then they decide if they're going to add it to the recommended schedule by the CDC to either children or adults. All right.

So that's what we're looking at. Just want to make sure that everyone understood how this works. Yeah. And for the public, who probably isn't really paying attention to, much of that stuff, it really pops through the surface when ASIP gives it that thumbs up. That's when the handoff happens to the news wires. That's when the politicians pick it up in each state and start saying this thing is ACA recommend it. That's when the schools pick it up, put it on the schedule for admission in schools. So this is where it really breaks through and

gets some traction in the public space. So let's go to the slides, some of the slides that they're looking at. And this one in particular, a lot of people are talking about in that green box right in the middle, it says per million doses in 12 to 17 year old. old's over six months. They're saying the estimated COVID-19 hospitalizations prevented versus potential myocarditis cases for every million doses. So you have per million doses from 12 to 17 years old, zero to one deaths prevented. Okay. So it's that's interesting because you're giving a million doses and they're saying in that dose range, we're going to prevent zero to one death. So which is it? Because those are, that's a big gap between we're not going to prevent any deaths or we're going to

prevent one. That's a huge conversation. Look at all those numbers. I mean, honestly, folks, let's look at the math. If we think we know what we're talking about over a million, this is the problem with studies of 10 mice. It's a giant guesswork shown by here. We think it's going to prevent 19 to 95 hospitalizations. Do you realize how gigantic a gap that is? Five to 19 ICU admissions out of a million? I mean, that's guessing, folks. It says it right there. It should be so much tighter than that. If you're doing well-powered studies, you would have a much better understanding of what you're talking about. But zero, maybe not at all, maybe one, I don't know. But we think it will stop somebody from dying. If we give it to a million people.

Let me reintroduce a term here, reactogenicity. So we saw this with the vaccination. When you get the vaccination, there's a scale of reactogenicity. These are just reactions one gets. And it's a categorization of these reactions after a vaccine. So it goes from zero, which is no reaction. You can see here the chart, one, two, three, and four. Four is the highest. It's a life-threatening reaction. Definitely don't want that. Three, severe, still probably don't want that. Incapacitating, unable to perform usual duties requires absenteeism or bed rest. You know, we saw that when the vaccine first came out. People are saying, boy, it really, you know, people are in bed for a day or two. The arm is really sore. You have a fever for a couple days. But remember how the media spun that. They said, well, that's how you know it's working. This is the first vaccine. We really, saw that really packed this punch here. So remember, we have this idea of reactogenicity, a million doses, zero to one deaths. So now let's look at another slide, the ASIP, the ASIP doctors and scientists were looking at when they made this decision for the boosters. And it's this slide here, reactogenicity. And this was taken from Pfizer and Moderna's biological license application. So this

this was their data. This was their gold standard data that they gave to the FDA to say, we want this thing approved. Here's our best take at this. And if you look at this data, Pfizer is 12 through 15 year old and Moderna is 12 through 17 year old. It's pretty much that same age range as that first slide saying we'd give a million vaccines to this age range, we can prevent maybe zero to one deaths. Well, if you crunch these numbers, you get something interesting. And a former New York Times reporter Alex Bernersen, he did that and he put this tweet out, by looking at this at looking at these two slides and he said this again from at cdc gov's own data one million m rna covots for teens will prevent zero to one covid deaths and cause 100 000 to 200 000

severe side effects yes you read that right so we crunch the numbers as well we we had pretty similar numbers we had about 90 000 200 000 depending on fiser moderners vaccine so you have a grade three or higher severe reactogenicity if you're getting this vaccine in that age group from their own licensing data from Pfizer-Muars own licensing data so you expand that out. Let's bring back to charter. Let's leave deaths out of it for a second. Let's that five to 19. Look it. They say that you'll prevent 19 to 1995 hospitalizations prevented. But honestly, if one to 200,000 are so sick, severe, how many hospitalizations that are going to be? It's going to be well over there. You got to think

hundred thousand i don't know at least upper tens of thousands so literally this vaccine is making more people sick than it's preventing anything and we're seeing this in other data too so again this is the asip slide there should have been some scrutiny there there should have been some people stopping asking questions there wasn't obviously really this thing gets the vote gets pushed through but a study came out during this time and it was available for the asip conversation but i didn't hear anybody bring it up So this is the study here. It's published in September of this year by the journal in the journal for the Royal Society for Public Health titled Inability to Work Following COVID-19 Vaccination. And it says a relevant aspect for future booster vaccinations. And they say the results among 1,704 health care workers enrolled 595 or that equates to 34.9%. So over a third of the health care workers were on sick leave following at least one COVID-19 vaccination, leading to a total of 1,550 sick days, both the absolute sick days and the rate of health care workers on sick leave

significantly increased with each subsequent vaccination. Now, is this coming out, is this, are these numbers coming out of England or is this an American, so it's out of England that we're seeing these percentages? Correct. Yes. And it's dose dependent. So it says the sick leave significantly increased with each subsequent vaccination. So again, you're getting a dose of what we saw with the Cleveland Clinic study. Same thing. The more they got, the sicker they got with those healthcare workers. And so what we do here on this show is we're always trying to link data. We're saying, well, that sounds a lot like this.

This sounds a lot like that. And what's really interesting here is we sued the informed consent action network attorneys sued the CDC two times in order to get a court order for the CDC to release their VSAFE data. The VSAFE data was a smartphone enabled data system for people to enroll in after they received their COVID vaccine and they could log updates, daily updates. of any type of safety issues, reactogenicity, things like that. So remember, this study we just looked at,

said 34.9% of health care workers after the first shot had to have, we're on sick leave. Now let's look at our V-save dashboard we created using that information that we received from the CDC. And you can see here what we have is the adverse health impacts on this dashboard. And we have the adverse health impacts. It's that color bar, starting with the yellow color, going into the red and you have yellow being unable to perform normal activities which is exactly what

that category three they're talking about is missed work or school and then the worst case required medical care going to a hospital or an urgent care facility so those three groups you're saying exactly and that's over three million people there the total number of people total individuals that use this the data we received from was just over 10 million so if you crunch these numbers into a percentage, that gets us 32.6% of people with these adverse health impacts. Wow. Well, that's interesting because the study we just showed you with the healthcare workers with 34.9%. So we're with in about a 2% range of accuracy here. So this is a well over a year ago when we provided that VSAFE data, which we said was the most robust data you could imagine.

Remember folks, you don't have controls. When you have the VAIR system, the vaccine adverse events reporting system, you have nothing. to compare it to. In this case, we had all 10 million people that received it that were on it. We know who did well. We know who did it. And we're able to come up with a percentage saying of those that enrolled in this system, over 30%, 32.6% found themselves unable to go to work, unable to, or maybe needing hospitalization inside that category. And now well over a year later, across the ocean in the UK, this vaccine is having the same outcome with health care workers, what tells us that science repeating itself.

I think you can bank on that now, and you can say that this product is causing severe illness in over 30% across the board no matter where you are in the world. That's devastating. And why anyone would submit themselves to that is beyond anything we can imagine. They knew about it. Absolutely. And Del, you and I have been journalists in this space, this vaccine space, this medical space, for almost a decade.

And we've seen this conversation play out. And in legacy media, mainstream media, there's just basically two talking points that they used to say, the injuries are one in a million and vaccines are safe and effective. That's always repeated. Boom, boom, boom. When COVID happened, they tried to keep doing that. And it really backfired on them. And now it's pretty much out the window.

You have people like now Paul Offit, Dr. Paul Offett, he's a creative. a vaccine creator. He's a member of Verbat Committee for FDA. He's a very vocal media voice that they go to quite a bit for conversations. Even he now is saying, look, we need to change our messaging. Take a listen. All right. I completely agree with you that the absolutism worked against us. You can see where it comes from. I mean, you're having, you know, thousands of people dying every day and you want them to use this product. And so you tend to be absoluteism. about it. You don't want to show any evidence that you're wavering because if it looks like you're wavering, then people won't get that product. And, you know, and I've seen the pushback on that

with when the bivalence vaccine was presented to our committee. I mean, I'm the FDA vaccine advisory committee back in June of 2022. It didn't look very good. I mean, the data in terms of whether that bavit vaccine, remember, this was the data we were presented was with BA1, which was the original omicron strain, and then compared with the Wuhan vaccine. Those are data were pretty unconvincing. Plus, by the time we sat down, B.A.1 was gone. So, okay, well, let's use B84 or B85, right? Because that's what was current then.

So we had no human data. We had no human data on B84B5. We said, okay, well, BA1 maybe is analogous. This, although even those data weren't very convincing. And so the government bought 171 million doses and recommended it strongly without any human data. When the human data finally came around, you know, from David Hose lab at Columbia or Dan Brooks Lab

in Harvard, you didn't get any better of a neutralizing antibody response to B84, B.A.5, and by the time the vaccine was finally available, BA4 was gone, and BA5 was sort of being overtaken by other Omicron sub-variants. And so I was on TV, you know, because I was on TV a fair amount, you know, in CNN or less commonly on MSNBC. And so you're asked to sort of, you know, you're asked to be honest. I mean, I just, I felt the compelling need to be honest. And I, you know, I remember it was Pamela Brown on CNN, who showed a clip of a she's job saying, this. This is a much better vaccine than what we had.

This is much better than the original strain, the ancestral strain. You need to get it because it's better. So then she turns to me after showing this clip and she says, well, was he wrong? Well, the answer that question, yes, he was wrong. But you can't say that exactly. So what you say is there was just two papers in New England Journal of Medicine that showed this was no better than what we had. It boosters boost, this will boost, but realize it's no better than what we had.

So I just contradicted somebody who was the coronavirus task. coordinator, a she's job at the White House. And he wasn't happy about that. And others weren't happy about that because you have to have this unified front. Because when you show that you're in any sense questioning it, that it looks bad. But it's the only way science works. I mean, that's the only cauldron in which science works is you're constantly questioning, right? I mean, that's your scientific training is that to get the best data, you constantly question the quality and validity and robustness and internal consistency of data. That's how it works. I mean, I'm also not paid by the White House, so it makes it much easier for me to say it. We're my paid by the FDA, right? We're an advisory committee. So that's what you know. The other one other point I want to make, though, is that our training as scientists is the opposite of the training for being a science communicator. I mean, to be a good scientist, you never go beyond the data in front of you.

Never. That's the worst mistake you could make. You feel you have to reduce uncertainty by having caveat after caveat after caveat. That does not work well on television or the regular. I mean, you have to, you can't really say MMR vaccine doesn't cause autism. You can only say that with all the studies that have been done, it's extremely unlikely. You can't prove, never. You can't reject the null hypothesis.

And you always know that in the back of your head. You know you can't say that, but you say it anyway because it's true. MMR doesn't cause autism. It's just that the study, I mean, these aren't mathematical heroes. You don't have proofs. It doesn't work that one. I mean, he really lays out exactly what the problem was. this whole system. And for people that don't know who that is, one of the great pharmaceutical shills

of all times, it's amazing when one shills starts calling out another that they've gone too far. But clearly what he's saying is exactly the problem we have in the industry around vaccines. They know these things are not as perfect as they're saying, but they have to give it a really big, smiley, happy face because if they show any weakness whatsoever, people won't use it. And this is what is behind all of the brainwashing and cover up of every. issue of every vaccine they've ever had. Where is the scientific community that's allowed to speak out and say, I don't think this product is working?

I think this problem is causing other side effects. And when he talks about, well, you know, we can't say that vaccines don't cause autism, you know, because we just, we can't prove the null hypothesis, which is this statement they make. But the truth is, we've shown time and time again on this show. They refuse to do any decent studies. There is barely a handful of decent studies on the vaccine autism connection. They're all done by people that are being funded to disprove the issue. Everybody that sets out objectively to look at it shows a 4 to 5% increase in neurological disorders like autism amongst those that are vaccinated compared to those that are not.

But, you know, Paul Offitt will continue to tell you just as he did there, don't worry, vaccines don't cause autism. And don't worry, 10 mice is just enough. I might press on it a little bit, but he doesn't call him out. He doesn't say actually that's a lie that's not true. There's no science to prove what Ajiz Shah just said. But they're all protecting each other. And the only people that aren't being protected, us and our children. And as you heard right there, this was a booster from last year.

That's what he was talking about. They've been pushing through these boosters with really not great evidence. Yeah. It's interesting because he said, I felt a compelling need to be honest when I was being interviewed and I was presented with. There must have been a rare moment. I was presented with his data. and the interviewer said, is this true?

And he said, well, of course it's not true, but you can't say that. And then he was kind of shocked that he had to step on us. She's Jaws' feet. He just contradicted the White House response. This is what we do every week on this show, folks. We actually do step on their feet. We don't massage the message. We show you the data, and we're going to be honest with you,

and we're going to step on these people's feet. And so this is some data we're going to show right now that probably won't be talked about in the mainstream news. So when it comes to this vaccine, the overarching point of this, It's an experimental vaccine technology. Sure, it's approved, but this is something that's never been done before, especially on this many people. And the big question here, the one thing this vaccine does is it gives a message to your body

to create a spike protein. And this spike protein is what is floating around in your body. The question now with a lot of these issues, myocarditis, cancers, thrombosis, even like anaphylaxis, these grade three reactogenicities, grade fours, what the heck is this spike protein doing? after a while. And this is Pfizer's data. Now, this data was sued to get. This is their non-clinical overview submitted to the FDA's Center for Biologics evaluation and research. So non-clinical overview, this is kind of all the rest of the nuts and bolts past the efficacies. And they say this in here.

They said the protein, that's the spike protein. Encoded by the RNA in Pfizer's COVID vaccine is expected to be proteolytically degraded like other endogenous proteins. They're Therefore, no RNA or protein metabolism or excretion studies will be conducted. Oh, my God. End of story. End of story. We're making a total mutant protein, but we're just assuming it's going to work just like natural proteins, and of course it will degrade.

And since we've made that assumption, we're telling you right up front, we are not going to look at it at all. Forget the fact that every animal study we did on these products, prior to, you know, getting into this warp speed, the animals were dying. They were having all sorts of issues with antibody dependent and enhanced. And all we can tell you is we have no idea why those animals were having that issue, but we aren't going to look into one of the things that would have been, what if the spike protein doesn't degrade and floats around all of your body and lands itself

in your heart and other organs? We're not going to look at that. My God, people, I mean, I don't know what to tell you. This is the state of affairs and science in your regulatory agencies accepting this and not only accepting it, mandating on you, having your president of the United States tell you if you don't get this product, that they refuse to. even do a study on the protein, whether it degrades in your body or not, you don't get to work, you don't get to have a job in the United States of America,

you don't have to have business, you don't get to go into a store, you've got to stay outside, you've got to stay in six feet apart. This is insane. So, and this is before the vaccine starts going into arms in a widespread basis in the United States. So imagine this, you're Pfizer, you present them with this document and say, and it says that. And the FDA looks at this and it's saying, oh, this is an experimental vaccine technology. It creates spike protein. You're not going to study the spike protein what it does?

It just you think it's going to do great. No, no, no. Stamped. Get it in arms. It's gone. So this conversation now gets, it gets kind of communicated in a way into the media. So two years later, after the vaccine, you know, the first ones are in 2020, 2020 comes along and you're still seeing headlines like this. How long do mRNA and spike proteins last in the body?

You go into this article. It says the infectious disease society of America estimates that the spike proteins that were generated by COVID-19. vaccines last up to a few weeks like other proteins made in the body estimates wow we're just guessing kind of like Pfizer we just guess so it that brings us to the booster conversation that dr off it was talking about last year at the asap committee so we have a professor of pediatrics dr pablo sanchise he's professor pediatrics for nationwide children's hospital at columbus ohio and he's talking to the therapeutic head of respiratory vaccines at moderna you don't get much higher than this. And this is actually the person Moderna chose to be the spokesperson at this

ASIP meeting to field questions. Listen to what Dr. Pablo asked. Again, this is 2022. I've asked this before, and I just don't have a clear idea of how long this spike proteins that the messenger RNA in our bodies produce, how long has been detected in patient serum or tissues and maybe, you know, even in animal studies. You know, I know that, you know, it is said that the messenger RNA disappears quite quickly, but do you know, A, first of all, how long it may persist in blood or serum or tissues? And also, do you know what is the molecular weight of the spike protein that our bodies do produce? And I guess I'd say that with respect to trans-proscental transfer as well.

But, I mean, this is a separate issue. But those are issues that have, you know, that I've brought up previously, and I'm not, and I really don't have an answer. I don't know if anything new has been developed on those. Thank you. Well, just far, you know, we have looked at the persistent, the detectability of spike protein. as well as the MRNA, you're absolutely right. The MRI degrades quite quickly. The spike protein availability, I believe, is on the order of days, but like less than a week.

But I will confirm that with our talk folks as well. Do you think he was satisfied? I have asked this question time and time again every time I come to these meetings. How long does this stuff stay in the body? Where is it going? What is the way to visit it crossing over the placenta? because I actually care about children as part of what I do. I'm asking it again.

Do you think that answer, somebody says, oh, you know, it's a really good question. We did kind of look at it. And then if my memory serves me, it was sort of like a couple days. Maybe it's less than we.

But I'll go, I'll go find out and come back to the next meeting and tell you the same thing over and over again, which you clearly aren't getting an answer you care about. How does this guy end up voting? Did he say, oh, I love it, 100%. Let's, let's push this thing out. I believe, I'm not sure how he voted in 2020.

I believe a lot of those were unanimous. so I'll have to double check that. I believe it was unanimous or perhaps an unacited. But, you know, it's interesting, he asks, do you have anything? Animal studies, human studies, anything. Just asking for anything at this point. Meanwhile, you did make $100 billion on this product, did you not?

Could we throw about 25 cents over into a little bit of science around it to tell us where is this stuff in the body? I don't know. At least try it on 10 mice. Let's see where we get with that. Outrageous. For the people out there saying, hey, it's just a spike protein.

You know, if you were to ask this on a mainstream media conversation with someone like Ashik Jai, he would say, he would go directly to the product distribution and say, well, you probably, you know, billions of doses have been given out, and we have robust safety monitoring, blah, blah, blah, blah. But here's the studies they don't show you. So why is this a problem? We have a spike floating around in the body for how long we don't know. The bio weapon, by the way, of this, all of the fear, all of the panic, all of the rage by every single news outlet in the world saying it can kill you. It's deadly.

We've got to stay six feet away from each other. Is this spike protein? So when you make a fake one and it's floating around your body, you kind of want to know how long is this deadly toxic substance going to last in the body that we're putting there on purpose? Essentially, it's the business end of the virus. And so we go to this study here because this is why it's a problem. Circulating spike protein detected in post-COVID-19 MRI vaccine myocarditis.

Remember, hey, we don't know how myocardis works. It just happens to some people. Well, this study says a notable finding was that markedly elevated levels of full-length spike protein unbound by antibodies floating around were detected in the plasma of individuals with post-vaccine myocarditis, whereas no free spike was detected in asymptomatic vaccinated control subjects. Well, that's a pretty big deal. But now we have this study, which is a new study showing even something further than that. And this is kind of the latest data on this, the detection of recombinant spike protein in the

blood of individuals vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2, 40 subjects. They took 40 people, 20 vaccinated, 20 unvaccinated. They looked at their blood using a mass spectrometry analysis. In that, the researchers could distinguish between the synthetic spike proteins that originated from the translation of the mRNA vaccines compared to people that had natural infection and just had this thing circulating in their body fluids. And this is what they write. They call it the PP spike. That's the unnatural synthetic spike protein. They say the specific PP spike fragment was found in 50%. That's 5.0% of the biological samples analyzed,

and its presence was independent of the SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody tighter. The minimum of maximum time at which P.P. spike was detected after vaccination was 69 and 187 days, respectively. So tell you to that. Hold on. 69 and 180%. She said maybe less than a week. That would be six at most seven days. This is saying at the bottom end of the 50%, 69 days it was in them. And at the top end, we were seeing it 187 days a half a year later.

You have got this, as you said, business end of the virus floating around in your body that CDC and FDA decided to put in you on purpose. And it says in the study here, it says independent of SARS-CoB-2 IgG antibody tighter. So one of the arguments could be, well, you know, people might have a problem clearing the infection so these spike proteins are still attaching these no irregardless whether you have you get the vaccine whether you have this virus or not whether it's expressing in your body or not whether the immune system is is reacting or not this thing is there and so let's go to some of the graphs and some of the images from this study and you can see here this

image is really telling so that blue straight up bar line right there that's the the pp spike protein that's that's a synthetic spike protein detection after vaccination But what's more interesting here, if you go to the right, you see this little tiny sliver of an orange line at the bottom. That's the detection of the spike protein after infection in non-vaccinated individuals' blood. So it's literally a couple days this thing shoots out, and then you don't see it anymore. This is the end of the argument, just looking at this right here for anybody that thinks it's smarter to get the vaccine. Let's just say that it's cyanide. Let's say that blue line is cyanide.

The vaccine basically puts cyanide in your body to do the job to create some immunity. The only problem is the cyanide lasts for over 180 days if you get vaccinated. If you just get infected, it lasts for about two days and then clears the body. Which one would you want? Which one do you think is the better way to go for your health? And so one more image will show from this, and this actually has implications for our next guess. So the researchers hypothesize the possible molecular mechanisms for this persistence of this synthetic spike protein and they say starting at the top they say well it could be integrating in cells so integrating

into the host genome your your cells and then it's basically steady producing a steady production of spike protein it says well it also could be doing something called constitutively active so it's spike protein so it just could be floating around active or it could be integrating in the bacterial cells which again gives a steady production of this spike protein so in two of these scenarios there's an integration into the body's chemistry, the body's cells, whether bacterial or cellular. And so it leads the researchers, again, the ASIP committee had this study to look at. And it led the researchers to conclude this. And as far as clinical relevance, the presented method allows to evaluate the half life of the spike protein molecule PP and to consider the risk or benefits in continuing to administer

additional booster doses of the SARS-CoB2 mRNA vaccine. So they're saying, look, we really need to check out the wisdom of continually giving this vaccine booster when we know that this spike protein is not being clear from the body, you know, in like a couple of weeks, as Moderna said. Yeah, unbelievable. I mean, this is really, really shocking. And the most shocking thing, as you pointed out, Dr. Latipo just pointed out, is where is the CDC and the FDA on recognizing this? How are they allowing the pharmaceutical company that is making $100 billion from selling us this product to tell us, uh, we kind of think maybe it lasts less than a week. Well, when the science is done, it lasts a half a year. That's a, that's a problem. That's a serious, serious problem.

So that's a deep segment doubt. It's kind of heavy. We're going to take a direction that's a little different than vaccines right now. And we're talking about a company that is spraying a film on your food after it's picked on fruits and vegetables. You may have seen this in the news. It's been going around for about a year, but if you haven't, this is how it's being reported. Take a look. What? This is a real game changer. Future of fresh. The biggest revolution since refrigeration. A brilliant idea to fight hunger. It could also reduce food waste. Southern California startup called Appeal scientist says its product can extend the life of fruits and vegetables by up to five times. Here's how appeal works. Produces either dipped or sprayed with an edible coating that keeps oxygen out and water in.

dramatically slowing the decaying process. This time-lap shows the difference between a normal avocado and one treated with a peel. The secret to a peel lies in an invisible coating consisting of purified monoglycerides and diglycerides. The fatty acids commonly found in the peals and pulp of fruits and vegetables. And the thin layer it leaves behind is edible and tasteless. It would replace the wax that is often used on grocery store produce. In most parts of the world, foods treated with appeal can still be labeled organic. The company hopes their product will help with global hunger in places without access to refrigeration.

You're going to have some people who look at this and say, this is frankin food. I don't want something sprayed on my food. Taking stuff that you're eating already in every bite of your produce and we're just reapplying exactly where it is on the produce. Its ingredients are already consumed daily as part of a normal diet. And so, they are designated by the FEA as a generally regarded as safe. It's FDA approved. The FDA has actually approved this. This natural innovation is so popular and game-changing

that it is supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. So why did Oprah and Katie Purry invest in appeal? They see the same future we do with all this waste and there's a massive opportunity to rebuild the food system. I swear, I think I want to make an app for the phone where you just hold it up to a product. And if it just says funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, I'm not touching it. I'm pretty sure. Such a good idea that Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation are behind it.

I'm all over that. And for the people out there, the young journalist coming up, if you're watching this show and learning how to analyze media, you start your investigation when it says FDA approved. That's where to start. Let's open the book now. And then Bill and Melinda Gates funded this thing? All right, plus one. Let's let's dig into this. So as it said there, in 2012, Bill and Melinda Gates gave $100,000 Bill and

Millenna Gates Foundation to fund this startup. And a second round of funding was in 2020. You have people like Oprah, Katie Perry, jump on it. And they raised at that point, appeal, the company raised $250 million, became a billion dollar company. Let's talk about this. We've had a lot of viewers contact us to do really deep dive into this because this is a really big conversation all over social media, TikTok, Instagram.

People are really diving into this. So let's go to Appeals website and get some basics. So this is the global regulatory approval scope. So what is this stuff on? Well, you can see here the rest of the world versus the EU. The European Union typically has a little stronger regulations when it comes to pesticides, stuff that touches GMO food, stuff that touches your food like this. So in those countries, in the EU, UK, it's basically citrus, avocado, pineapples, papaya, banana, mango,

pomegranate, melons. but in the rest of the world, that's us, that's the United States, in capital letters, all fresh fruits and vegetables without restriction. So basically the EU is the only things that already have a peel that you have to take off. So something with a rind, but we're going to get this stuff right on food. And I mean, it doesn't wash off, right? I mean, isn't that the entire point of it? It's just like the peel itself, only this one doesn't breathe, can't be penetrated,

doesn't let out moisture like the natural peel does. Don't worry. It's really good for you. Yeah. And a health blogger just in May did an article on this. And she wrote, she actually took a screenshot from Appeal's website where people ask, there's a question and answer part on Appeal's website. Can I wash a peel off? And on the website at that time, it said, you could likely remove some of a peel with water and scrubbing, but it's unlikely that you be able to remove all of it without damaging the fruit or vegetable and goes on to talk about it. That's all changed now. That word is all changed.

They don't say anything on the website now about you can't remove this. It just talks about how great of a barrier this is and everything. So we're going to peel the onion here in this conversation and really get down to layer upon layer upon layer of this thing and do a deep dive. So the Organics Material Review Institute, this is a nonprofit that looks at all the things that are in food, all the products that are coming out to see if they are, in fact, organic. This is called the OMRI.

they label this thing, classify it as a crop, pest, weed, and disease control. And they also categorize it as a fungicide. So this is where we're going to start. Now, it's interesting because the world, the reason so many people are questioning this is because we have lived, most people have lived through the GMO phase. Hey, it's all safe, glyphosate, paraquot, all this stuff, even way back to DDT. people are very weary about things being sprayed on their food, especially after they're picked. It's one thing when they're sprayed while they're growing, which still has a lot of issues with them.

But after they're picked, right before they go into your mouth, essentially, you have, I mean, this was the glyphosate conversation. This is the headline from last year. The new report alleges mass contamination of foods from use of glyphosate to dry crops. That's because glyphosate was used off label. It is used off a label as a desiccant after, you know, wheat is sprayed. They spray it or wheat is cut. They spray it with this glyphosate to dry it faster. So anytime people are getting these things on food, these films, we want to know what's going on. So let's look at EPA's own product label for this.

This is what appeals submitted to the EPA. And we look at the ingredients. So they have their product here. It's called organopoeal. And you can see the active ingredient is citric acid. 0.66%. Now technically citric acid is a fungicide, but it's 0.66%. The other ingredients are 99.34%.

Well, it doesn't say what the other ingredients are. Those are proprietary. I mean, right, why would you? I mean, if it's going to be approved by the FDA, they don't need to know what 90% of this thing is made out of. Right. And so we're trying to get a feel of maybe what's going on in that other 99 plus percent. So we go back to Appeal's website, and it starts to tell us a little bit about that.

It says, appeal is made of purified mono and diglycerides that have been derived from plant oils to mimic the natural protection of peals. Okay, mono and diglycerides. Now we're getting somewhere. We don't know how much of that 99% is mono and diglycerides. We're assuming what the rest of it is, but we go to this website here and it talks about, it asks the question, what are monoglycerides and are they safe to consume? It says this, which foods contain monoglycerides?

Mono and diglycerides can be found in processed foods such as coffee creamers, frozen dinners, ice cream, frosting, whipped topping, candy, soft drinks, chewing gum, and a bunch other things, but not something you would really associate it with the most organic, clean, natural products in the world. But then the website goes on to say this, which is really telling, mono and diglycerides contain small amounts of trans fats. They're classified as mulifiers and not lipids. So the FDA ban doesn't apply to them. As trans fat is phased out, food companies may turn to mono and diglycerides as low-cost alternatives. So they're really saying, remember those trans fats that were causing so many health issues that the FDA, which, you know, normally doesn't

do this, had to step in and ban them off the market. Well, these things, these mono and diglycerides are kind of a low-cost alternative. And by the way, they still have a little bit of trans fats in them. That's what we're talking about here. And so we go to what appeals submitted to the FDA in order to get the approval for this product. And this is the paperwork here. It's almost 100 pages. You look in this page here, and it shows a flowchart of how they isolate this, this mono and diglycerides. It starts with grape seeds. Hey, great. Then it goes to the Expeller Press. We have this flowchart.

You get the oil out of that. But then they start adding things. Those are those little boxes coming in from each side. We have glycerol, catalyst. But then you have a neutralizing agent, a solvent. What are those? Catalyst, again, neutralizing agent, all the way down. You go to that asterisk, and you see the neutralizing agent is either heptane or acetyate.

That says maybe used interchangeably as the solvent. So let's just take one of those. Let's take ethyl acetate. Ethyl acetate is, it causes serious eye irritation, has a highly flammable liquid or vapor. It has a classification specific target organ toxicity from single exposure, central nervous system, category three may cause drowsiness or dizziness. So this is obviously if you're dealing with the raw liquid here. But again, this is being used as a solvent to extract this oil.

So the question is, is it still in there? What's going on with this? Are they purifying that at that point? But now let's keep going a little deeper. Let's just keep going down layer by layer. So we go to the actual patent. So this is Appeals Patent for this product. And you read the abstract.

It says, described herein are methods of sanitizing and preserving produce and other agricultural products, for example, for consumption as ready to eat. Wait a minute. We heard about preserving produce, but sanitizing. We didn't hear anything about that. You're not hearing about that in the media. So it goes to say the methods can comprise, can comprise treating the products with a sanitizing age of and forming a protective coating over the products. So it goes on, so there's a two-step process here.

We're not really in the light about. What's the sanitizing process? It says the sanitizing agent comprises an alcohol or comprises ethanol, methanol, acetone, isopropanol, or ethel acetate. So there it is again. So they're putting that- The same thing you take your nail polish off with. We like to wrap around your vegetables and fruit you're planning on getting some health benefit from.

And then we wrap it in a plastic coating just to make sure it lasts forever, like the spike protein that's floating around your body right now. What can possibly go wrong? So here's the questions now. So let's stick with this FDA document. So this is from appeals information they sent to the FDA to get this approved. And so what else is in this with these oils? They extract these oils with these catalysts, with these solvents.

You get this oil at the end, the end result of this oil. Well, it also has a couple things in it. heavy metals, palladium, arsenic, lead, cabmium, mercury, probably don't want that. So we have, and by weight, palladium and arsenic are the top two there. And so these are a question too, and it's clearly it's in small doses. But if we're talking about capital, all vegetables and fruits in the United States, how does this add up at this point? What are we talking about when we eat these over a lifetime?

Does anybody do the tests on that? Well, we know these heavy metals, arsenic lead, camium, mercury. You're not you really don't want any of those if you if you are trying to live a healthy life So there are there are just a few grocery stores that are pushing back on this and one of them is natural grocers So this is one of the signs here you're actually seeing at national grocers they're putting up signs on their produce You can see it right there they're not carrying appeal products and if you go to their website They actually they actually make a statement here on this product and they say their conclusion Produce sprayed with this mysterious coating leaves us with unnecessary exposure to the ingredients themselves,

which still haven't been made clear, and to the byproducts of their processing. Fruits and vegetables are nutritional gems best kept organic. A peel and organic peel do not meet our high standards, therefore you will never find produce coated with it at any of our stores. Good for you, natural grocers. People, you know, go ahead and support those companies that are still actually blocking things from getting into your body so that you can. and trust was taking place. I'm impressed. Yeah, so there's a split here.

People like Walmart, Whole Foods, they're actually boasting that they use this, Costco, but you have natural grocers and some other small stores as well that are saying that we're not going to use those, and this is a selling point. So there's actually a big divide in society right now. The information is out there. So the grass root's movements around food, like we saw with hormones in milk, like we saw with GMO with

glyphosate, these things have spark points that can move very quickly and affect a product line. So this is where the consumers at this point can make a choice. Natural grocers, or you support who carries this or who doesn't carry it. You know, it's amazing when I think about this. I mean, it puts this seal around it. So now imagine, we're talking about organics, how about all of those vegetables and fruits that are already being sprayed with glyphosate or all these herbicides and chemicals? And then they put this barrier that wraps and locks that into the product.

So not only you eating a peel, you're eating everything that was sprayed on it throughout its existence. You know, it's clear that they don't want to do any proper safety studies of any of these things. And I think I have a solution. Like, you know, I see the guy on there like being interviewed by the news saying, oh, no, it's just like what's on the – it's just what the peel is made of, just more of it and put it in places that we get to control. I think instead I'll go ahead and just forego, you know, proper safety trials, double-blind placebo trials. But any spokesperson that has to get on the news, I want them to drink an entire glass. of whatever it is they plan on putting on my food.

And let's just see how you turn out over the next month or so. I mean, just drink a whole glass of this stuff. Let's just test it on you. Right. I think that's right. I think someone tried that with glyphosate as well, and the person that was talking about that, walked out of the interview.

So that doesn't seem to be a good technique. Right. And think about how much of this stuff collectively will be in your body. I mean, if it coats the vegetables, what happens when the insides of your intestines, your gut biome starts being coated, you know, by some non-washable, you know, protective plastic, you know, synthetic, acetyl, whatever coating.

I mean, amazing when you think about all we know, the interviews we've done with Zach Bush on the biome, the serotonin, how delicate this balance is of what's going on in your stomach affects your mood, affects, you know, your health all throughout. More and more, we realize that digestive system is deciding everything about your health. And now let's just put, you know, undissolvable coatings

on everything that you're eating on a daily basis, three times a day. My God, I mean, this is what the show, it can be a little bit disheartening at times because it just feels like the insanity is coming from every direction. Certainly everything that calls itself science. And it's a great goal to end food waste,

to stop food spoilage, but can we do it without chemical companies getting involved and spraying our food? That's the question that we have to ask. Absolutely. Well, I think we have to do more shows how to grow your own food. So let's get focused on that. Jeffrey, amazing reporting. As always, keep up the good work. Thanks for keeping your eyes out on these very important

issues that are affecting our daily lives. All right, take care. I'll see you next week. All right. Well, you know, we, you know, slowly but surely you can only tell so many lies, I suppose. And then people like Dr. Paul Offutt, it just goes a step too far. But that's why we're here. He's like, you know, science is supposed to be able to ask the question. I mean, that's the heart of science. I mean, there's a difference. between like being a science, you know, spokesperson and actually being a scientist. Well, that's what the high wire does, right?

We do what Paul Offit, you know, Offit has been avoiding doing for a very long time until recently. We do what no other science appears to be doing right now, which is challenging the status quo, asking appropriate questions. And where we get bad answers, we bring lawsuits. When the FOIA doesn't add up, or they try to hide things thinking,

well, we're the government in the United States, and we're gonna hide it, from you. We say, oh, no, no, oh, hell no. You actually work for us. You're the dog on our leash, not vice versa. So sit, boo-bo, sit. Let's go ahead and see what you have to say. And we get that information. We're suing for you. And it's becoming obvious to a lot of people that were not going away. Even Dr. Paul Offutt, who is answering a question about us, I guess. He was asked about what he knows about what the high wire does. And remember, this is a guy that just said, you shouldn't get the most recent vaccine.

Sounds like he would love the opportunity to be able to opt out of a mandate. Something like a religious exemption could come in handy, Paul, except that look what you're saying to the press about us. An anti-vaccine group called Informed Consent Action Network,

not a religious group at all, said about trying to establish religious exemptions in states that don't have them. So this was their first effort in Mississippi. the ruling was basically if you can have a medical exemption, why can't you also have a religious exemption? And that was it. And that was it.

And that's how we want it. And that's why we're going after all the other states that do not give you a choice. Paul often might tell you he doesn't think you should get the booster. But in those states in the red, you may not have the option if you're going to a university or a school there. And they decide to mandate it. So Paul probably won't live in states like that because in his intent, intelligence kicks in and he says, I don't think this thing was properly safety tested. Guess who will suddenly get really religious and rely on a religious exemption if it's needed?

And guess who will have achieved that for them? Yours truly, Paul, that's why we work for everybody. It doesn't matter that we may be on different sides of this conversation. We don't care. And about that pejorative you like to lay on us as being anti-vaccine from the horse's mouth that just said, I don't think you should get the COVID booster. I'm not getting it. I don't see that it's any better than any of the other ones that we've already gotten and we're on number 7, they don't seem to be working, and I would rather have it test on more than 10 mice. So this guy's telling us not to get it. So does that make him a, I don't know, let's look at Webster's dictionary. Anti-vaxxer, a person who opposes the use of some, like the current

booster shot or all vaccines. Regulations or mandating vaccination. Doesn't sound like he would want this vaccine mandated. For sure, he's not for that. And he's telling you, you shouldn't get this one. So guess what, Paul? Welcome to the party. The water's warm. you are now an anti-vaxxer. See what we did to you? See what happens when the science runs away from you? You guys back yourself so far into the corner and you tried to like work your way out.

Say, hey, let's just call everybody an anti-vaxer. That'll scare them away until you yourself end up being one. Oh my God. Sometimes stupidity has a way of backfiring. Folks, we are fighting for you. This is the truth. Paul Offutt knows about us. Why?

Because we're the most successful nonprofit that has ever fought for your freedom. It's true. We are not a religious organization. Though we do believe we're part of a spiritual war, we're fighting in the space of science. And more importantly, liberty and freedom, which is what is truly endowed on us by God. You decide what religion you want to attach to that. We just want to make sure you're free to practice it and that your body made in the image of likeness of God can be treated the way you see fit. If that makes sense to you, in fact, that that's the world you thought you were living in and are shocked to find that there's more and more states trying to take that away from you. And you just watch COVID shut everything down and tell you that you had to ram things up your nose or poke yourself full of five, six, seven boosters in order to have a job or go to school.

And none of that seems like it's the right way to go. Then maybe you want to help us do the work that we do, which is fight for you when nobody else does. Paul Offit is admitting to you that most of the pundits are lying to you on television and all these scientists are not actually talked about science because if they did, they would talk about the problems with the science. Instead, they're just going to make it sound really good. Well, where are you going to go when you want to know the truth about appeal? Where are you going to go when you want to know the truth about a new COVID vaccine? And when many of your family members start getting sicker and sicker or having myocarditis as children or cancers, and you want to have something,

you can show them that actually has science attached to it and isn't some Yahoo just making things up or feeling like, you know, it's in the wind. You're going to want to tune to the high wire and you're going to want us to be there and we want to be there for you. And by the way, we have a bunch of lawsuits sitting in the queue waiting to go and we can't launch, not yet, because we don't have enough of you supporting us. So please help us expand the work that we're doing. We're working for you. Just go to the highway, go to the time, top corner, donate now. It's on all of our websites. Super easy to find. Then when you're in there, go ahead and decide to be a recurring donor. Think about what would I be able to volunteer,

give up once a month in order to make sure that I have freedom to decide what happens to my body in this crazy world I'm going into. We're asking for $23 a month. But for some of you, I know you get a Starbucks coffee, probably one to two to maybe seven a day. How about we just cut back on one per month and send that into the high wire. Five dollars a month. How about that? Think you can do it? And imagine what it feels like when we talk about winning back religious exemptions. So no one in Mississippi can ever be forced to take a vaccine. They can say, nope, you know what, I'm against it. And I'm not getting it. We're going after all the other states. We're working on a plan for all of them. We're in discussions right now on issues in California. We're in West Virginia with a case,

in Connecticut, New York, all of this is in the queue. We really need your help. We want to win. We're going to make it easy. You want to use your cell phone just text us at 72022 and type in the word donate. You know, get a link, you click on it, and you're off to the races in changing your world. It starts with you. It starts with all of us.

All right. So now we just had a whole conversation about the fact that the CDC and the FDA want to avoid the entire concept that the the franken spike protein they created, right? They changed just the DNA structure using pseudo-uridine. They made this mutant version of the spike protein. They told us, as we just show you, we are going to assume this will degrade in the body the same way the natural spike protein would have. We're not going to do any studies on it.

Well, we have shown you studies over the last several years that show that that's ridiculous. In fact, why? This is what's amazing. Why did they actually change that element out, that pseudo-uridine in the spike protein? Because it was dying too fast. It was getting killed the way all other natural proteins do, which wasn't giving it enough time to get into your cells. Because it really needs to be able to turn yourselves into a virus manufacturing plant. And it can't do that if the immune system can kill it too quickly.

So they actually designed it to last longer. That is what's so incredible about these statements that we think it's going to be a lot like the natural protein would have been a few days. No, you don't. No, you clearly don't. You designed it to not be that. And now you won't study how long it's lasting and when they finally do. How about a half a year? So now you've got this diabolical, deadly spike protein that is not leaving the body.

And wherever it lands, it seems to enhance whatever problem is there. What if you were susceptible to cancer? What if there was just a few cancer cells, but somehow either this turns your immune system off so it doesn't see it or enhances it in some way? What would happen to cancer then? What if you've had cancer before and you're in remission and you get the vaccine?

What would that look like? What would that world look like? Or what if you started seeing people, young people, getting turbo cancers that you'd never heard of before and more and more kids and young people stacking up? Would that grab your attention? How would we know? I mean, it would almost be like it would have to be reported on the news for someone to figure out that it was going on. Well, that's exactly what's happening. Take a look at this. There was a seemingly healthy 16-year-old athlete who dies suddenly. 14-year-old girl is battling stage 3 brain cancer. She was diagnosed with breast cancer that spread to her lymph nodes.

Saadia is only 36. At the age of 34, she was diagnosed with stage 3.3. breast cancer and with no family history. According to the numbers from a newly released study, a growing trend of younger people who are being diagnosed with late stage cancer. Researchers say they're finding more people, some as young as 30, with late stage colon cancer. A new study finds that late stage cervical cancer cases

are on the rise in the United States. Kyle Limpra was seemingly a healthy 16 year old. He complained that his back was hurting. And when the pain didn't go away, they took him to urgent care, and then over to Jefferson. hospital and that's where doctors broke the news to Kyle's parents that his organs were shutting down due to leukemia and within 24 hours of diagnosis Kyle passed away. Just a month ago, Macy and her family found out she was diagnosed with gray three anaplastic

men in Guillauma, an aggressive brain tumor. My life is normal and then a month ago they found the mass. Colon cancer at 40. It turns out Jones's cancer was bigger and had spread farther than doctors first thought. His story is becoming more common. It's the faster rise, especially in these colorectal cancers and bile duct cancers and breast cancers. Colon, esophagus, kidney, liver, and pancreas, along with others. The scariest thing about that is that we actually don't know what is driving this uptick.

All in the health care community going, what's going on here? What's going on here? I don't know. I have a hint. We've been hinting it every single week on the high white. since this began. Now, I've been lucky to have some of the greatest scientists and doctors in the world. We've had, you know, Dr. Peter McCullough, one of the most published, I think the most published, Heart Doctor in the World. Dr. Paul Merrick, a second most published ICU doctor in the world.

Dr. Robert Malone has been here, one of the inventors of the mRNA vaccine technology. And we've talked about cancer. We've talked about myracitis. We've talked about all these things. But the truth is, I have yet to have an oncologist on the show, and that's why I'm really excited to have Dr. William Mackis joining me now. It's really a pleasure to have you here. Thank you very much for having me. This is something that we've actually been covering for a little bit of time. There's concern that, you know, there's bunches of studies looking at many different mechanisms that either are shutting down the immune systems that's not going to recognize things like cancer cells and things like that. But you as an oncologist and you're from Canada have been very focused and are sort of bringing

this new term, I think, to light, which is turbo cancer. What does that mean? Turbo cancer, it's a recent term. It arose in the public domain and it really describes aggressive cancers that are arising in COVID-vaccinated individuals. It's showing up in young people, people in their 20s, 30s, 40s. The youngest case that I've reported was a 12-year-old boy who had one Moderna vaccine. Four months later develops stage four brain cancer, and then six months later, he died.

And so this is something I've never seen before in my career. I've diagnosed probably 20,000 cancer patients in my career. I've never seen cancers behaving like this. And they grow very, very rapidly. And they present at a late stage. So one of the features... What does that mean present at a late stage? because I feel like everything has an evolutionary pattern, right?

Like certainly, why is it just people don't feel it until it's too late? Or how would it get to that late stage without being recognized? I think it's the rapid growth of the tumors. And they don't seem to be causing symptoms. So they only present when the tumors are quite large already. And they're pretty much stage four. Stage three, stage four, that's when they're presenting. And some of these tumors can grow quite big.

they can get 10 centimeters, even 15 centimeters, some of these masses, tumor masses. And oncologists are just shocked. They don't know what to do with these cancers. They struggle to treat them, even if they try to surgically excise them, and they think that the tumor hasn't spread yet, they'll do the surgery, and then after the surgery, they'll find out that the tumor has actually spread already. It grows that quickly. Wow.

When we think about cancer, and I suppose it's part of it, probably because it tends to be a long process. You're sick. Something's not right. You go to your doctor, and that's when you discover it. If it's happening really quick, you're just not probably sick for a super long period of time

where you decide something's wrong with me. Well, and the other issue is that it's showing up in very young individuals. And so you have cancers showing up that you don't expect in young people. Young people probably are not going to feel symptoms, or they might blow these symptoms off, you know, some minor aches and pains. And we're just not used to seeing these cancers, you know, these breast cancers, stage four breast cancers and women in their 20s and 30s or colon cancers. And men, women in their 20s and 30s, we're just not used to seeing these kinds of cancers show up. Now, in your work, what you've been doing is looking, you know, in some very unique places for this sort of rise in cancers.

And one of them is you've been, you know, sort of looking over GoFundMe pages. Is that right? for these fundraising pages to talk about, you know, to look at how many people raising funds all of a sudden from cancer. And you sent us a stack. And I think it's just from May. This list just goes on and on and on folks. Look at all these young people.

And I want to say, you know, when we look at this list here and, you know, the montage that we gave you, we have no way of really determining whether or not all these people got the vaccine, right? There's a bit of an assumption there. But the thing that I say on this show that we ask the question is, when do we remember this many children and young people getting cancer all at once? When do we remember this many athletes collapsing with heart attacks on fields? When do we remember this many teachers and nurses, as we've reported,

that are unable to go to work because they're so sick from a product that was supposed to make them healthy? And then so many of these are nurses and teachers that are in these GoFundMe's. And so when you look at this, you know, is it always in science, it's like, well, that's anecdotal, right? And so what do you say to that, the people that are saying, well, this is anecdotal? You know, I first discovered this phenomenon when I was tracking the sudden deaths of Canadian doctors. And I'd noticed that Canadian doctors had to take COVID vaccines to keep their jobs. So we had mandates all throughout Canada. You had to take two shots by a certain date or you'd be out of work.

And I noticed that the doctors who abided by the mandates kept their jobs, they started dying suddenly. But there was also this group that were developing very aggressive cancers, and that's where I first noticed this phenomenon. And so, you know, this seems to be an issue with professions that were mandated COVID vaccines. And that's why, you know, when I look at these GoFundMe pages and you look at the professions of these individuals, It's very often professions that were mandated vaccines, nurses, doctors, other healthcare workers, teachers. You see police officers, firefighters, military sometimes, flight attendants. Anywhere where there was a vaccine mandate, COVID vaccine mandate, you know, you're going to see this explosion with these cancers. What are your thoughts on the mechanisms?

I mean, this is your area of specialty. So cancer is something that you've looked at, you know, your whole career. when you are looking at the COVID vaccine, what do you think are potential causes? Why would it be causing cancer? You know, this is a very complex topic. A number of mechanisms have been proposed in the literature and are starting to get backed by publications

and findings in the literature. The main one, you'd mentioned it earlier, the modification of the MRNA, the methylated pseuduridine that they inserted into the MRNA, that seems to dampen the innate immune system through to-like receptors, and that has downstream effects. Downstream effects that haven't been studied. One of those possible downstream effects is you damage cancer surveillance. And if you're damaging cancer surveillance, now you increase the risk

of someone developing a very aggressive cancer, because it is really your immune system that's keeping these cancers in check. And so there are a number of mechanisms by which the the mRNA vaccines seem to be altering the signaling of immune cells, of T cells and other cells in the immune system. And that translates to an impaired cancer surveillance overall. There's other mechanisms though that have come up. There's always the risk of the integration of the M RNA into our genomes or reverse transcription. There's been recent discoveries of DNA contamination in the Pfizer and Moderna vials.

We actually have a video of a top-rated scientist. I believe it's out of Virginia. Take a look at this, folks. This just happened last week. My name is Philip Buck Alts. I have a PhD in biochemistry and molecular biology. I'm a cancer gene jock. Basically, I do cancer genomics research at the University of South Carolina.

And what that means is that I'm kind of an expert on all the ways that the human genome can get futzed with during your lifetime and which of those things cause cancer and which ones don't. The Pfizer vaccine is contaminated with plasma DNA. It's not just MRNA. It's got bits of DNA in it. This DNA is the DNA vector that was used as the template for the in vitro transcription reaction when they made the MRNA.

I know this is true because I sequenced it in my own lab. The vials of Pfizer vaccine that were given out here in Colombia, one of my colleagues was in charge of that vaccination program in the College of Pharmacy. And for reasons that I still don't understand, he kept every single vial. So he had a whole freezer full of the empty vials. Well, the empty vials have a little tiny bit in the bottom of them. He gave them all to me, and I looked at them. We had two batches that were given out here in Columbia, and I checked these two batches,

and I checked them by sequencing. And I sequenced all the DNA that was in the vaccine, and I can see what's in there. And it's surprising that there's any DNA in there, and you can kind of work out what's it is and how it got there and I'm kind of alarmed about the possible consequences of this, both in terms of human health and biology, but you should be alarmed about the regulatory process that allowed it to get there. So this DNA, in my view, it could be causing some of the rare but serious side effects like death from cardiac arrest.

There's a lot of cases now of people having suspicious death after vaccine. hard to prove what caused it is just you know temporarily associated and this DNA is a plausible mechanism it's different from RNA because it can be permanent this is a real hazard for genome modification of long-lived somatic cells like stem cells and it could cause theoretically this is all a theoretical concern but it's pretty reasonable based on solid molecular biology that it could cause a sustained autoimmune tact toward that tissue It's also a very real theoretical risk of future cancer in some people.

Depending on where in the genome this foreign piece of DNA lands, it can interrupt a tumor suppressor or activate an oncogene. I think it'll be rare, but I think the risk is not zero, and it may be high enough that we are to figure out if this is happening or not. This is something that's getting a lot of attention. We had Kevin McKeown on the show just a few weeks ago talking about, I think he was one of the ones to really discover this plasm, it's hanging out, this DNA material in the vaccines.

Obviously, this is a man who studies cancer also. He's very alarmed about this. I have a question for you. I think some of us are a little bit confused when he's like, you know, this is DNA, that this shouldn't be there. This, you know, really has the potential to land in the wrong place, cause cancer.

It seems that he's more concerned than he would be if it was MRI, because obviously it's supposed to be MRI in this vaccine. What is the difference between MRI and? and DNA and why is one more problematic than the other? So it's a lot more difficult for the mRNA sequence to get integrated into our genome. It is a lot easier for the DNA to be integrated.

Okay. These are small rings of DNA. So they're called DNA plasmids. It arises out of the manufacturing process that Pfizer and Moderna have in mass producing these vaccines. The other danger of these DNA plasmids, well, first of all, there's a lot of them. So the contamination, it's not minute amounts.

It's, I believe, Kevin McCradorna, And I've had reported up to 30% of the genetic material in the vaccine vial could be this DNA contamination. So we have a lot of it. And, you know, these DNA plasmids, these very small rings, can be integrated not just into our DNA, but it can be picked up by our gut bacteria. Or it could be picked up by other bacteria in our body. And then these bacteria could be theoretically producing spike protein. Wow, so they start just reproducing that.

And then, I mean, I think about, you know, the first thing. fact that when we look at, and we think about like gene splicing or all this work that was going to try and just make DNA inserts and that would be the future of medicine and science. And it just seems that a lot of that work has held up. We've been decades waiting for products that could somehow go in and cure cancer. And I think similarly, one of the things they found is no matter how we try and, you know, put that insert in, if it doesn't land exactly right, it tends to always cause cancer is what I feel like is a side effect of all of that sort of work in the future of science.

And in many ways, this is sort of the accidental side of that, right? We're using a DNA, MRNA product, it's floating around and wherever it lands, it could just wreak havoc and your DNA and your immune system. There's a lot of work being done right now to try to alter the outside of the lipid nanoparticles to be able to direct them to certain locations in the body. I know that now they're looking at integrating CRISPR technology into lipid nanoparticles. You know, this is dangerous work, but the problem with rolling out this technology, this lipid nanoparticle, MRNA technology with these COVID vaccines was that there were

no modifications to the lipid nanoparticles and they told us that it would stay in the arm and this goes systemic. And I think that really is where all the injuries, vaccine injuries that were seeing stem from, including the cancers, is that this goes systemic, and then you've got tremendous effects on the immune system. Another mechanism, possible mechanism of cancer arising is this what we call antibody shift, this IG4 antibody shift. And that again is a feature of our immune system where if you're getting repeatedly exposed

to the same antigen, then your body starts to produce a different kind of antibody called IGG4 that actually gives you tolerance to that antigen. So it kind of gives up on killing it. It's just like I just want to live and let live. I'm just going to let it hang out in the body now and not fight anymore. Exactly. So another discovery a few months ago, there was a discovery that if you've had two COVID vaccines, you start to produce a little bit of this new antibody, this IGG4.

But if you've had three vaccines, if you had the booster shot, your IGG4 levels go up 500 fold. And then suddenly it goes from 0.04% to 20% percent. of the antibodies you're producing. And that shifts your immune system completely. You're not producing IGG 1 and 3 anymore, and these are the antibodies that actually handle the viral infections, but they also handle cancer surveillance.

So you're more likely now to get infected, not just with COVID-19, so you see people who've had their booster shot, three vaccines, four vaccines, five vaccines, they keep getting reinfected with COVID-19 over and over, or they get sick very often with influenza, but you're also reduced, reducing cancer surveillance as well because you don't have those IGG 1 and 3 anymore.

So you're impairing cancer surveillance. That could be another mechanism by which all these turbo cancers are arising in people who've had three or more shots. Tell me a little bit about you. I want to talk about your career for a minute because people think it's always amazing to me that cutting-edge scientists are finding themselves, you know, looking at this, asking the right questions. But you've already dealt with, like, I would say, some corruption side of medicine.

and certainly government, a top researcher working in a new space in cancer research in Canada. Tell me what happened there. You know, I ran one of the largest medical isotope cancer treatments in North America. And this is called targeted radionuclide therapy, where we attach radioactive molecules, sort of radioactive atoms to certain molecules to deliver radiation specifically to tumor cells, so you're not irradiating healthy tissue. We had a very large program. I had several hundred cancer patients under my care.

And unfortunately, the government didn't like the program. We were curing about 85 to 90% of stage four, end-stage neuroendocrine cancer patients. We had just discovered that we could use this technology to treat end-stage prostate cancer and end-stage breast cancer. And the government decided to shut my program down. They came after my medical license, and then they're rebuilding this program in Vancouver and British Columbia, but it's all under the federal federal federal system. government control with several hundred million dollars of federal funding so

now it is fully in the hands of the federal Canadian government so your own government basically came and stole the technology patents and everything and just ran off with it yeah it's the beauty of socialism I suppose it's amazing to think that that can happen and so you're left struggling to you know I think they put an attack on your license in order to do that yeah they've come they've come after my license you know I'm one of the few doctors who can actually speak out about the of the COVID vaccine injuries that I'm seeing, and especially now with the turbo cancers,

I'm trying to report as many of these cases as possible, try to alert people. Look, these turbo cancers, they're happening in pregnant women. They're happening in young kids, as I said, as young as 12 years old, but high school kids are coming down with these cancers. The turbo cancers, I'm seeing lymphomas. I'm seeing brain cancers, stage four brain cancers, and then breast cancers, colon cancers, lung cancers, the leukemias that are showing up in the COVID-vaccinated individuals, they can kill in a matter of days or even hours. I've reported several cases where young kids, 13 years old, 16 years old, they feel unwell, they go to emergency, and the doctors discover that they have leukemia, and then they die a few hours later. These are tragic stories,

and oncologists are, they're not talking about it. You know, there's a little bit of a lot of only a professor Deglisch in St. George's University in London United Kingdom, who's sounding the alarm. And he has seen his patients who are stable, cancer stable cancer patients who took a COVID booster shot and suddenly their cancer is growing out of control. And so he's sounding in the alarm. But, you know, doctors are being persecuted for speaking up and for causing vaccine hesitancy. How bad do you think it is? I mean, when you look at it, even even, even, you know, in that video, he said, look, I think it'll still be rare, but it's going to probably be high enough.

We should be looking at it. What is your sense? I mean, are we, you know, we're seeing all-cause mortality, sort of skyrocketing worldwide. We're not sure what our numbers are here because somehow America doesn't know how to collect data. But when we look around, you know, somewhere between 10 to 40% rise,

especially in this group, you're talking about young people, 18 to right around 24. Or, I mean, yeah, I think it's like 80% to, 18 to 24 is the highest rising group of all cause mortality around the world. Do you feel, when I watch the booster being rolled out and I see them just everybody go out and get it, and the idea of everybody getting it, how many millions, I mean, what is the vaccine uptake in Canada? I think it's like 82, 83 percent or something like that. Yeah, 84, 85 percent.

So, you know, what does our world look like five years from now? Well, so here's the interesting situation. the uptake of the booster shots has cratered. So in terms of Canadians taking booster shots, it's only about 5, 6% of Canadians have taken a booster in the last six months. So that's the good news. The bad news is that these long-term effects

that we're now seeing, and I truly believe that this turbo cancer is going to be a long-term effect because the trend seems to be increasing. So although the booster uptake has dropped, But these turbo cancers, there's more and more of them that I'm seeing. I'm reporting hundreds of them. There are probably thousands, tens of thousands of these cancers.

You go on any of the social media platforms and you just see endless cases of people reporting these cancers. So my worry is that this is going to be a long-term trend that we're going to be stuck with and we're going to be discovering more and more. There's more and more cases being published of turbo cancers. So that's making people aware of the problem. But we're not even researching really the mechanisms of what is the exact mechanism causing these cancers?

And if we don't know the mechanism, we can't treat. We can't treat these cancers. So right now oncologists have no treatments to offer these patients. They try standard chemo, they try standard radiation therapy treatments and they're not working. So these turbo cancers are resistant to conventional treatments. Doctors usually have nothing to offer.

And if the prognosis is so poor that the patient dies usually between six to 12 months from diagnosis, they have no treatment options available to them. I know you've written over 100 papers in your career on the subject of cancer. You've been doing some work with Dr. Peter McCullough. He has a recent paper out with some photos I thought were really pretty shocking. Let's take a look at this. His Bell's palsy are an aggressive, infiltrating baseloid, car. Prasenoma post-MRNA vaccination for COVID-19.

This sort of just look at this is, I guess, the ear and face of this gentleman. This is the mechanism, you know, of how it works. It sort of gives you the flowchart. And everybody, you're going to get this if you are signed up to our newsletter so you can get all the data. But, you know, it starts out with this palt, like his eyes dripping, his face is drooping. Clearly there's issues. And then it kind of just seems to get worse and worse and worse, as you're saying, you know, know, it's just, this is like a horror movie, what happened to this guy that's inside of his head.

You can see it's, you know, obviously growing, swelling, all sorts of issues. It's just really, it's just amazing to me that there's so much detail in this now. We're seeing images like this, studies being done. These aren't, you know, it's not like some crazy group of people, like really top scientists. I think there was one other study we've shown before, which was just a before and after, the accumulation of cancer. This is the rapid progression of angio-immunoblastic T-cell lymphoma following the Pfizer vaccine booster shot, a case report. And in this, look at this, folks, look at the before and after. Those little black dots represent sort of the cancers and just it explodes inside this person's body.

This was a very important case because this was one of the first cases of turbo cancer ever published. And it was a 66-year-old man who had two Pfizer shots. Five months later develops lymph nodes in the neck, and they diagnose him with a lymphoma. And at the time, the doctors didn't realize that there could be any connection between the two Pfizer vaccines he took and his lymphoma. And so in preparation for his chemotherapy,

they said, we're going to give you a Pfizer booster shot. And so they gave him the Pfizer booster shot to protect him during chemotherapy, and within a few days, he feels his neck nodes just swell up. And they... So I see, so that's why you see cancer in him in the first one. That's after two shots. No one knows.

He gets the third one and it just explodes overnight throughout his whole body. And so they decide, you know, I mean, we've done imaging recently, but let's just do another image just in case to have a good baseline just before we start your chemotherapy. And they do the second image and they see to their horror that the cancer has just exploded. And this is eight days after his Pfizer booster shot. Wow. And the cancer, so the original tumors grew to a much larger size, and then there were new lymph nodes in the axilla, in the abdomen, and in the groin area as well.

So the cancer had spread all over his body in a matter of eight days. And they published it, and it's the first example and first imaging example that we had of what these turbo cancers look like and what they could do. When we think of timing eight days, how long would you normally, if you're going to be to watch somebody that was going to sort of evolve in that position. How long should that take for a cancer like that that's in your lymph nodes? Well, that could take, I mean, that could take a couple of years. Certainly it would take many months. When you look at the first image, it took five months to get to the first image and he already had had two Pfizer vaccines, but

then you add the booster into the picture. And eight days. And that's just eight days his cancer explodes. And, you know, this is, we come back to this, this idea of the more shots you take. the more damage your immune system takes. And I think that was what the Cleveland Clinic study showed so well. Yeah. More doses, more immune system damage, and you know, the more aggressive your cancer can be now that you've completely destroyed your immune systems surveillance of cancer. Amazing. I mean it's really shocking and I just think you watch these people promoting it and I you know it's hard to not just think man so many people are just going to walk off a cliff on this. They're just

listening to the experts. Luckily, as you said, the booster shot is, I think here, I think we're under 10% receiving boosters, but that's also why they're trying to change the language, right? Let's get back to calling it a seasonal vaccine. Do you think that's going to work in Canada? Imagine I'm going to try and do the same thing. Let's get off of calling it a booster. It's your seasonal, just like your flu shot.

You know, there's probably going to be a subset of the population who will take, you know, these new booster shots and will take them every year. year. But I think the more we expose the dangers of these of these vaccines and of these shots, hopefully the more people will realize, you know, there's something very wrong here. And part of what I'm trying to do is I'm trying to alert people to what these vaccines are doing, you know, especially on the cancer side. This is a tsunami of problems that we're facing. And most people don't realize that this is a risk. And even oncologists are not realizing this is a risk because oncologists are giving the new booster shots to their cancer patients, thinking that

they're protecting them. Meanwhile, they're probably accelerating their underlying cancer. Unbelievable. Just real quickly as we sit here and look at, I think I've said before, Neil deGrasse Tyson sat in that seat, you know, promoting the vaccine. And I said, look, science is dying here. We've lost the ability to have the scientific method. No one's allowed to ask questions. You're attacked in Canada if you ask questions. I think when you take science under attack, when you listen to Paul Offett saying we've got to just put a happy face on everything, even behind the scenes we know that there's problems. But it just seems like a perfect storm up in Canada. You add socialism to that mix. And then suddenly

Trudeau is just running, just bulldozing over people's lives. Is it as bad as it appears from those of us watching the news in Canada? It is, unfortunately. You know, I've been locked out of my office, so I really can't do cancer research officially, you know, under the government. Dr. Byron Bridal, the famous virologist from Ontario, he's been locked out of his lab, I think, for over a year and a half

by his university. And so, you know, those of us, those handful of us who are raising concern about these products, about these vaccines, we're being persecuted really quite heavily. And it works because everyone else is just hush-hush. Like, why am I going to say anything? I lose all the great work I'm doing.

And you know, we're still trying to do the research. You know, I've still published a peer-reviewed article on the IGG4 shift and showing that, look, it could lead to autoimmune issues, it could lead to myocarditis and it could lead to cancer. You know, we managed to get that published. But really, you know, it's such a struggle to do this with, you know, one hand tied behind your back, behind your back and the government breathing down your neck, threatening your license, suspending your hospital privileges, for example.

It's very hard to do this kind of work. I wish we could get the support we need because people are getting injured. More and more people are getting injured, more and more people are dying. And for these turbo cancers, oncologists have nothing to offer their patients. And that's just a tragedy. Really is. If we want to follow the work that you're doing, you're doing a lot of writing on substack. What's your substack?

Macsmd.substack.com. MacusMD.supstack.com. Okay, very good. Anywhere else, Twitter, anything like that? Or is that where we say? At MacusMD on Twitter. Okay. I really appreciate the fact that you're speaking out on this.

It's great to have some knowledge in the oncology space. And I too am talking on oncologists, many of them behind the scenes are saying, I'm seeing something like I've never seen it before. And obviously, you know, a cancer doctor doesn't want to go out and say that their patients are dying, right? It doesn't like make for a good business practice. So you have that too, as they struggle, I think, to figure out. what's really going on and then to watch the news that they're saying man

cancer's on the rise in children we just can't figure out scientists are baffled it's frustrating it is so frustrating as a physician to watch you know because we have some answers already you know with Kevin McCurnan's work yeah and you know confirmed by Professor Philip Buchalt just recently in the Senate testimony yeah that's incredible work that is very very important work even before that even just few months ago we didn't know that there was DNA contamination in the Pfizer and Moderna vials. And on top of that, Kevin McCurnan discovered that there's a SV-40 promoter. It's this oncogenic virus, a piece of it, in these DNA plasmids.

That shouldn't be there. And yet this is another potential risk. That's crazy. SB40 being the contamination and caused cancer in the polio vaccines. Yeah, exactly. So this is very important to work, but it's being done by independent researchers. independent researcher like Kevin McCurnan, like Dr. Peter McCullough, like myself, Dr. Assimalhotra. Yeah. This is independent research that's pushing forward and trying to, you know, alert people to the, to the dangers of the vaccines. We need, you know, we need more support on that front. Well, we're giving you all the support we can. Any way we can help out, I really want to

thank you for sharing this story here. I recognize. I mean, great science and doctors are literally under threat. You're being persecuted, which I think in many ways is a perfect word because it's almost like this is a religion. It's like a religious cult that is attacking science and stopping the very space and the questions that are needed to save us from this disaster. So keep up the good work. We're going to continue following the work that you're doing.

Thank you so much, right. Thank you for joining me. Thank you. Really appreciate it. All right, well, we were at Freedom Fest, and for many of you've been watching, we've been getting some extra content out there on Mondays. We're dropping two new Freedom Files.

This is Artur Laffer and David Bonson, which are both, you know, big finance people. There's a lot of discussion about finance, freedom, taxes, how should our money be working? This is, if you're one of those people that's really fascinated by the corruption in our financial system, you're going to want to see this week's Freedom Files. Take a look at this. The truth is we don't have the best healthcare in the world because we do not use markets the way we do. We should have the best market in the world, but we're the least free market country in the world on health care. And once we get back, I mean, have you seen what's happened to our costs as a share of GDP versus the OECD?

From 1970, it's gone way, way up. Have you seen what's happened to our life expectancy relative to the OECD? It's gone way, way down. I call it Le Croix de Santé, which is the cross of health, which is now we just have to reverse that and really get free markets back in. We can increase our life expectancy in this country back five years just by putting in markets into health care. Well, you know, it's becoming, I hope it's becoming obvious to all of you out. there that you know your support is making it possible to do great science to bring lawsuits it's also making it possible for us to bring on bring on doctors like

Dr. Maccas to tell you the truth and share it with you so you can share it with everyone who knows so please this you know we can't be just a tree falling in the forest right just because you're seeing this happen and you're tuned in the high wire doesn't mean we can save our brothers and sisters and aunts and uncles fathers and future generations, it's really a time we're all going to have to step up here. This is a horror show. It is absolutely horrid. And to think that they're promoting this vaccine with all of these known side effects, all these issues,

which we have been talking about literally since day one we've been talking about the pseudaluridine and the potential that it could lead to cancers. We've had Ryan Colon pathologist talking about the blood clots you're seeing, all of it. And, you know, I say to you, do you really think you're going to be able to just go on with your life as normal and just put on your blinders and say, just got to go to work and just keep feeding my family and eventually this is all going to go away? These people are not only wrong and lying and persecuting those that are telling the truth. At the exact same time, they're infiltrating our government. They've taken control of all of our regulatory agencies. And if it wasn't bad enough, they're making hundreds of billions of dollars to launder and buy more and more of our political system to put weight and energy behind the WHO.

So the WHO outpowers all of the constitutional declarations in free countries around the world. This is all going on right now. And Silicon Valley is jumping up to the plate to say, hey, we got technologies where we can track and trace every human on this planet. And if they try to get out of line and not get this cancer-causing vaccine, we'll know where to find them and how to stop them. We can even shut down their bank accounts. This is all that's going on right now. This is happening in your lifetime. It's time to wake up to that reality.

I don't think it's depressing in many ways. I've said it before, you know, the ancient proverb, may you live in interesting times. Well, we've done it, folks. We have overachieved. We live in the most interesting times that have ever been. And in interesting times, heroes are needed. And that's what I think you are. I believe the entire audience out there for the high wire,

I know while you're tuning in. You need the truth. You need to be able to share it. You want to know what to talk about. Every one of you should definitely be signed up to our newsletter. If you're not, I don't know why you're not taking use of the one great free tool we give you, which is the body of science from our international body of scientists doing work, our legal team, all of it gets put in your inbox,

in your email every Monday after our Thursday show. All of it, the evidence. So you can read it or you cannot read it, even if every once in a while like that was a really great study and I want to be able to show my brother, sister, father, mother, whatever the case may be, it's right there for you to share and say, look at the CDC. Look at what we had today.

What the CDC looked at. Look at the numbers that they looked at to approve this. Here's the science where you can say to your friend, I'm not making this up. this is the document that says 10 mice is what has decided that this vaccine works for the entire world. Ten mice. They made $100 billion.

You don't think they could afford to do a little bit deeper study than that? Or maybe they don't want to know. It's time to reach down and find your inner voice. I want you to start finding a couple of the talking points every week and say, let me try this on a couple of friends. Start practicing on what gets through to people. I always say maybe asking a question is better than making a statement. Ask some questions and say, if you want some answers, here's a couple of studies I found this week on this subject.

We've got to do our part. Our nation, the United States of America, this is also an international show. So all of your nations, all of your families, the future of our planet and of our species is in our hands. right now more than ever and here is the reality a very small group of morons are trying to destroy

your life we outnumber them we're smarter than them clearly as they go we just can't figure out where all this cancer is coming from you know where it is and you need to tell everyone you know

so that we can go bust down the gates of this castle and kick these morons out that's the goal of the highwire I hope you're going to join me in that and I'll see you next week.