The Highwire with Del Bigtree - Episode 339: THE PLACEBO LIE

Episode Date: September 29, 2023

Del Bigtree has been investigating vaccines since a whistleblower came forward in 2015 to expose alleged fraud at the CDC over the MMR vaccine. Now, through the work of his nonprofit, the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN), he is digging deeper into the inner workings of America’s vaccine program using novel legal approaches. He joins Jan Jekielek of Epoch TV’s ‘American Thought Leaders’ to expose one of the biggest lies ever told to the public.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, I don't know about you, but I'm one of those people that when I travel, you know, it's nice to find that remote beach where there's just not people crowding everywhere. You kind of got the place to yourself. But then there's a point. There's a point where maybe it's too much. And I'll tell you a story really quickly. Many, many years ago, my wife and I went to the island of Anguilla on a vacation. We were living in New York City at the time. And for whatever reason, I don't know what the season was.

When we got there, I think we were the only two people on the entire island. And so for like four days, we would sit on the beach and no matter what direction you looked, it was like nobody lived on this island. We were all alone. You would walk into the hotel. We were the only ones in the hotel. Remember, we had a scooter. We would go and ride to like the local restaurant and we're scooting.

and for like 15, 20 miles sometimes all the way to the other side of the island, we wouldn't see a single car and pull into the empty driveway to be the only ones in a restaurant. And at that point, it starts feeling really creepy and strange. Like you're in the middle of some sci-fi Arbageddon, you know, post-apocalyptic movie. Needless to say, it wasn't our best vacation. We made the best of it. But I realized, you know what, I do want a few people around. Similarly, you know, as a journalist, when you get on to a story, you don't want it crowded where you're just one of thousands of people telling the same story.

Unfortunately, I guess every reporter news has to get used to that since all they do is tell each other's stories over and over again. But, you know, you want to be the one breaking. Well, that was the case with the issue around vaccinations, which I got into when I was working at CBS on the CBS talk show, The Doctors, when I dove into that, you know, investigation. I essentially had to walk away from that job to make the documentary that puts me in the middle of this entire conversation. That documentary being called Vax, for those of you that are new to watching this show Vax from cover up to catastrophe, was all about a whistleblower inside of the CDC that was saying they'd committed scientific fraud in the vaccine safety studies. Now, when I was working on that documentary, I knew I was destroying my TV career by doing it,

But I kept saying to Dr. Andrew Wakefield, who was directing the film and I was working with, are you sure we're the only ones that have this story? And he said, I'm sure there's no one else would ever cover this story. They wouldn't be crazy enough to go near it. And it proved to be true. We were all alone. And so when we were attacked by every newspaper, when we were kicked out of Tribeca Film Festival, we were all alone.

It was cool. We were breaking the story. But as the year goes on, you kind of want somebody else to join you on the beach. chapter a while. You want another news organization to pick up the story. Well, for those of you that have been with us from the beginning in 2017, after I toured the country with Vax for a year, in 2017, we started a nonprofit informed consent action network, and we started this show, the Highwire, to start broadcasting out all the legal wins we were having with our legal team, which was the heart of our nonprofit, and thus the High Wire began. And then slowly,

but surely people started entering our beach. We watched as different hosts like Tucker Carlson came forward. And podcasters like Joe Rogan, Cheryl Atkinson, who actually predates me and was here before I was, a lone voice in the desert. Dr. Drew has really jumped on this subject. Epic Times came along and started covering this vaccine conversation. And now many of us are recognizing that there are lots of podcasts. and lots of news agencies that are certainly calling out the COVID vaccine.

And I want to tell you that in this process, all we've wanted is for more and more voices to be telling the truth. So it's really awesome to have seen the growth of this conversation. We love the competition. We love that there's other networks now out there trying to get the story. Of course, we have a couple of aces in the hole with our science and legal team that is strategically placed around the world. but that's okay, we want everybody on board.

I say all of this because every once in a while I do an interview with one of these groups or one of these networks, and it's great to, I think, share the wealth. It's also great to celebrate those that have joined us. I want to do a few things here today because also as a reporter, you know, as a journalist and a public speaker like I am, it's sort of like sports or music or anything else.

You know, I know we deliver a really solid show and I give a pretty dang good talk when I'm out there in public. But every once a while you've been playing it, playing it, you just have that moment, that one game, that no hitter, that moment where you're just in the zone. And it

all clicks in a way that it never really did before, at least not on that set of topics. That actually happened fairly recently. At least I felt like it did in an interview I did with Jan Yakel over at Epic Times. We were all at

Freedom Fest. He asked if I would come over after my speech, which I had just given on the weaponization of compassion. And he said, I'd love to cover that topic. And so we sat down and had a conversation. Now, Jan is an awesome, talented interviewer. And I love his show American Thought Leaders, so it was an honor to be a part of it. And I think part of it was the questions he asked. But also all the different ways that I've answered these questions, I felt like, you know what, I want to nail it to wall this time and I think it may be one of the best interviews I've ever done, especially for many of you out there that are brand new to this discussion. They're joining high wire maybe recently or just today and you have questions about the vaccine program. And the one that's really at the heart of

all of it is why? Why would anybody lie about safety testing? What would be the advantage for regulatory agencies to not just make sure it's tested? Why would they, you know, sort of tell lies to the media and why would they force doctors or keep doctors in the dark that why or the motive if you will if it was a legal case what motivates that cover up that's what I think is nailed in this interview and this conversation so for those of you that are brand new or for those of you that have been watching for a long time but would love a really concise description for those that are asking the question come on why would they lie Here is why they lie.

So we have all of these lawsuits where we've made the NIAs, the CDC, FDA, Health and Human Services, admit that they haven't done any of the safety studies and trials that we're told by experts that have been robustly done. It's simply not true. Are the vaccines on the childhood immunization schedule really being tested thoroughly for safety and effectiveness? We're stuck in this scientific bubble of what's becoming a religion. not a science. This was never really actually about protecting my neighbor. It was a slogan on a product that never attempted to even prove it could do that.

In this episode, I sit down with Del Bigtree, founder of the informed consent action network, ICANN, and host of the high wire. They don't do the science so they can tell you that that injury you think just happened to your child. We have no evidence that the vaccine causes that. I'm sorry. This is American Thought Leaders, and I'm Yanya Kellick. Del Bigtree, such a pleasure to have you on American Thought Leaders. It's really great to be here, Jan. Thanks for having me. Del, of course, I've been watching your work for some time.

I frankly only really became aware of you as a result of the 2020 COVID pandemic. And everything that ensued following that. And you just had a very interesting talk here at Freedom Fest about weaponization of compassion. Yeah. Which is something that I've been thinking about a lot. Talking about the, let's call it the information warfare space and how it has become a, I don't know, I guess a defining issue of our time right now. Before we go there, you know, you of course have an incredibly successful program, the high wire. You've got, you work with ICANN. Yeah. Informed consent action network. I even know, I even know what the acronym means.

How did you get here? I mean, you were a CBS guy. Yeah. Not even that long ago. No, really not. I mean, it feels like in eternity because I feel like I sort of got shot out of a rocket out of CBS. But, yeah, I was working, I guess in some ways I sort of developed into a medical journalist or producer. I was a producer on the CBS Talk Show of the Doctors. I was one of the top-rated producers on the show. So it was a great gig.

I won an Emmy Award working on that show. But I was always, you know, I was always a bit controversial. I think it's why I rated really well on the show was I wasn't designed to just buy, you know, mainstream narratives totally and completely, and especially when it came to medicine. So, or science or evidence. So, for instance, I would, when the World Health Organization had ruled that glyphosate, which is, you know, sprayed over 90 to 95 percent of our country. crops when the WHO ruled that it was probably carcinogenic to human beings, I wanted to do a show about it.

I got Donna Farmer to show up, who was the leading toxicologist for Monsanto to defend glyphosate, and I brought in Jeffrey Smith, the GMO activist, and they had it out. And I remember our executive producer saying, this is incredible. It was like a Jerry Springer show. People were cheering in the audience. She's like, I don't even understand this story. What is this, Del? You know, so that was sort of how I approached television.

So I would do these stories about how industries are wronging society. Because of that, I had a lot of inside sources inside the CDC that would leak stories out to me or medical professionals that maybe saw the world a little bit differently than what we were hearing in mainstream. And one of those doctors I had worked with, I had done a show. And he said to me, you know, when we were prepping it and I was going to have him as a guest, he's like, you don't really want to have me on the show because he's like, Some people consider me a quack. I said, well, what do you mean?

He's like, well, if you look me up online, I'm one of these doctors that believes that vaccines cause autism. And I was like, oh, but this topic, he was a radiologist. Like, this topic doesn't have anything to do with that. He's like, I know, I just think if I'm on the show, it could undermine, you know, my credibility or your credibility. I said, don't worry about that. We'll stick with the story as it is.

And he said, would you ever cover that story, by the way? And I said, well, you know, on the doctors, we are pretty set on the idea that vaccines don't cause autism, that vaccines are safe and effective. But if that's a space you're really focused on, I'm always interested in a controversy and in a story, but something really big would have to happen in order for me to even pitch this story as a reason to go and, you know, revisit it. And so a year later, he called me and said, remember when you said if something big was going to happen, this vaccine autism discussion, I should let you know? I said, yeah, I remember that.

He says, well, there's a whistleblower inside the CDC named Dr. William Thompson. that's going to come forward online in about two weeks, and the world's about to find out that the CDC, he's saying they're committing scientific fraud in the vaccine safety study. And I was handed 10,000 documents that the whistleblower Dr. Thompson had provided showing and saying they made me destroy these documents,

but I kept them in a vault because this was the evidence that we committed scientific fraud on the MMR Autism Study. So I made that documentary vaxed from cover up to catastrophe. my partner was Dr. Andrew Wakefield, which I had to do an investigation of his story, right? The doctor, I mean, most people just think of him, there's that doctor in the UK that fraudulently connected vaccines to autism. That's the guy. And so when I was going to, I was like, I want to do this story about a whistleblower, but I'm going to have to be teamed up with one of the most controversial people in medicine. So I started, before I even got into the whistleblower story, I investigated him.

And I went and looked into everything I could find on that story. And very quickly, there's enough evidence and reasons that I said, oh, my God, he's not the fraud. What happened to him is. Making that documentary was considered maybe one of the most controversial documentaries ever made. We got kicked out of Tribeca Film Festival, which gave us headlines in every major newspaper, every major news media.

source was calling us baby killers and how could Tribeca do this. So we got a lot of incredible negative press, which made the film an absolute smash hit worldwide. And that's what catapulted me sort of into all of this. And so when you talk about the nonprofit, IC and the informed consent action network, after about a year of touring with the film, dealing with bomb threats at theaters

and theaters shutting us down and canceling out, and then getting it back up and lines around the block and everybody fighting to just see this film. It was really an outrageous experience. And we were driving across the country. We had a bus that said vaxed on the side of it. And people everywhere we weren't were signing the names of their children who had either been killed or injured by the vaccines.

And if you, you know, I have that bus now. It's just thousands and thousands of names of this traveling memorial to vaccine injury. But as we were traveling the film, I was doing Q&As after every screening, And one of the things that was really, it was like the third screening we did at the first theater that ever took us on after we'd been kicked out and had all this negative press was Angelica Film Center in New York City. They reached out to me and said, look, you're the biggest story in film right now, will screen your film. So we literally had to finish the film in five days.

And that's another thing that I think there's something special about the film, that it's more raw than I would have left it. I wouldn't, like as a painter, you know, I wouldn't have backed away from the canvas that early. But there's something about that that made it a little more raw than I had planned on it being, but I think it really captured that sort of that raw truth. And so by the third screening on the first day, we had a line down the block. And I was really curious, who's coming to see this movie, you know? And so we're in this pack theater and the screenings going on. And I got up to do the Q&A.

And I said, would everybody with a vaccine injured child please stand up? And three quarters of the room stood up, you know, in a small theater that held maybe 120 people, 100 people stood up. You know, there's 20, like, looking around, like, oh, my God, what's going on? And I felt like the oxygen was sucked out of the room. Like, I got punched in the chest. I had made a documentary, this documentary about autism and how, and these credible stories of these parents that have documented video of, here's my child before the vaccine, here's the day after, and they can't walk, and they're fevering and screaming. and they never, you know, they were saying mommy, daddy, I love you yesterday.

And once they had the vaccine, they never spoke again. I mean, just incredible evidence, you know. And so from that moment on, I asked that question at three screenings a day, every day of the week for a whole year. And it was constantly this ocean of vaccine injury everywhere we went. And people kept coming up after the film and saying, okay, your film was incredible. I'm worried about the MMR vaccine, but what about all the other vaccines? vaccines. And all I could say to them is, look, I don't, all I have is the anecdotal stories that people are coming up to me where we were interviewing 10, 20 families a night that after seeing the

film wanted to have this cathartic experience of telling their stories. So we're recording thousands of stories in the bus that we're driving in. And I said, here's all I can tell you. There's about 16 vaccines on the childhood schedule given in 72 doses. And there is not a single one of those vaccines that I haven't heard a parent make a claim that it destroyed their child's life. Every single one of them has got stories, whether it's a flu shot that killed my five-year-old baby, or the hepatitis B vaccine that gave me as a nurse, I've had Gian Barre syndrome because of it. Or, you know, one of the big ones I would hear is we never got to the MMR vaccine. Our child regressed into autism right after the D-TAP vaccine, which is given earlier in life.

or the big one was Gardasil, the HPV vaccine, can't tell you how many people, you know, and as you're recording all these stories, they all said the same thing, which I thought was interesting. They all said, my child has been paralyzed ever since they got the Gardasil vaccine, or my child died after the Gardasil vaccine,

but what was similar was they all said my child was a star athlete. I don't know if there's any connection there, but it was weird that everyone that told me about Gardasil that had a really bad reaction, obviously, their child was like a top softball player or runner or soccer player, you know, and I was like, I don't know what that means, but I'm hearing those stories. So ultimately when people would come up and say, what about the other vaccines, I would say, I can only tell you that I have anecdotal stories saying that they're all hurting somebody. And I wanted a better answer to that. So I started a

nonprofit in the end of 2016. We toured that whole year so that I could bring in a team of scientific experts and ultimately hired Aaron Siri, the lawyer that we've worked with, and started suing the government because one of the issues in this story that's so hard to get to as a reporter is because of the liability protection by the 1986 Act, which took all liability away from manufacturers. So we started suing our government because our government is the one that's taken on that liability. If the manufacturers aren't liable and they have no responsibility to it, our government's taking it on. And so Aaron and I devise a plan no one had ever thought of that we would start using FOIA requests, Freedom of Information Act requests. You know, that's where

we get to ask for whatever documents we want from the government. Because remember, the government works for us. A lot of people forget this. We knew that they weren't doing the proper safety trials. We ended up using FOIA to request things we knew did not exist. We would like to see your evidence that the first six vaccines, given the six months of life, do not cause autism. How are you making that statement that they don't cause autism? We'd like to see those trials. And then they push back and would say, well, we're not answering that. So you have to answer that.

This is a citizen's request. We need all of your documents. And then they wouldn't respond. And then we'd sue. We say, now, because it's our right, because you've taken too long, we're going to sue you for your evidence. And then in courtrooms, they end up having to say things like, we have no trials that have proved that vaccine, the first six months of vaccines don't cause autism.

So we have all of these lawsuits where we've made the NIAs, the CDC, FDA, Health and Human Services, admit that they haven't done any of the safety studies and trials that we're told by experts that have been robustly done. And, you know, and of course vaccines have been tested for safety. It's simply not true. And we have the evidence of it because we want it in court. And lastly, one of the things was like,

What good is a lawsuit if you're winning it, but it's like if a tree falls in the forest, the lawsuit wins in the forest and no one's there to hear it. And so I started the high wire going back to my roots and saying, let me start a television show. We'll do it on the internet where I'll start presenting all the evidence and the things that we're finding in these courts. And the high wire was born out of that. We started in early 2017.

And we've been doing a show every Thursday ever since. Quite the story. Yeah. And, you know, Aaron has been actually very helpful to me. When I need to understand something, you know, I know that Aaron will either tell me, sorry, I don't know. Yes. Or, oh, yes, I have the evidence for that. Here's the document.

Here's, let me show you, right? And some of the stuff he's got was truly astounding to me. I mean, to your point. Yes. So there's, you know, there's something like, I forget how many vaccines are on the schedule right now. It's about if you add the new COVID vaccine is technically 17 different, you know, viruses and bacteria that we're vaccinating for. And then you have multiple doses, right? So by the time a child is 18, the United States of America, they've received, depending on state-by-state few differences, but roughly 72 total vaccines by the time you're 18.

You know, I realized at some point along the way that anti-vaxxer was this pejorative slur, much like white nationalist, or many others that have been used, racist, that have been used very kind of liberally. Yeah. That's a kind of a ridiculous, nice way of putting it. Used to, to frankly, destroy people and make them untouchable. Yep. This isn't really about being anti-vaxxer or pro-vaxxer.

It's just simply about understanding what the reality around a particular drug is, right? It's so simple, really. And it's hard to watch it. Like, you know, we're watching RFK Jr. run for president and have to deal with this assault of this, as you said, a pejorative antivaxor. When all that's at the heart of this, all that I want to do or that Robert Kennedy wants to do is make sure that our vaccines are going through the exact same saline, placebo safety trials that most every other drug we take are. I have never been anti-fax. I have never told any, I have never told the public avoid vaccination. And my views are constantly misrepresented. I believe vaccine should be tested

with the same rigor as other medicines and medications. Grandpas Viagra, you know, years in safety trials. The hepatitis B vaccine were giving a day one old baby went through a five-day safety trial and there was no placebo comparator. So even if you had an issue inside those five days, there was no way to really prove. Remember, if you don't have a control group, you can compare to, they can always say they were going to die anyway. Oh, those seizures were natural. The only way you can make a causal connection between a product and it's causing this problem is you have to have one large group of people that got the product and a large group of people that got a saline injection that has no effect on the human body.

And we follow them for at least two years. So when they don't do those placebo studies, all were left with his parents saying, I swear to God, my child was perfectly healthy. And then they got this vaccine and they've been like, you know, they had Tourette's ever since. or they lost learning abilities or speech. The pharmaceutical industry and all experts will say there is no evidence that that is true. There's no causal relationship. Well, that's true because you never did the study that allowed us to say that.

And so lastly, you know, so why is it you're called an anti-vaxxer when I want just the same study that can track safety that a cancer drug is going through? You will take more care with a drug when people are dying of cancer. And they'll say, I will try that trial drug. I don't care if it works or not. I'm in stage four. I'm dying here. I want to try it.

And the pharmaceutical industry and the FDA will say, I'm sorry. Safety is so important that we need to continue this trial for two to five or 10 years to make sure it's safe before you get it. Meaning you're going to be dead from the cancer before we ever find out the safe. And it doesn't matter that you're saying, I don't care if it's safe. I'm willing to take the risk. That is the level of safety for drugs for people that are dying. But that is not the level of safety for children who aren't dying that are perfectly healthy. Don't actually need this product to survive unless maybe they come in contact with a virus.

But you would think we would have even more robust long-term safety trials. Instead, they're doing really none at all. And that's the issue. And there's only one other way you could fix this problem, which is now that the vaccines are on the market, and here's the scam, as soon as it's licensed, now they will say it would be unethical to do a placebo-based trial. So you cannot do this post-marketing because now that everyone in the plant is allowed to get the product, we can't have a placebo group and deny them. It would be like going to Tuskegee and not giving them penicillin, right? That's the argument. So this is why it's so important. that this trial gets done in the pre-licensure phase. We saw it with COVID. As soon as the EUA, the emergency use authorization came out. Now, in that vaccine trial, it is one of the first times we've seen a large saline placebo group. Part of that was because I can, my nonprofit, when the phase three trials were starting, we saw that they were going to compare the COVID vaccine that Pfizer was making

to a meningococcal vaccine as their control. I was like, no, no, no, no, no. Menycoccal has its own side effects. I don't want to compare one side effect problem with another side effect issue. I want you to compare it against saline placebo. Something has no effect on the human body. Is it as safe as getting nothing at all?

That's what we want to know. That's how you determine safety. And so we sent a citizen's petition to the FDA and said, I can, my nonprofit, will publicly state. Remember, we've won lawsuits against them, so they take us very seriously. we will publicly state that you did not have a proper safety trial of the COVID vaccine unless you add a saline placebo.

And so they stopped down the phase three trials two days later. And about seven days later, they never wrote us and said we did it because of what you said, but suddenly they replaced the meningococcal group and said, we're going to go with a saline placebo, which was fantastic. Now half of the 45,000 people are going to get a saline placebo. We're like, great, this is great. But what happens, remember there's one other part of this long-term safety trial. The only way we'll know that this COVID vaccine that could potentially manipulate our RNA,

it's an MRNA product, and any scientist that tells you they know, unequivocally, this has no way of mutating your DNA or your genetics that is absolutely nothing proven. You can't prove it unless we have a long-term safety trial. What do they do? A couple weeks after that second shot is delivered in the trial group. They look at not 45,000 people, which is what you're thinking is the size of the, this trial, they take the first 170 that get infected. 170 people decided the fate of the world. We heard 45,000 people, it was 170.

And out of 170, like nine of them had been vaccinated. And so they compared those two numbers, the 160 or 70 odd, and the nine, you know, that were unvaccinated and said it's 95% effective. So the EUA, the FDA says based on those 170, we're going to determine it's safe, about two to three weeks after the second shot. Having no ideas it's going to cause cancer in our future, no idea if it's going to cause butogenics or all the things we test drugs for.

Are there long-term side effects we are unaware of? And what happens is as soon as they deliver the EUA, meaning now everyone in the country has the right to try this experimental vaccine, the pharmaceutical industry, in this case, Pfizer, and then Moderna said, well, now it's unethical to continue with our safety trials because since anyone can get it, you're blocking the placebo group from getting a product everyone else is allowed to get. That's not right. And they went and vaccinated everybody in the placebo group. Therefore, erasing any ability to be able to make a causal connection to all the

issues we are now hearing about. Swelling of the heart, myocarditis, periocarditis, anaphylaxis, bell's palsy, you know, blood clots, these crazy blood clot stories we're hearing about. And what does the FDA say? What is the pharmaceutical industry say? We have no studies that are showing us a signal of that. What they mean is we have stopped all the studies that would have shown us a signal. And we are refusing to do any studies that would show us a signal. And that is how the entire vaccine program has worked from day one. They don't do the science so they can tell you that that injury you think just happened to your child. We have no evidence that the vaccine causes that. I'm sorry. that is difficult for people to can even consider when you offer this story, right, I think is why, right? Like, you know, general people aren't monsters. You know, people have children. They're looking after their best interest. As a reporter, I look at the world as everybody means the best. I really think that people are doing their best. I don't see, I don't, I'm not like, even though I get labeled as some sort of conspiracy theorist, I'm a journalist. I think that, you know, most past the hell

are, you know, laid, you know, good intentions. In the why, you know, and this is, I know, like I always sit here thinking, if I was having to interview me, but these are long answers, but they really are. This is, this is seven years of an investigation that, I don't know anyone else has really looked at this one program, this one issue as thoroughly as I have and used not just my journalistic forces, but my legal ability to get to the answers. And here's what I believe is really the why that we're looking for, right? What is the motive? What would be the motive to avoid doing safety trials and putting everybody at risk? And it's this. It's that from the moment Edward Jenner, the first vaccine ever made, discovers that the milkmaids are not getting smallpox,

and he notices that they're, you know, they're getting milk from a cow that has cowpox, maybe they're getting cowpox and developing an immunity of smallpox. This is the birth of vaccines. He starts cutting people's arms open, scooping the pus out of the cow and slapping it in the arms of people. And lo and behold, it works for a lot of people. Some die. Some it doesn't go so good. And this is how this starts.

Suddenly this new science principle opens up that maybe we can protect ourselves from diseases that are coming. Diseases, especially back then, were far more deadly than they would be now. We don't really know what smallpox would be like now. We've got clean running water. We have antibiotics, all sorts of things. But certainly then, this idea that we could inoculate people for things that would get you sick, brilliant, amazing. The problem is with vaccines that the concept really only works if everybody takes it, right? You can only eradicate a disease if everybody takes the product. So there's two things that are happening here. Number one, this is a cash cow genius marketing ploy for the pharmaceutical industry. Take COVID. COVID has, we now know, a death rate of about 0.35%

across all age groups. Would you rather make a drug that can protect and save 0.35% of the population, or would you invest your money in a vaccine that has to be given to 99.97% of the population and in multiple doses over and over and over again. It's clear the financial aspect of a product that everybody takes versus just a small group takes is phenomenal. But let's take the money out of it because a lot of people want to say it's greed. It's not.

It's belief in the dream. So you start giving a smallpox vaccine, then you get into polio. Now these vaccines are dangerous. The smallpox vaccine ends up causing outbreaks of smallpox in areas that maybe wouldn't have had it. We all know this is true. The polio vaccine,

causes polio in some people. And it also causes cancer. It ends up, we find out that SV-40, a simian retrovirus somehow got into the polio vaccine. But we took on those risks because these were very scary diseases. But the problem was we cannot admit that these risks exist. What started happening is the only way the vaccine program is going to work is if we put a shiny, happy face on it, which is it's perfectly safe and it's perfectly effective. Defies all pharmaceutical reasoning that there's a product that everyone can take and nobody gets hurt, but it's the only way we'll build up the confidence for everybody to take it. Meanwhile, behind the scenes, Stanley Block and in Salk and these people are going to try and fix the problems they're not telling us about, the cancers and the issues like that. What I think ultimately happens is they get so far down the road, they basically can't fix these problems.

These products have side effects like every other drug there is. In fact, you couldn't find a piece of food everyone can eat and someone's not having an allergic reaction. So this idea that they're perfectly safe for everybody is absolute insanity. It's stupid. But they've gone with it. It's the moniker that vaccines have. And so here's the problem. Now you're getting 72 vaccines giving them to everybody.

There is an ocean of children being injured that could sue. But if we let you know they exist, if we even, this is Bernadine Healy. The former head of the NIH was interviewed by the CBS. And she says very clearly, when I got to the NIH, I didn't believe in the United States. I didn't believe in this vaccine autism connection. But because I'm at the NIH, I'm the head of the most important research facility in the world. I looked at all the evidence. When I looked at it, what I realized is the question has not been answered.

The more you delve into it, if you look at the basic science, if you look at the research that's been done in animals, if you also look at some of these individual cases, and if you look at the evidence that there is no link, what I come away with is the question has not. She said, I was shocked to find that we were not doing the proper trials and studies to answer this question. Why were we not doing them? Because we are so afraid that if we find out that there is a group of children that are being injured,

no matter how small that group may be, that the public will hear about it and it will ruin confidence and people will stop vaccinating. Therefore, we stopped doing all proper safety science. That is the why. It's not people want to make it dark. You want to make it about greed and find it. It's not. It's that they really believe this is a great product that everybody needs to take. They recognize there must be a small group of people, as would be natural that are being injured,

but we can't talk about them. In fact, when they get into a courtroom, we need to silence them. We need to call them crazy. We need to make sure that every reporter in the world never interviews them and that paper is ridiculed for even covering it. Because if that story is covered, we will not get everybody to take this product. And that's the only way it works. And so we're stuck in this thought, this self-inflicted thought bubble, this scientific bubble of what's become a religion, not a science. Because a science has the scientific method.

A science demands that you're allowed to challenge me with any question you have. And we will do the studies to prove that we're right. in this case, because the orthodoxy that everyone needs to be taking the vaccine, and the only way it works is everyone believes in it, it is now a religion, because you're not allowed to challenge it. You must walk in faith, and that includes all the scientists that are making it, and all the people that are taking it. No one is allowed to question it.

No studies are allowed to be done, and that is the world we live in right now. The thing that I've become aware of that I off talk on many shows recently is that we're very, very susceptible as human beings to the perception that there is consensus around an issue. Right. We're like, that actually changes us in profound ways. It makes us do what I've come to believe is crazy things in some cases, things that appear to be, you know, kind of against our best interest, right?

And so what you're describing, right, is obviously feeds directly, directly into this, right? And this phenomenon, I see it intersecting almost in every area at the moment. And perhaps with the advent of social media, there's even more powerful tools available to influence that perception of consensus. Yeah. Consensus is not science. And by the way, consensus only makes sense if you actually have the consensus. If you are silencing Dr. Robert Malone, who looks like he was,

one of the inventors of the technology, I think we should be hearing from him. You don't have consensus from one of the people that designed it. If you don't have Dr. Peter McCullough, who's the most published heart doctor in the world, and he's saying, I think this vaccine is causing heart issues. If he's not allowed to speak and you're silencing him, you don't actually have consensus. What you have is an authoritarian, you know, regime that is pushing an untested product and not allowing for the scientific method to take place. And so, you know, that's what brings. And so, you know, that's what brings us around to this sort of weaponization of compassion, right? Took the words out of my mouth. So tell me, yeah. So how do you do it? I was joking with the audience

today because a lot of people at this libertarian conference are really big on two-a, Second Amendment rights to carry and have their firearms. Many or probably, I would guess, preppers and have stockpiles of food and are planning for some attempted authoritarian takeover of the country, which I'm not saying it's crazy, but, you know, there's some extremists out there. I said, so you were ready to go. You had your guns, you had your food, you're ready for the authoritarian government to come right across your front lawn and kick in your front door. But the problem is you left your back door open, and that back door is your compassion. They didn't come at you the way they thought. They didn't take away our First Amendment.

You thought you'd be ready for the moment and happened, and you handed it over willingly. Why? Because they simply said to you, it's the best thing to do to protect your neighbor. we're going to get this COVID vaccine out. It is totally untested, but that's okay. Trust us on that. And you must take it because it stops transmission and it will protect your neighbor. Yeah, sure, you're young. Even Rachel Maddow said this in one of her news things.

I know I don't actually need to take this. I know that I'm healthy enough and given my age group. It's really not. COVID doesn't have a big effect on me. But I'm going to take it so that I can protect that person that is at risk because that's my responsibility. I need to be compassionate for those individuals. And that's how it happened. We ended up saying, oh, to be compassionate, take care of my neighbor, I've got to do this thing. I've got to forget about my self, my self-interest, my own independent thought, my own questions

about the vaccine, which looks like it was really rushed out. I see some really shady, you know, animal trials. I'm wondering those refrigerators where everything was supposed to be like 100 below zero. I didn't see any of those end up getting made. And I have questions. No, no, no. if you're questioning, you're a bad person. You're not doing your duty. You're not protecting your neighbor, and this is how they pulled it off. You're masking, not for yourself,

but to protect the person that maybe you have COVID, you don't know you could give it to them. You're going to mask for them. You're going to not go into that church. You're not going to celebrate your religion. You're not going to talk about God. You're not going to express your First Amendment rights to assembly because you're doing the right thing.

You're protecting your neighbor. All of this was said. All of this on a vaccine. with the idea being that somehow by taking this, I would block transmission and keep everybody else from getting it. Unfortunately, we found out as the vaccine started to fail and those that were vaccinated were giving it to other people that were vaccinated and everybody was catching COVID.

And then suddenly, you know, in October of 22, the European Union, one of the leaders there asked one of the heads of Pfizer, did you actually test in your trials whether this vaccine could stop transmission? And Janine Smalley, executive advisor, says no. Regarding the question around, did we know about stopping humanization before it's entered the market? No. These, you know, we had to really move at the speed of science to really understand what is taking place in the market. No, we were moving at the speed of science.

We had to take risks. And so that then shows you there was an agenda. This was never really actually about protect my neighbor. It was a slogan on a product that never attempted to even prove it could do that. And now millions of people have taken it, probably about 70% of this country, and I'm really proud of the 30% that didn't. Under the greatest assault by propaganda, our media has ever been a part of, $10 billion spent by Joe Biden to ridicule and name call and call out those that didn't go along with it. We were under assault for standing our ground and asking questions. I lost my YouTube channel.

I was censored. I lost my Facebook channel. I watched Jimmy Kim will say, if you're unvaccinated, you know, vaccinated and you have a heart, you're having a heart attack. Come on into the hospital. You're not vaccinated. I'm sorry, Weezy. Whole audience laughs.

Oh, my God, let the unvaccinated die. That choice doesn't seem so tough to me. Vaccinated person having a heart attack? Yes, come right on him. We'll take care of you. unvaccinated guy who gobbled horse goo, rest in peace, Weezing. You're, that's, we're, we were, we were weaponizing compassion to the point where they felt so vindicated that they were doing the right thing for their neighbor that they were allowed to

hate and wish death on those that didn't agree with them. And that's how they're going to come at us again, whether it's global warming and the only way to save the planet is I have to do my part so that I can save it for future generations. which I agree with on many levels until you start weaponizing it and tracking my carbon credits and taking away my rights and then telling me what I can spend my money on. I'm all about free market forces. There's issues in this world. I also believe that people that are transgender or going through any sort of, you know, sexual, you know, thing that I don't understand.

If you're an adult, it's a free world, man. I mean, we're here to Libertarian Concert. Live, I mean, conference, live and let live. but when you start trying to mind my seven-year-old child in school while I'm not there and pry through their emotional experiences and see if you can dig up some gender confusion so that you can start telling them that they probably want to cut off their genitals, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm not so compassionate on the issue that's there that I'm going to allow you to do that to my children. These are the attacks that are happening.

And we are being told if I try to protect my child in that situation, that I'm a bigot. Or I'm a racist or I'm a white supremacist. This is how they're doing it. They tell you that your child will commit suicide unless you consent, actually, which is, you know, most powerful. No evidence whatsoever to make that statement. There's no scientific studies, no decent ones, no long-term studies, plenty of studies that show even after getting generated your assignment surgery. Suicide rates are incredibly high. This is a complex issue we should be looking at it.

We should have a lot of conversations about it, but we are in no position right now to start mandating as California is about to do. I think they might have even passed, but they're working on a law that says if you do not go along with your child's new identity of their self and their gender, whether it's, you know, gender, you know, transforming or just non-binary, if you do not empower that in them, you will be accused of child abuse. And that can be used against you in the court of law. law, especially right now when it comes to custody battles, but once it's on the custody table,

it will go into child abuse in general. What happens if both parents are not, you know, telling their teenager they're going along with it. I'm not going to call you he when I can clearly see the body that, you know, I bathed and I brought up and I raised. Now, I don't know which is the right choice, right? But nobody does. At this moment, especially with this issue so brand new, I believe in this time, the parents get to decide how they're going to try and deal with these confusing moments in time for their children. And on both sides, they may or may not be right. But it should be the parent's choice. When the government starts stepping in and mandating upon us how we are allowed to talk about it, how we are allowed to live, one thing's for sure,

we are no longer adhering to the principles that our founding fathers dream for this nation. It's not supposed to be driven by the government. It's supposed to be driven by the people. the individual. It must have struck you, the way you describe everything around the sort of the information ecosystem around vaccination. It must have struck you how it's so similar in some of these other areas now. Do you think that people learn, someone decide, oh, look, that worked and they applied the same thing? Or why do you think this is, it is so similar? It's a good question. You are right. that one of the end, and I'm sure you experienced this because you do such great work at Epoch Times and you guys cover so many different subjects in many ways more than I do, so you get to see the

similarities. But what I have as an advantage is because I'm a public speaker. I come to events like this all the time. So I get to go out to dinner with my, you know, the mirror image of me, but they are in, you know, industrial agriculture and investigating that, or they're in world banking systems or they're in crypto or they're, and so I get to go out with these people and they'd start describing the corruption of the regulatory agency that handles the issue they're looking at. And we realize we're all fighting the same thing, right? Corporations are out for themselves. It's the natural law of things, right? They are trying to make as much money as they can and take care of their stakeholders as best they can. That's how they're wired. The regulatory agencies are

supposed to keep that in mind and make sure that we force those companies. to do proper safety trials or to properly, you know, give us evidence and transparency on how they're moving our money or all the different ways we're supposed to be protected. What's happened is those industries and the way our government has worked, we've allowed too much infiltration of money and funding from these corporations into our government, into these regulatory agencies. So they're all being bought up, purchased, and now being run by the very industries. the only purpose of these regulatory agencies was to protect us from industrial overreach, right, from poisoning us or hurting us because they don't care about us. They care about making money. But now that the head of Monsanto or one of the top people of Monsanto is running the EPA,

or Exxon and Shell have their people basically running the EPA, or, you know, the FDA has got Monsanto or Pfizer and CDC's got Merck and Sinofia Bentis heads. We watch Gottlie, we watch this revolving door. You work for the government, and then suddenly you're working for Pfizer, or vice versa coming from Pfizer and working for our regulatory agencies. In the end, it's all the same play. It's what corporations do when they want to take over your government, give you the facade of believing the regulatory agencies are protecting you,

but really all they've become is advertising arms because they're owned. And then ultimately, we just hand all of the industry, we say you do all your own safety studies and you just tell us how they went. And this is the story. I think in many ways these lies and these coverups by regulatory agencies, they just work. They work a certain way. So why change it? And luckily for you and I, I actually believe the truth sounds better and sells better.

So that's why with a little bit of money Epoch Times has had and a little bit that the highwire has had, we're one of the greatest threats to media they've ever seen. and they can't figure it out. They can't figure out what we're doing. They'll say there's a media empire of anti-abactures or of anti-science people. It's a lie, but it's not working. We seem like an empire. And all we are is a couple of guys that just tell the truth and interview people telling the truth,

and millions and millions of people are hearing it, and the truth just sounds better. Yeah, I mean, at epoch, we have a few more than a guy. I'm being a little bit glib here but no, it's been an unusual road at Epoch because we never intended. It wasn't our interest in particular to be bucking the system.

It wasn't our interest to be, you know, we were started to actually, actually our origins were read into the congressional record just recently and we were, you know, we were founded by Chinese Americans who wanted to tell the truth in, a situation where there was a lot of lies and propaganda coming from the Chinese Communist Party. And I think that DNA from the beginning has kind of helped us throughout to always be truth-seeking.

There are so few players, right? It's very strange. Whether it's focusing on, you know, vaccines to start, and I understand now you're kind of branching out into some of these other areas that you've discussed, or whether it's, you know, I don't want to say everything, but kind of, you know, all areas, there does seem to be a dearth of truth-seeking, not just seem, I know there is a dearth of truth-seeking in almost every area right now. And that's partially because the journalistic profession

has become less interested in terms of interest. It's become a popularity contest, right? Ultimately, it used to be that you were challenging the status quo, that you're supposed to be the fourth branch of government that was just fearless in your ability to question the president, See, we live in a time now where all CNN has to do is find an expert that makes a statement that fits the agenda. And everyone goes, oh, okay, the expert said it. That's actually not journalism.

And, you know, we're supposed to say, I don't care that they're an expert. That expert has to show me the evidence of how they've come to that conclusion. And then we'll decide. And we'll have the other expert on the other side, because there's always two sides of the story. Put up their evidence. Let's see the evidence, not bloviating, you know, I said the statement more times and louder, therefore I win. It's not what this is about. But journalism is caught up in the same problem, right? It's its funding. Most of its funding is coming from corporate interests now that realize

that the news is a really great advertising tool. That the news represents my product in a good way. It does better than buying advertising. So how about I invest in advertising? I get to put up ads and if I have enough advertising, I get to control the news anchor and the reporter or the newspaper and what they're actually saying about my products. And that's where we're at. I always think about that. When people, I get attacked by New York Times, Washington Post, they'll still say,

I'm a purveyor of misinformation. What's the word they always say that I'm a grifter? That somehow there's an advantage to taking on a topic that gets you attacked by the mainstream on a constant basis. That someone would leave an Emmy winning career to get on a topic simply because I want, I wanted to be attacked, mercilessly by people that refuse to put any evidence on the table?

And is that a lucrative career for me? Do you really think I'm doing better being under attack working for a nonprofit than I was working as a producer for CBS? Do you really think Robert Kennedy Jr., one of the world's leading environmental lawyers of all times, an heir to probably the, you know, one of the great legacies and dynasties of our nation, to put. the Kennedy name in the lurch, you know, and put a bad, you know, cloud over it

and to wipe away his entire history of being a great environmental attorney, which, by the way, every Democrat would love him for it if he would just let go of this vaccine issue. I am astounded that all the people that report and, you know, throw their vile attacks at Kennedy and me and others, never ask the question, what would possibly be our motivation?

Why would I be doing this unless I saw something I thought was important? At least look at why I've put it all on the line. Look at what Robert Kennedy is saying. Don't say it's misinformation because I heard it's misinformation. He's telling you what I told you. There are no placebo trials being done prior to licensure of these products. We don't know if they're safe. Is it really so bad that a guy that's running for president wants to ensure

that your vaccines are all safe? I mean, ultimately, that's what it's all about. And that's, you know, it's just, it's amazing how these narratives can be created. And we're susceptible to them. Yeah. Right? That obfuscate the purpose or, you know, cast a moral doubt. Del, this has been a fascinating conversation.

I think we need to finish up shortly. But, you know, any final thoughts? We need to return to being skeptical beings, doubtful beings. that have to be convinced of something using evidence, not repetitive languaging. I think we have to realize, and I think we really have to not walk away from the COVID pandemic, just because it's in our rear every mirror and think we got through it. I think we have to ask ourselves, what did I learn there? What I learned is my CDC, my FDA, and the president of the United States all told me that this product would stop transmission.

And in the end, it was never even tested if it could do that. They lied to me. and therefore the experts have some explaining to do, and they're going to have a lot of work to do to regain my ultimate trust. If we get to that space and realize that not only we are allowed to ask every question and hold skepticism against the things that we're being told or true, or we're told we should adhere to, not only we allowed, I would say that the Constitution, the United States of America,

and the Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights and these documents that in some ways seem to be almost channeled through, sure, not perfect beings, but are pretty outstanding documents. What they said to us is, don't ever take your eye off of this. Don't ever take your eye off the government. There's never been a government that works for all people all the time. We did the best to create something that we think is as close as you can get to a good system. But if it ever gets out of control, then it will take your...

you over and it'll be just as ugly as every other authoritarian regime or communist regime, whatever it is. We are the ones that sort of oversee our constitution. We the citizens are in control of our destiny in this nation. Not those that we elect, though, they're a part of it. What we stand for, what we put up with, what we live in, what we fund. All of that matters. be skeptical, be curious. Allow yourself to ask the right questions. Well, Del Bigtree, it's such a pleasure to have had you on. Thank you very much. It's been pleasure.

I want to thank once again, Jania Kellogg for that brilliant interview. His producer that works so hard to make all of that happen, Karris Rea. Thank you guys so much. And everybody, if you are not, subscribers to the Epic Times, then make that happen. They are doing really great reporting on the CETU vaccines, but many of the other things that we also cover, whether it's banking systems, digital currencies, pesticides, herbicides, and all the problems in this world. The truth is growing. There's a network now of voices that are not being controlled by, you know, pharmaceutical sponsors, diapers, Exxon, oil, the thing that is,

that I say at the top of this show. It is agencies like this and reporters like me and Yon and others that are giving you the opportunity to actually purchase your truth through sponsorship or through getting involved. Sure, I know you sponsor all the liars on television by paying your cable bill, but when you subscribe to Epic Times or when you become a recurring donor to the high wire, you make it possible to actually have

an avenue to the truth that is not being controlled by the corporations that are literally attempting to own you. Some really incredible stats that we're starting to find out about in this world. When we think about the World Economic Forum, how they celebrate this idea of a future where none of us will own anything and all of us will rent and will be happy. And to think, well, what does that mean? Is that really going to happen? And then we start getting stats that Black Rock and

Vanguard and State Street are using subsidiaries to buy up houses all over this country. Many of us are finding ourselves losing to a cash buyer that in the end ends up being the giant corporate destructive power of Black Rock, Vanguard and State Street. And in essence, they're saying they may own over 60% of our houses in America within just the next decade. And then where will we be? And then what does freedom mean? What does property mean?

And when you have the pharmaceutical industry, buying your government, passing laws, writing, literally writing the laws to sell their own products to us, and regulatory agencies that aren't making them do any safety studies, just taking their word for it, and then using the power of the President of the United States to say, you're all going to have to get this, or you don't get to continue working. Do you see what's going on here? I keep saying it, and I know most of you that are watching the show and tuning in every week, you're getting it, right? You're like, Dell, I get it. I'm awake. Okay, we need more of you to talk to your friends.

You need to get, you know, them to start watching the high wire. You certainly need to take an interview like this, and this is going to be a very short show for a reason. I want you to use this show this week and that interview. If you even want to shorten it, go to, you know, Epic Times, and you can take and share their version if you think your friends might be more likely to watch it. But use this as a net. We need to cast out a net, a wide net, to everybody out there that may be.

have some brain cells, you know, and synaps is starting to fire. They're starting to wake up and say, wait a minute, none of this is making any sense anymore. I'm starting to have questions about the people I thought I could trust. Those people need us. We are the buoys out there in the ocean lit up trying to bring them home. That's why I wanted this week to use this interview, because I think it will really help a lot of people that have questions that are on the line and still haven't totally pride themselves away from their biases and their brainwashing, but they know something's up. It's a very clear interview, and I think it's a great tool.

And that's what we want to do here. All we want to do on the Highwire is provide you with the tools that you need to know the truth and to be able to share the truth and to be able to help your neighbors get out of their bark loungers, stand up and stand for their freedom and their liberty before it is taken from all of us. us. We can't do this alone. We need help from every man, woman, and child capable. All the capable of the people are needed right now. It is a blessed in time. This is an amazing moment in history. I'm so happy to be alive right now because if there was ever a question, what is the purpose of life? Certainly we have a purpose right now. We are needed to save the dream.

of the United States of America, that we all can live with liberty and freedom and a true pursuit of happiness, not controlled by authoritarian powers and corporations outside of us, but by our own free will and our intuition. That's what the high wire is all about. That's why you're tuning in every week, and I can't wait to see all the people you enroll in this brilliant journey we're on and bring them to the show. next week. I'll see you then.