The Highwire with Del Bigtree - Episode 341: SEA OF CHANGE

Episode Date: October 13, 2023

Firebrand California Dr. Jeffrey Barke, who filed a lawsuit against CA’s AB2098 which sought to target doctors not towing the Pharma line, joins Del to celebrate the Repeal of the Draconian Law; Jefferey Jaxen Reports on Russell Brand Allegations and its ties to Push to Censor Online Speech, Globalists Signal Their Retreat From Extreme ‘Green Economy’ Push, and CDC’s Mandy Cohen Gets Fact-Checked; ICAN Funds a Major Lawsuit Targeting PREP Act Immunity and the CICP.Guests: Jeffrey Barke, M.D., Aseem Malhotra, M.D., Aaron Siri, Esq.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. How about we all step out onto the high wire? You know, one of the things that I want to talk about today is, you know, everyone asked me as I'm, you know, traveling the country, how do you have so much faith? How are you so brave? How is it that you're so confident? One of the things that I hear and I really love when you walk up to me in airports, you'll come up and say, I love watching the high wire because it gives me hope.

Well, the reason it gives you hope is because I have hope. And everyone on my team has hope. Why? Because we see how the conversation has been shifting since we began this work. And sometimes it's shifting in other parts of the world, sometimes right here in America, and sometimes right in the hardest hit places in the middle of an authoritarian takeover like California. In this case, this is a story where ultimately they tried to pass laws

to take away freedom of speech from doctors, doctors that had a successful operation treating people with things like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. California wanted to make sure that you were never treated properly again, and if you went against what the CDC said, your license should be taken away. Well, this bill, as we show it right here, was Assembly Bill No. 2998, and in California, it was passed and put into law. California law strips license from misinformation spreading doctors. Well, luckily, multiple doctors decided to bring a lawsuit about those, those that still believed in free speech. And certainly, the doctor-patient relationship and do no harm.

Two doctors filed a lawsuit to stop Gavin Newsom's SB 2098 law, which censors medical information. In this case, one of the doctors was Jeffrey Barky. This was just one of the cases that was brought in California. We had him on our show to discuss what this case was about and why he was. was launching this case against the Attorney General of California. This is what he had to say back then. Physicians are now going to be required to consider the state's narrative before making a therapeutic decision for a patient. That's why I'm involved to protect patient care. You know, if you read the bill, and it's very interesting, and I'm going to quote you exactly from the bill,

It says misinformation means false information that is contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus contrary to the standard of care. There is no consensus unless you literally censor doctors that have a difference of opinion. So the so-called consensus is constantly changing. Here in the United States, we're recommending boosters to six-month-olds and women that are pregnant. If I speak out against that, I'm now going against the government census, and the medical board may sanction me and want to take my license away. And doctors have very limited rights when it comes to being investigated by the medical board.

So that's the problem. And when physicians have to consider the state's narrative as to how to treat patients, then patients are being put directly in harm's way and are at risk of being hurt. And that's bad for patients, it's bad for doctors, it's bad for medicine. It's bad for medicine, and that's why Mark and I are fighting against this. So why do I have hope? I have hope because there's heroes everywhere. It's not just a nonprofit like the informed consent action network that brings lawsuits and makes a difference.

Sometimes a couple of doctors can literally change the course of history. And in this case, I believe that is what's happened. When you look at 2098 that was passed, ultimately it was in court. There's many cases against it. Here's what one of the judges said about the case that they were looking at. Ultimately, this headline says it all. Federal judge calls definitions of misinformation nonsense in AB2098. The writing was on the wall.

Clearly, this was a case that was going to go against the state of California. Gavin Newsom, I would imagine if Gavin ever decides to run for president of the United States. It's really not very good to be considered running an unconstitutional law against doctors and citizens in your state. And so because of that and all the reasons we do or do not know, we are here to celebrate today that we now have a new bill that overrode the old bill. And this is how the reporting on its Senate bill number 815, just shortly after passing 2098. What does it do? California repeals the COVID misinformation law bowing to legal pressure.

Well, there you have it. Change has been made. California has been saved. Doctors are actually allowed to speak their mind and treat their patients as they see fit. It is my honor and pleasure to be reasonable. joined by one of the great doctors and courageous heroes in America today. Dr. Jeffrey Barkey joins me now. Jeffrey just like like honestly victory lap moment. This is a spectacular moment for California and as we've said as California goes so goes the nation and then the world.

What do you feel like today? Well listen Del you're very sweet and I appreciate you having me on. It's a partial victory. So it's yes it's a victory that this law was But it's not a victory that we have not yet got a ruling by our Ninth Circuit judge. We had our case heard by the Ninth Circuit. It's been about two months. And during that case, the judge asked some very strong questions of the defendant, which is the state of California, and seemed to be leaning in our direction, understanding why we believe this law was unconstitutional.

But now we haven't got a ruling. We want a ruling. The reason why we want a ruling is what's to stop the legislature and the governor from signing into law another law just like this. So repealing the law is law is great. Don't get me wrong. It is good. But we still want a ruling from the judge that says this law and this type of law is unconstitutional. Interestingly, the court reached out to us, Liberty Justice Center, who's representing us, and asked them if we'd be willing to withdraw our case since the law has been repealed. And we said no. And they said, and they said,

And we would even stipulate, because this law, this new repeal doesn't go into effect until January, we would even stipulate the court said that we won't enforce this law over the next couple months until it actually goes into effect. And again, we said, no, we're not going to withdraw the case, stipulation or not. We want a ruling. We've spent money and time and energy and effort. We got heard before the court. It seemed to be going our way.

We want the judge to rule. Now, we don't know whether the judge will rule since the law is basically moot. And you know, it's so funny, in the original bill, AB 2090, and I'm going to read from it, here's part of the preamble to this bill. Major news outlets have reported that some of the most dangerous propagators of inaccurate information regarding COVID-19 vaccines are licensed healthcare professionals. So major news organizations have reported. That's what they use in this bill.

It's ridiculous. It's amazing. time required to follow the state's narrative in discussing information, medical information with a patient, it's bad for patients, it's bad for doctors, it's unconstitutional, it's bad law. We're still hoping for a judge ruling here. I think that's great. I love that, you know, you're not backing down. And that's really what this is about. I appreciate where you're at. I also, you know, I want to say that, you know, sometimes we get all of what we want and we experience this with ICAN all the times, you know, that we go in.

A lot of times they will just go ahead and change laws in order to bail out so that precedence is not set. That's why the work that we do, we bring so many lawsuits because it's a long journey to get to the Supreme Court and to actually rule on something like this. And all along the way, there's always that risk that they go ahead and change some law to make moot your case, which is why it's, you know, whack-a-mole out there. And I love that you're playing this game with us. It's going to take all of us.

And for everyone watching right now, I think what's... What's really important is whether you're a student trying to go to university and you're not able to get in because of some vaccine law or you're a doctor being shut up or whatever that your business was shut down. If you have means or can find a nonprofit or some way to bring a case, this is the beauty, I think, Jeffrey, of being in the United States of America. We definitely got off track. COVID was handled horribly. But what we've seen is this aftermath of this brilliant three branch system that we have, the executive. the legislature and the judicial branch. And in this case, the judicial branch has really been, you know, leaning heavily on the Constitution of the United States of America, which I think is proving to be one of the most important documents of our time. You know, so it's stepping into

courtrooms that makes a difference. When you look at this now, when you look at the state of science, how crucial is it that you persevere, that precede, that precedes, that precedes, is set here. When you think about the future of medicine, what is your greatest concern? It's really important, Dell, and not just forget the COVID situation for a moment. There's so much in medicine that's wrong. There's so much that we're taught that just isn't so. Whether it's the use of pharmaceutical products to lower cholesterol, which I think is mostly BS, whether it's direct-to-consumer advertising. We're the only country, us in New Zealand, that allow that to occur. So you watch Monday night football or any other sporting event and you're inundated with drug ad after drug ad after drug ad.

The scientific system of research now has been corrupted and it's completely biased. We need to fix this. And I hope in whoever wins the presidency that they will find a prominent role for him to help with some of that work that needs to be done with our three letter agencies. You know, listen, if your viewers want to learn more about me, they can follow me on Instagram. Instagram, RX4, F-O-R-Liberty, or my website, R-X for Liberty. We're going to continue to fight. And I've got a license now in Texas. I'm applying for one in Florida.

I'm going to protect myself and do the best I can to be true to my patients, to treat them with respect and dignity, and to do so as best I can to teach them how to take care of themselves so they don't need physicians and they certainly don't need big pharma. Dr. Jeffrey Bark, I wanted to thank you for taking the time from all your your patients, all the great work you've done, you know, just my last statement. What's crazy to me about this story and any attempt to silence doctors is one thing you never hear the mainstream media that apparently knows more than the doctors that are speaking out

is how about a study of those doctors that did use hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin? Why do we compare their results with their patients? They're all listed. We know who they are. What were their results compared to all the doctors that stuck with the protocol given by the CDC and the government bureaucratic? saying there's nothing you can treat them with, make them go home, bring them back, put them on a ventilator, give them remdesivir, and then see how they turn out. I think when we look at those numbers, it would be clear that your numbers and many like you across this nation and across the world had far better outcomes.

When are we going to get science like that, comparative studies that ultimately will say who was right and who was wrong? This is where the media is deficient. This is where our government is clearly corrupt. And lastly, I want to say that we're going to be talking later about the PEP Act and a lawsuit that we are going to be bringing. I think there's going to be a big game changer. But that PEP Act should have protected you the same way it protected every doctor that shook their responsibility to people that sent them home when they were sick, let them get to the verge of death, then brought them in, put them on ventilators where they had a nine out of 10 chance of dying. You know, that prepback said that any doctor that attempts anything, basically, should be protected because we don't know what we're doing here. It's amazing that they selected those out that had the best record like you and then said, you're going to be, we're going to take the prep back protections away from you and go further.

You have no free speech. We are really living in incredibly strange and dark times. And it's so awesome to have heroes like you out there. They're standing in court and really turning this thing around. Yeah, Dale, well, listen, thanks for the great work. you do. Thanks for having our back. I mean, listen, I think we should put a warning label on all vaccines, for example. It should say something like, please be aware the vaccine you are about to get, the company is immune from all liability. Take it your own risk. And I really promote the

idea of informed consent. I'm not opposed to anybody getting any vaccine. I just want them to be aware what are the ingredients, what are the studies that brought it to market, and what are the potential side effects. They're not getting that now, and I think that's important. And last, what you pointed out and how confident are the manufacturers and the product they're giving you. Do they stand by it or are they making the problem somebody else's responsibility? Such a great point. Dr. Jeffrey Barky, keep up the great work. I look forward.

I'm sure I'm going to be on the stage speaking with you sometime in the near future. Just an honor, pleasure to know you and thank you for being a guiding light for so many on how we should be holding ourselves in these incredible times. Thank you, Del. Appreciate you having me on. All right, take care. All right. Well, we have a lot to talk.

about. I got to see Mahaltra is coming up later in the show. Another courageous individual, one of the leading heart doctors in the UK that has come under fire for speaking his truth. We're going to talk to him about where he's at. And actually, where's he at? He's in America. And you may have an opportunity to see him very soon. And I've got Aaron Siri. We're going to talk to about an incredible case that may destroy the PEP Act protections of the COVID vaccine. Wait to you hear about that. But first, it's time for it. Jackson Report. Jeffrey, it's awesome to get to take a victory lap with, you know, so many depressing things that are happening in the world all the time. It's really lovely when we get to say,

you know, the people win. When the people stand up, when we stand up for ourselves, good things happen. They do. And people need real information to be able to stand up for themselves. So that's why the speech of doctors is so important for the health conversation. But I want to present something also going from those speech of doctors that are being protecting California to the and open debate of us all. And I want to just say right before I start this segment, that some of the things we're covering may not be the most appropriate for kids.

So if there's anybody watching, because we know a lot of parents use this show to homeschool their kids and teach the media literacy. So I just wanna throw that out there. So it's essential to understand a larger picture surrounding these protective media narratives and official stories that we're getting. And a lot of people are really trying

to find a way to keep up with this, rapid news cycle we found ourselves in. And so it's essential for organizations and even people that can cut through all of this and just get to the facts and say them very simply. It's really important to do that. And this is something we do here on the show. There's a lot of other people that do it. But one of the people that does it best is Russell Brand, comedian, actor. He also has his own show on Rumble. And here's an example of him doing just that with Bill Marr. All right. Out of respect for you and your show, I've brought some facts. Would you...

If you'd like, they're actually... You just get the f*** out of him. This is not the place. I put it in fact. We love facts. I love facts. I wouldn't have mentioned it. I'm English, and you know that politeness is our fundamental religion.

The pandemic created at least 40 new big farmer billionaires. Pharmaceutical corporations like Moderna and Pfizer made $1,000 of profit every second from the COVID-19 vaccine. More than two thirds of Congress received campaign funding from pharmaceutical companies in the 2020 election. Pfizer Chairman Albert Baller told Time magazine in July 2020 that his company was developing a COVID vaccine for the good of humanity not for money and of course Pfizer made $100 billion in profit in 2022

and may I just mention finally and this is also a fact that you, the American public, funded the development of that, the German public funded the bio-N tech vaccine when it came to the profits they took the profits when it came to the funding you paid for the funding All I'm querying is this, is if you have an economic system in which pharmaceutical companies benefit hugely from medical emergencies, where a military industrial complex benefits from war, where energy companies benefit from energy crisis, you are going to generate states of perpetual crisis, where the interests of ordinary people separate from the interests of the elite.

Absolutely so brilliant. It's been fun to watch him over the years as he's, you know, wax spiritual and then political but his ability to have words flow through him is really something spectacular right and so the we've seen in the past that people have been focused on to push a greater kind of censorship narrative we saw this with Alex Jones he was pushed he was pushed against but with a sandy hook controversy to de-platform him on every platform he's still not on elan must x platform and so we're seeing something happening with Russell brand now. This has been going on for several weeks. The news coverage all looks like this. Take a look. Russell Brand under fire after multiple women have accused him of sexual assault in a new documentary

report. An explosive expose published by the Sunday Times detailed four women's accounts, sexual and emotional abuse by Russell. He's also accused of grooming a 16-year-old girl who says she was taken from school to his home and a car paid for by the BBC. And these allegations come from a joint investigation by British news. news outlets, the Sunday timed, the Times of London, and Channel 4 dispatches. Brand was known for his wild behavior and promiscuity, at one point even describing himself as a narcissist and seeking treatment for sex and drug addictions. Mr. Brand posted a video denying any wrongdoing hours before claims of rape and sexual assault

were published. His suggestion is that this is all part of a grand conspiracy. But amidst this litany of astonishing, rather baroque attacks are some very serious. allegations that I absolutely refute. Is there another agenda at play? Particularly when we've seen coordinated media attacks before, like with Joe Rogan, I'm aware of news media making phone calls, sending letters to people I know for ages and ages.

It's being clear to me, or at least it feels to me, like there's a serious and concerted agenda to control these kind of spaces and these kind of voices, and I mean my voice along with your voice. The consequences of the accusations are already apparent. are already apparent. Brand's book deal has been shelved, his tour has been postponed, his management team has dropped him. In the moment, he's been canceled, left, right and center by everybody and everything. All right, Jeffrey, I want to say, you know, this is a topic that we've discussed,

you know, how we're going to talk about it. First of all, I want to state for the high wire that we are making no claim that it's okay, whatever, you know, Russell Brand and, you know, what he did with other people. I think that that all needs to be adjudicated. I think the question we have is really is this sort of a, you know, the one reporter said a grand conspiracy. Is it a grand conspiracy? One of the things that makes you ask that question is when you look at the newsstands in the UK, the day that this came out, and every single paper didn't matter which one are all in unison on a story, all together, every single level, everywhere you look. If that's the case, then who tipped it off?

and why is this story so important to every magazine that it got the cover? Those are the types of things and more that I know you're about to share, but I want to say that we don't condone the activities of those that go out and maybe have inappropriate relationships. But that is for the courts, I believe, to decide what the question is, is what is the validity of simply having news reports about something? Does the news carry weight? In the case of what Jeffrey Barky just said,

The fact that in a law, it says because news agencies have reported that trained doctors have spread misinformation, when did a reporter have more power or knowledge about medicine than a doctor? And when was that used as a reason to legislate something? I think this is really at the heart of the question we're about to ask here, Jeffrey. Right. Serious accusations, not for us to judge, but we're looking at the things happening in parallel with these accusations surrounding this. So as it said in that news clip, this was an investigation, a joint investigation was led by the Times in the UK.

And here's the headline when it first came out. It was in mid-September, Russell Brand, accused of rape, sexual assault, and abuse of four women. These were women that came forward in this investigation. At that time, there was no charges, just claims. Since then, the Metropolitan Police said they were investigating it. But during the time when it was just claims, you had some really interesting points happening alongside of this. So let's start with Beverly Taylor. Beverly Taylor, for our audience, you may remember her in 2021.

She was questioning the efficacy of the COVID jabs on mainstream media in the UK. And she was banned from some of the stations for doing that, which we know now was a very valid question. In fact, it was the right question to ask. She went to use her personal Twitter account to put this out there for Russell Brand. She says, you are being attacked. Establishment media don't know what to do with the fact that you have 6 million subscribers and generate autonomous knowing and original content. you are welcome on my G.B. News show anytime. We are mainstream media, but we are not established

media. There is a difference. Well, to this, Beverly Turner received a letter from a UK government office. This office is titled the Culture, Media, and Sports Committee. And this letter said, among other things, this, it is concerning that Beverly Turner, who described Mr. Brand as a hero, invited him to appear on her show, subsequently fronted G.B. News coverage of the allegations regarding Mr. Brand on the morning of September 18th. During the broadcast, Ms. Turner announced that if he'd offered to come on this morning, we'd have, we'd have them. Let's be honest. It goes on to say, the letter, the UK government says, we remain concerned that having a presenter so clearly supporting an individual who is a subject of intense media coverage, including speaking,

seeking their appearance on the show, undermines any perception of due impartiality in the broadcasting. So the UK government is reaching out to a news agency and saying, basically, one of your main anchors is asking for an interview for one of the most controversial news-grabbing headline people in the world at that time. That's what news people are supposed to do. That's what journalists are supposed to do. They're supposed to get to the story. Yeah, I mean, being attacked by your government for allowing someone that is being accused of something that hasn't been proven in any court, would you like to come on my show and share your side of the story? And they're saying that that's incredible that you would give them that opportunity

under the amount of accusations against them. I mean, folks, let's remember, at least in America, I'm pretty sure in the UK too, you're innocent until proven guilty to have a government agency reaching in and reprimanding a news agency for allowing a human being to defend themselves in public discourse, as every headline is making an accusation,

that they shouldn't be allowed a balance of, like, here's my side of the story. It's really, really actually very disturbing. And now we get to the meat of this story. So you have this government now stepping out. It wasn't just GB News. It was the BBC. They received their own letter from the Culture, Media, and Sport Committee of the UK government.

And in their letter, it said this. Instead of asking them not to report on him, they said, could you, please, could you also assure us that while respecting any potential police investigation, all information that can be disclosed publicly will be so. So they're saying, show us your sources. We need everything. forget how you want to present it. We just throw it all out there. So again, they're getting into the role of a journalist, but then it gets into social media.

So this is where we interact personally with these stories. Most people get their media and their news from social media. So that government committee reached out to TikTok, the European head of TikTok, and they started asking about Russell Brand's personal way he makes money. So they said this, quote, we are concerned that he, Russell Brand may be able to profit

from his content on the platform. We would be grateful if you could confirm whether Mr. Brand is able to monetize his TikTok post. So now they're starting to seek, again, just an investigation by a media organization. And now the UK government's asking where this guy gets his money from, rumble. Let's be clear.

They are trying to stop his source of income. They're trying to block the flow of payment for the work that he does, which has nothing to do with these accusations. You've got accusations that have no basis in court, Now you have a government agency. And by the way, when you go back to that question of a conspiracy, what the heck is a government jumping in here when every news agency covers it? And now all of a sudden the government's saying because those news agencies cover it, this is real.

And therefore, we must stop all payment to this man and stop his job and his career. That's crazy. And it sure smacks of a conspiracy. And we've seen this escalation before with the truckers in Canada. We've seen this escalation with GoFundMe stuff. sites that people are trying to. So this is not something new where government really steps in and tries to grab the bank roll of people that they, you know, they may not appreciate what they say. So the Culture Media and Sport Committee sent a letter to Rumble. Now this is an American company,

a streaming platform that competes with YouTube. They ask Rumble the same question that they ask TikTok. They said, we would be grateful if you could confirm whether Mr. Brand is able to monetize his content, including his videos, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. So they're asking him about monetization on Rumble's site. Well, thank God, Rumble CEO put out a response in part publicly and said this. We regarded as deeply inappropriate and dangerous that the UK Parliament would attempt to control who is allowed to speak on our platform or to earn a living from doing so. Singling out an individual and demanding his ban is even more disturbing given the absence of any connection between the allegations and his content on Rumble.

We don't agree with the behavior of many Rumble creators, but we refuse to penalize them. for actions that have nothing to do with our platform. Well, unfortunately, YouTube, not surprising. I just want to have a little moment just to applaud Chris Pavlovsky for Rumble. It has been a great platform, one that has carried the high wire. We have. It's one of the places where we aren't being censored, and we love that that is there. And so, again, he represents those people that are like, how are we going to move forward?

What are we going to do? It's guys like Chris out there that say, hey, I see a business model here. How about a business where we don't censor voices and actually allow them to speak? So it's really beautiful in this moment that at least someone stood up with some integrity and recognizing the power of our First Amendment rights in the United States of America. Absolutely. And so that moves us to YouTube, Rumbles, I guess, competitor. And this is a platform that kicked us off for rightly asking early in the pandemic about if the lab origins of this COVID virus was something that even investigate.

We just asked the question, we're gone. So YouTube just folded like a deck chair. YouTube suspends Russell Brand from advert income. So you have to assume they received the same letter and said, yeah, forget it. We'll just cut it. We're done because we do this with everyone. Based on unfounded at the moment accusations, that's incredible.

Right. And so on the bottom of each one of those letters from the UK government that Rumble received, that TikTok received is a woman's name. She signed it. Her name, Caroline Dynage. Starting in 2020, she played a key role. role in the development of the UK's online safety bill. At the same time, Russell Brand is going through this in the media, this campaign against him,

this investigation. This is the headline out of Reuters. UK's online safety bill finally passed by parliament. So it's been approved by the House of Lords. It's clearing the way to become law. This law, we've been covering us on the show for several years as it's been going through the houses and going through drafts. This is a very dangerous law for open debate and free speech on social media platforms.

The law would mandate social media companies to use basically their algorithms in these systems to identify what they consider harmful content and try to prevent that. And if the companies don't do it to the liking of the government, then these companies could be, if they don't comply, basically, they'll be fined up to 10% of their annual income. Think about that for a company like meta or Twitter X or Google, YouTube. That's a lot of money. So the government now is full control over that with the purse hanging over the heads of these companies. Now let's hold that idea for a second and bring in another character here. Mark Lancaster. Mark Lancaster was the deputy commander of the 77th Brigade from 2018 to 2020.

If you don't remember what the 77th Brigade is, this is the British Army's unit. And in 2015, they were making headlines that look like this. British Army's new 77th Brigade will wage online SIEP war with terrorists. Well, that sounds, I guess, like a good idea. Maybe, you know, just try to fight the war online. But the problem is, just like with Department of Homeland Security, the terrorists out there soon became domestic terrorists and normal people inside the country. And when the 77th Brigade SIEP unit then started during the COVID response,

waging war, that SIOP war, psychological operations that stands for, for against the UK's own citizens. The headlines now look like this. This is the Daily Mail. Army spied on lockdown critics, skeptics, including our own Peter Hitchens, long suspected they were under surveillance. Now we've obtained official records that prove they were right all along. And it goes into this article and it says military operatives in the UK's information warfare

brigade were part of a sinister operation that targeted politicians and high-profile journalists who raised doubts about the official pandemic response. They compiled dossiers on public figures such as ex-minister David Davies. who questioned the modeling behind alarming death toll predictions, as well as journalists such as Peter Hitchens and told the young. Their dissenting views were then reported back to number 10. So this is like a high-level government snitch culture, but it was directed by the army, the military in the UK.

So where does this story intersect? It intersects right here from an early headline. Exclusive, Cameron Q. Q.D. Caroline Dynage dumps husband to date, Tory MP, Mark Lancaster, who walked out. on baby. Quality people here, but so we have 2020, Lancaster is waging sciop war against the UK's own people and his his girlfriend, I guess, Caroline Dynage is busy crafting the on the UK's online safety bill, which is now becoming law. So this couple is surveilling people. And now she's writing letters telling

people to stop paying Russell Brand block him because his accusations against him. She's going to try to use this new law and bill in the UK to shut down any, that isn't spreading information that suits the government's own desires. And now the Lancaster guy, I mean, literally, what you're talking about, like, judge, jury and executioner in the same, you know, flat in England. Yeah, and coming out of the same bedroom, basically. But, you know, let's pull this view back a little bit because it goes beyond just two people using the government powers for this stuff.

So in Canada, there's this movement that's happening in this past about a month. In Canada, we're seeing similar things happening, and this is all around conversation online. So here's the headline. Canadian government moves to regulate podcasts and streaming services. What they're talking about is the Canadian government. There's a bill advancing called the Online Streaming Act. This is going to increase the power of what the Canadian Broadcasting Radio Television and Telecommunications Commission, the CRTC. And it's going to regulate broadcasters and streaming services.

And this is their own press release from that organization. It says CRTC takes major step forward to modernize Canada's broadcasting framework. It says first the CRTC is setting out which online streaming services need to provide information about their activities in Canada. Next, these conditions take effect today and require certain online streaming services to provide the CRTC with information related to their content and subscribership. So here, the Canadian government, and this is just getting started there, is saying we want to know, even if it's private, we want to know how many people you reach. What's your subscribership? And how's your content this week? Where are you going to go and where are you going to put on the high wire this week?

And so how many of you out there watching right now or in Canada? How many you out there watching are in the UK? Well, we know in Canada we've had viewers send us this from two weeks ago with our episode. They were on Facebook now called Meta and they tried to share our episode. And this is what they received from the government and from YouTube. So there's this trying to share. The post cannot be shared. And why? This is in response to the Canadian government.

I mean, how many thought we'd ever see this day? Wow. I mean, so for those of you, they're having some sort of interruption of the high wire in Canada or the UK, you know where this is coming from. I just want to take this opportunity in this moment to say, folks, this is hitting in so many different places. I know we're about to just talk about where we're at in America, but right now, wherever you are in the world,

this is why you should really sign up to our newsletter. Because no matter what happens, they cannot block us emailing you our show. And so whether you can watch it live or not, one of the things that we can definitely do if you're a part of our newsletter is we can make sure you're getting the information. And as we go more and more into these culture wars,

when we go into all the insanity that's out there and the oppression, and the next time they try to lock us all down, we're really going to need to be able to communicate with each other. And so if you really do value the information you got here on the high wire and you're being kept up to date on what's actually happening, Can you imagine if we suddenly disappeared for you wherever you are in the world or even here in the United States of America? Let's try to make sure that we're in contact with each other because we guarantee we'll always be on the cutting edge of you knowing what's exactly happening, what laws are being passed, what laws are being fought, what we're doing to try and stop it. So take this opportunity right now to just scroll down your screen.

It's so easy. Just go down where it says Brave Bold News, subscribe, just type your email in right there. And then now you're on our list. Now not only will you always be given the episode, even if they try to block it from you, you also get all of the evidence that we provide on our show, whether it's a peer-reviewed study or a video or a newspaper article, you get that in your inbox every Monday after a Thursday show so you can read the whole thing. You can look at the whole thing.

You can ask yourself, did they somehow cherry-pick this? Is there a different way to look at it? Yes, I want you being skeptical. I've said it. We're not here telling you what to think. we're trying to show you how to think, how to look at the information. And so we can only do that if you're using this tool. But this tool goes beyond just having evidence that we're providing in every show, the transparency in news that we're trying to lead all other news agencies to.

But we'd also love to be able to say to those news agencies, look how many people want this level of transparency. Look how many people that view our show also are signed up and want. We'll never show them your names, but we can give them numbers and say every news agency should be doing this because the people want it. Why don't you show us that you wanted? If you are not on our newsletter right now, get on it so that you are all completely informed, not just partly informed about what we say here on the highway.

All right, let's get back to it. So Canada, there's gonna be blocking the high wire. We're gonna need other ways to get in there as we've just discussed. Yeah, so we have Canada, we have the UK, but fortunately here in the US, we have the US Constitution and the right to free speech, which fortunately a judge has so far upheld.

What am I talking about? It's the Missouri versus Biden case. There's been a lot of talk on this. Attorneys General has brought a case forward against a lot of players, the White House, the FBI, even the Surgeon General. And so far, a judge has ruled that they can no longer have contact with social media companies, because these social media companies were using what they really called coerced censorship. So they were going into the back end, they were sending spreadsheets in cases of people to censor. And these social media companies would say, yes, we'll censor those people. And so currently the Biden White House, many members of the Biden White House, the FBI, Surgeon General, they have been forbidden from contacting social media companies. That's just been extended.

So here's the recent headline. Federal Appeals Court expands limits on Biden administration and First Amendment case. What they expanded that to now is the cybersecurity and infrastructure security agency. This is the operational component of the Department of Homeland Security. Remember, the reason this is in here is we've had Department of Homeland Security that was created by the Patriot Act, and that was supposed to be for terrorists out there internationally. And now look at this. Look how far we've come. We have a judge ruling that this agency within here, this digital agency, can't censor American speech because what happened during the pandemic response. But it depends on what kind of reporting you're listening to. Because if you're reading Politico talking about this actual court.

case, they put it like this. Look at this headline. The anti-vaccine movement is on the rise. The White House is at a loss over what to do about it. The 2020 lawsuit led by Republican attorneys general that targeted the administration's work. They just call it work with social media companies dealt a major blow, quashing the prospect of a sustained effort to push back on anti-vaccine campaigns or target influential figures responsible for spreading conspiracy theories. So there you go. I mean, there's so amazing, folks. Just take it just take it just Let's take it it it one more time and see what this means. First of all, congratulations to all of you for pushing back.

This again, I think we've created a culture where in courtrooms, judges say this is insane. We also have the Constitution. But when did this become so partisan? When they even point out that Republican Attorney General's brought this, did we all once agree with the First Amendment right to free speech? Wasn't that like, did I'm pretty sure that all of our founding fathers believe that that was the dream for America? Now suddenly it's a bad thing that the world.

The important work our government was doing to try and censor people has now been thwarted. It's a major blow. It's amazing. A major blow, thank God. But it just shows you how in a country like the United States of America, we are really dancing on a tie rope right now where major political organizations, you know, also, you know, promoting and using major news agencies for their propaganda, are trying to convince people that censorship is a good and important work.

It's like we're living in 1984 right now where, you know, who does political think is going to affect them? You don't think that, you know, squashing free speech ends up affecting your newspaper down the road. Where is your long-term vision when we now see reporters and media organizations calling for censorship? Boy, is that scary? Smacks to some other very scary times in the history of the world. And even if you look at, you don't have to read between the lines in that political quote. It says they're using the agencies using us to target influential figures. No, it says that spread conspiracy theories.

But as we know, we just went through a time when conspiracy theories became fact in about two weeks. So target influential figures, that's what they're using it to do. And so let's pull back here because I know some of the viewers may be young or people may have forgotten about this time. But remember when 9-11, the tragedies of 9-11, that was early 2000s, six weeks after that, there was an overnight revision to the nation's surveillance acts and it basically gave government an open checkbook of surveillance and it reduced the checks and balances like public accountability judicial oversight. This was the Patriot Act. And 20 years later, this article is, this is what the, you can read about it now and this is how it's framed. The Patriot Act has threatened freedom for 20 years. And even though it's old,

it's still being used. So remember during the pandemic, people were going, parents were going to school boards protesting, trying to get kids back in school, trying to get masks off kids face. This is the headline that came out of their school board group asked Biden to use a Patriot Act against parents over opposition to COVID measures. So just because it's in the past, this thing is continually being used on us on people. Literally to treat parents that were doing things like reading these incredible books with sexually explicit books that were in their library, that for doing things like that, they should be considered terrorists.

based on the Patriot Act. I mean, and it was. It's really scary. And it's why when we're in these moments. Right now, very tumultuous time in America, in the world. And you reflect, I believe it was Ben Franklin that said, never, you know, attempt to garner a little bit of safety by removing a little bit of liberty.

You'll have neither liberty nor safety or some version I know is sort of, you know, paraphrased that. But this idea that our fear during 9-11 made us cut back on our own rights as free citizens and then it backfires years later. Think, oh, what could possibly go wrong? Well, you could simply be a parent trying to get at school to stop sexualizing your children and find yourself labeled as a terrorist. And it wasn't people, our representatives and government that stopped this.

It was people like Edward Snowden, the former NSA intelligence agent that blew the whistle on this and was shocked when he saw the level of surveillance of innocent Americans, millions of people being surveilled by. their government. And he had to come forward. He's now, you know, he's, he's now an enemy of the state for the United States. But, you know, back when it was signed, most were on board because of the, in the wake of these accidents. In fact, it was 357 to 66 nose. 357 yes is 60s to nose. And this was an overnight revision. So overnight, you have basically one day to read this, 130-something pages. There was only a handful of people that opposed this. One of them was this guy.

Congressman Kucinich, I believe you're the only person on this stage who had a chance to vote on the Patriot Act right after 9-11, who voted against it right away. That's because I read it. Still one of my favorite political lines in history. I've had the opportunity, of course, to meet Dennis Kucinich and spend some time with him. I always congratulate him on my favorite line in history. That's because I read it. My other favorite line in opposition to that, I think, was Nancy Pelosi. when she said, we have to pass the law to read what's in it. That was a fun one.

Let's go from freedom of speech to our right in liberty and our right to liberty and pursuit of happiness. And some of those things are being kind of challenge because, you know, climate science is settled. So let's move along and rapidly restructure society in order to kind of congeal with this climate science. That's settled, by the way. It settles. So don't question it. So this is the latest headlines coming out of the UK. This is by the last. travel travel as we know it could be on the brink of extinction by 2040 warns report the report envisages a world in which virtual holidays virtual holidays become mainstream and carbon passports restrict movement unless the travel industry makes significant changes now the sustainable future for

travel analysis predicts that carbon tracking will become even more individualized thanks to a i it says travelers will log daily emissions and track travel metrics in real time to reduce their footprint to meet individual carbon goals. So remember people, these aren't conspiracy theories. They're telling you what they want to do. These are think tanks, well-funded think tanks, throwing it right out there going, hey, this is a good idea, let's work towards this. So if and when these things ever happened, these aren't something that just came out of nowhere. This is why we report this stuff early along the same time. I think there's only one thing that comes out of that article. You must just hold in your mind virtual vacations, okay? The idea of

virtual vacations, virtual travel. The fact that any sane person would put that in writing, I just picture myself being lowered into jelly like the Matrix and just stick the tubes into me and go ahead and play a video of the places I'm never going to get to see. That is the future these people are dreaming for us, folks, and they're saying it out loud with like their outside voice.

And because virtual classrooms work so well during COVID. It helped the kids so much. So let's just look to the vacations. But at the same time, that article is being run. Another article is being run. And you can see a pattern starting to emerge here. The climate change proposal, which means you'll never see the Mediterranean again. Again, this is in the UK.

It says a report by a global think tank has suggested people should take one short haul flight every three years. One flight per person every three years would cut the air industry's emission by way more than 43%. It would slash them to practically nothing because there would be no air industry. The airlines, many of which barely survived the pandemic, would be unable to remain profitable with such. meager passenger numbers. So this is coming out. They're literally admitting to destroying an industry. Like that's their way forward is destroy an industry. But it's it's green so it's okay, I guess. I mean, it's for the climate because the world's ending, the planet cannot survive another 10 years. So we really need to do what we need to do, Del. You have to understand this. The travel industry,

virtual holidays, it just has to happen. So who is doing this? Well, this is a nonprofit agency that's working with C40 cities. And if you don't know what those are, There's mayors of a hundred cities that have basically signed on, have united to confront the climate crisis by any means necessary. So they're supporting this. So many major cities around the world, these mayors are supporting this. And you can see this is the actual page from this nonprofit research. And you can see here by 2030, there's a couple goals here. We have a goal to slash it every two years you want to see this or every three years you can take that flight.

So it's basically 1,500 kilometers. You can take a full flight every three years. And that's about 980 miles. So you can see there's a progressive target, and then there's an ambitious target. And that ambitious target is what they're really going for. So there's nothing that says no action or maybe a less ambitious target. It's just like, we're going for this. Crazy or plaid.

So it may sound crazy to some people. And it's starting to sound crazy to a lot of people. And this is what prime ministers are starting to talk about now. So this is the prime minister of the UK, Rishi Sunnick. And, you know, this is, we've watched governments push this without even blinking an eye until now. Something really big has happened. See if you can spot it.

Take a listen. All right. We're absolutely committed to reaching net zero by 2050. But no one in Westminster politics has had the courage to look people in the eye and explain what this really involves. That's wrong and it changes now. Because the fact is, the UK is so far ahead of every other country in the world when it comes to net zero. We've had the fastest reduction in greenhouse gases in the G7, and we've already cut emissions further and faster than any major country.

So how can it be right for the British people to be told to sacrifice even more than others? The risk here for those of us who care about reaching net zero by 2050 is if we continue down this path, we risk losing the consent of the British people. So today we're changing our approach to meeting Net Zero to ease the burden on working people. Here's how. First, we're easing the transition to electric vehicles, meaning you'll still be able to buy new petrol and diesel cars and vans until 2035. And even after that, you'll be able to buy and sell them second hand. Second, we're giving people far more time to replace their old boilers.

We'll never force anyone to rip out their existing boiler. You'll only ever have to make the switch when you're replacing your boiler anyway. And families who are hit harder by costs won't ever have to switch at all. Because it's not right for Westminster to impose significant costs on hard-pressed families without a properly informed national debate. That's why, third, we're making sure government stays out of your life. So the idea that government can tell you what to eat, gone. The idea that government can force you to have seven different bins in your home.

Gone. The idea that government can create new taxes to discourage flying or taking holidays. Gone. The idea that government can tell you how many passengers to have in your car. Gone will never impose these unnecessary and heavy-handed measures on you, the British people. Now I don't know if I can trust Richie Suneck farther than I can throw him, but I will say this. What that video says to us is that people are being heard and they recognize they've got themselves in a real juggernaut and that they better start placating us and backing away from this insanity of trying to ruin our lives and making it our problem and a problem they can't even very well defined. So it's really, I mean, again, there's a lot of victory laps due this week because people,

this is you, this is you, this is all of you in the UK, it's also America, it's our pushback. It's sharing these videos and these government agencies saying, you know, everywhere we're trying to push this, the bigger videos that are being accepted. and the culture is shifting is those that are saying they don't want this level of oppression. And we're going to find ourselves out of jobs and getting voted out if we don't start speaking to the people. So clearly here, he knows what the majority wanting here in the UK. And for all of us, that's what that just said.

Despite what they enact or what they do, just know this. We are the majority, the critical thinking people that want to have freedom and liberty and think we can make our own decisions for ourselves. They're now having to speak to us because we are the rulers of the world. And they're having to deal with that. And he got excited for a second. He stopped just short. The idea, I was waiting for him to say, the idea that the government can mandate a risky medical treatment like a vaccination.

Right. Gone. He didn't say that. Still need a little more work to get there. Yeah. And if you know anything about messaging. And his messaging is coming from probably the best PR firms known in the world. So you first of all tell someone something very positive.

We're reaching our goals faster than any country. You put all this great stuff at the beginning. Then you put your little bad news at the end. So now I just come out and say, hey, we're risking losing the consent of the British people. So we got to stop this. No one's going to say that. But that's the message. So here's the headlines that were created from that.

And there were several. Rishi Sunnick announces, you turn on key green targets. There's another person, another guy that he's kind of involved in the green movement. Bill Gates, he came out during the same week and said this at a conference. Take a listen. Whenever voters are tested, like in France, you put on a diesel tax. Well, they say, oh, those people in a city are richer than me, they somehow should pay for this. In Germany, when you say, okay, we're going to make you buy electric heat pumps, they back off from it.

So if you try to do climate things brute force, you know, you'll sometimes get people say, hey, I like climate on for climate, but I don't want to bear that cost and reduce. reduce my standard of living. You know, I believe we should spend a lot of money on climate change. I believe we should have very high carbon taxes. The political realities are such that without innovation, it's unlikely, particularly middle-income countries, that the brute force approach will be successful.

It's amazing, it's so much like the video where he ultimately said about the COVID vaccine, we just expected more people to bow down and do whatever the government told them. We were shocked, and now there's like this huge group of people that didn't get it, and actually think, I might be a bad guy.

Right. And if you get through all his hand waving, the message basically is brute force isn't working. We've tried brute force and people aren't having it. Right. Although he admits it. We tried it hard. We hit it hard. Didn't really work.

So, I mean, I was shocked when I heard him start to say this stuff. So here's another headline that was created by Bill Gates. Bill Gates sees a lot of climate exaggeration out there. The climate is not the end of the planet. So the planet is going to be fine. Wow. I'm shocked by that headline. We're told the planet's going to end.

So for that big of a U-turn to happen, so let's look at the rest of these puzzle pieces, also kind of falling by the wayside or being at least questioned. So the ESG system, it's a scoring system for finance. It's environmental, social, and governance. It's what investors use to screen investments based on corporate policies, like, are you green enough, fast enough? Oh, if you're not, you're not going to be included in the sustainable fund.

And so this is the headline created from that. Money managers are shifting their attitude to ESG as realism sets in, says S&Ps Dan Yergan. It says in the second quarter of this year, investors have pulled 635 million from U.S. sustainable funds, according to Funds Research Firm Morningstar. That racks up a total outflow of 11.4 billion from these sustainable funds in the past year. And just recently in September, BlackRock informed regulators that is closing a pair of sustainable emerging market bond fund. These are big, big movements here. And then let's look at the electric vehicles.

This is over in Germany. Volkswagen cuts jobs as demand for EVs plunge. It's a big one there. How about climate researchers and academics? This headline, this is all at the same time, by the way. Idea of green growth losing traction among climate policy researchers. Survey of nearly 800 academics reveal. So let's talk about the younger generation because a lot of that younger generation has been taught.

the earth is going to basically burn up or freeze or go under water it's going to be over so these are the headlines because they're experiencing an issue with that a mental health issue with that this is the headline climate change can have lifelong impacts on young people's mental health report says well is it climate change or is it reports like this that tell people what to think about climate change so this was a while back we have 12 years to limit climate change catastrophe warns you in then a year later only 11 years to prevent irreversible damage from climate change. Speakers warned. And then to hear later, the world has less than 10 years to avert climate change catastrophe report finds. And then the most recent one, world has nine years to avert catastrophe warming study shows. But

apparently that's all gone. So forget about that. The clan is going to be just fine. I mean, it has been amazing, whether it was Greta Thurnberg, like, and you talk to kids, they're being made to be like the earth is going to disappear right out from under them. I mean, we are making kids live in a constant state of terror. And now, you know, thank God, because the adults in the room are pushing back, they're having to backtrack from this. But you're right. What kind of mental health is there when you are, you know, being told that everyone alive, that human beings are a disease and we're killing the planet, we're all going to die. The oceans are going to, you know,

overtake us or food supply will disappear. I mean, it's just crazy what we are just pouring into young children's minds right now. And what we're pouring into young children's bodies. So every week so far in the last month, we've hit basically new myocarditis studies. This is one of the most important and one of the most important issues that have come up from this vaccine. We have the cancers and the blood clots, but that myocarditis has so much science behind it and so many doctors and academics standing up and saying, no, we're done here. This is the line in the sand from COVID-19. So we had Mandy Cohen. She's the CDC director. She stepped in and she, her, her,

primary goal is to bring integrity and trust back to the CDC, back to an agency that lost it during the COVID pandemic because Rochelle Walensky basically went out there and was changing the messaging all the time and was really not a science-based communicator. So all eyes were on Mandy Cohen. What was she going to do with this, with this promise? Well, here's what she did on CDC's Twitter page. Hi, everyone, Dr. Mandy Cohen from the CDC. I wanted to talk today about the COVID-19 vaccine and kids. While we know kids are less impacted than adults from COVID, the unfortunate news is that kids can still get sick and sometimes really sick from COVID-19 just like adults. In fact, half of the very young kids who ended up in the intensive care unit with COVID had no

underlying medical reason to make us think they would get sick. They didn't have asthma or another underlying condition. The COVID virus just made them really sick. Second, the vaccine is safe for all kids over six months. Millions of doses have been given to children and their safety has been closely tracked. The benefits to children and teens outweigh the risks, especially the risks to kids if they get COVID-19. For example, teen boys have been up to five times as likely to have heart inflammation after having a COVID infection than after getting vaccinated. Now, I have two daughters ages 9 and 11, and we plan to get them both the updated COVID vaccine.

Talk to your child's pediatrician or nurse practitioner about the updated COVID vaccine today, and they can get their flu vaccine at the same time. All right, so let's talk about this for a second. I mean, I'm speechless. I mean, honestly, it's a rare moment. I'm just like, oh, wow. Well, so first of all, CDC with this message is a good message. global outlier. No European countries are recommending this new booster for

healthy kids. So when she's saying safe for six months and older, tested on 10 mice with no information was when we've covered this so much. But okay. Yeah, no one exactly. Yeah. And so let's just talk about messaging. So she's trying to bring back trusted messaging to this agency. Well, let's go to that Twitter post that was that video was posted. You can see here we have 7,412 comments to 554 likes. That's called being ratioed. So that's when the number of people that have something to say and comment on what you just said way exceeds the people that just gave it a thumbs up and liked it and we're not

going to do it here because we don't have the time and we don't have the we don't have the black boxes to censor the words but you can take a look for yourself there's some very colorful things that were said to Mandy Cohen and a lot of people that disagreed so this is something that's not very popular with state God yes yeah and so but you have to wonder if you've been watching the show how was she making this statement if you've been following us we've been covering studies we're going to go through some of these studies some of the big ones i mean we don't have time to go through them all right now but let's go through one of these this is in a nordic study remember the nordic countries pulled

this vaccine for kids because of myocarditis so these are this was looking at national health registries in denmark finland norway sweden they had 23 million people looking at a vaccination myocarditis risk and let's just go right to the chart here from this study you get you see males 16 to 24 remember males have been shown young young boys adolescents and teenagers been shown to have like some of the biggest pops here when it comes to myocarditis asks for the vaccine so you have Pfizer two Pfizer vaccines and you go across you see the highlighted area 8.3 per 100,000 myocarditis pericabitis combined wow or right or 7.85 and then the other one is Pfizer's vaccine and modern is vaccine so if you mix and match them and that's 37.94 and 38.5

respectively in those models per 100,000. Now, that's for vaccinated people for myocarditis cases and pericarditis. Now let's go to the just natural infection and see what happens there. Because we're told that national infection is way more dangerous. Again, 23 million people. We have males 12 to 15 with no infection. You go all the way across. Nothing, nothing going on. Males 12 to 15, SARS-CoV-2 infection. Not much going on there. Zero events. Males 16 to 24. Now here's the really important group no infection you go across zero SARS COVID two infection 1.37 per 100,000 drastically different orders of magnitude different but that's just one study let's go to another study this was published in the European Journal of Clinical Investigation a peer reviewed journal vaccine Pfizer vaccine

associated myopery carditis and adolescence risk benefit analysis this used the CDC's own vaccine adverse event reporting system the various system their own system their own system It's right there. The CDC could use it too and find these numbers, but outside researchers, independent researchers had to. And they wrote this as the conclusion. Weighing post-vaccination, mild pericarditis against COVID-19 hospitalizations during Delta. Remember, Delta was a very deadly wave, we were told. Our risk benefit analysis suggests that among 12 to 17-year-olds, two-dose vaccination was uniformly favorable

only in non-immune girls with a comorbidity. Very small, very small little section there. But then it goes on to say, in boys with prior infection and no core. morbidities. Even one dose carry more risk than benefit according to international estimates. In the setting of Omicron, the one we're in now, one dose may be protective in non-immune children, but dose two does not appear to confer additional benefit at a population level. And let's go to one more. This was a study looked at over 21 million people, risk of myocarditis after sequential doses of COVID-19 vaccines. It says this. The risk of myocarditis was higher one to 28 days after a second dose of

M RNAs, that's a modernis vaccine, and persisted after a booster dose. Associations were stronger in men younger than 40 years for all vaccines. In men younger than 40 years old, the number of excess myocarditis events per million people was higher after a second dose of Moderna's vaccine than after a positive SARS-CoV2 test. There you have. There you have it. And, you know, I can't believe I'm doing this, but I'm going to give the final word to

someone that has been really during my journalistic career has been totally pro-vaccine. Listen to what he, even he has to say. This is Dr. Paul Offutt when it comes to myocarditis and the vaccination. Is there a problematic link between the COVID vaccine and heart inflammation? There certainly is a causal link between vaccination and myocarditis and paracrodotitis. No doubt about it. We rest our case here. He says it tells us it's perfectly safe, no connection. Worse to be infected. then get the vaccine. So you have to ask yourself, what was the CDC looking at? Are they just making it up out of nowhere?

Five times more risk if you get COVID than if you're vaccinated with myocarditis. How are they ignoring? Are they ignoring all studies? Did they just not see them? Well, let's look at the study they were looking at. It was published in 2022 in a non-peer-reviewed MMWR. This is the CDC's own in-house journal, cardiac complications after SARS-CoV-2 infection.

So what they did was they looked at the electronic health records looking at U.S. healthcare systems. And we can see, let's look at the number of people because this is where the conversation starts. So there's a graph from this. And you can see the demographic. So SARS-CoB2 infection cohort under that first column that says 814,524. These are essentially unvaccinated people that tested positive for a SARS-CoB-2 infection. Then look at the right, you have these four columns. This is what they weighted against.

First dose, second dose, unspecified dose, any dose of MRNA COVID-19 vaccination. You add those up. It's almost 13.5 million vaccinated people. So you have 13.5 million vaccinated people against over 800,000 unvaccinated people. So the first thing you should really be looking at is the fact that these two pools are drastically different in size. Yeah, I wanted to sort of get to the bottom of this, Jeffrey, because I think it's really important. that you know we talk about this I don't like giving a lot of advertising to bad science but when that bad science is being propagated by the head of the CDC we

have to do something about that and a lot of people out there in the audience you're going to be told by friends and especially doctors the studies have shown that that myrocarditis is higher in those that were unvaccinated and infected compared to those that were vaccinated and the studies prove it only one study does only one study does that we can see and as you pointed out studies with millions of people around the world the reason no one else in the world is giving this booster to kids were done differently. But I want to show the diary of a fraudulent study, as it were. So give me a minute here, Jeffrey, because I think

it's important that people understand how they do these studies. They're little crappy studies that they point to and try and convince us of. So everybody, why don't we go over to the board over here and we'll see what we can do about this. Now, whoops, hold on a second. Let me grab that. I'm going to admit to you right now that I haven't been at this board a lot. And if you heard me prior to this show, I screamed and yelled at the scream a lot. I'll try to keep the screaming down. We'll see how well we can do. But first, let me switch.

Let's just show you. Now, I don't want you to look at these numbers specifically. They're not accurate. It's an ideal. Let's just make this as any study. An unvaccinated versus a vaccinated study. In this case, it's the level of myocarditis. Now, here's what they do.

And this is how they do a study like this. Let me just get this set up. I like red. Okay, let's say that all these dots that are on this screen represent all the unvaccinated kids in an area that's going to be studied. The United States of America or the state of California, whatever it is. All these dots are those that all these kids got infected with the COVID virus, and they should be a part of this study.

But they're not. When you read how this study works, the study only looks at those that sought medical. attention. So that's not this group. It's this group in this circle of blue. Let's imagine blue is seeking medical attention. So these are the people that are having a hard time. The kids are getting sick. So they're having difficulties. And so we focus on that. Let's act like this red dot right here that this is those that maybe actually ended up going to the hospital. And somewhere in there is going to be like one little dot of the one kid that maybe died. When we look at the numbers 0.0027 percent is the death rate of those that are infected of my hospital.

So death rate's super low, but let me explain how they do this. So when they do the study, when it comes to the unvaccinated group, this is the group they look at right here. They only in the study look at those that sought medical attention. This is the group, not the bigger group, right? Now in a decent comparative study, which is what this is supposed to be, this is exactly, you would think they did the same thing in the vaccinated group, but they didn't. Let's just go and take a look at that.

So now let's switch over to the vaccinated group. Let's say it's the same type of situation, right? So in this case, we have all of the vaccinated that got vaccinated. There is this group that sought medical attention, and then the group that were hospitalized and those that died. Same type of situation. But in the vaccinated group, they don't take just those that had sought medical attention. Now, in this case, they decide for this group, we're going to look.

at all of the kids. Everyone that got the vaccine is in their comparative group. Now, does it make sense what they're doing here? Smaller group means one out of a million and larger group means one out of five million. This is how you manipulate a study. They do it with autism. They do it in many, many different ways. This is how you create a fraudulent study. Let me show you just in a comparative so you really fully get this. Let's put the two right next to each other. Now, here are groups you should have compared all of the unvaccinated that caught COVID and all of those that got vaccinated. That would have been a fair study, but no, did they do that? Of course they didn't. As I pointed out, this is the group that they study here, and this is the group that they study

amongst the vaccinated, and this is how they can say, and these are made up numbers, but you get the idea, one in a million of the unvaccinated end of having myocarditis, but one in five million of the vaccinated did, therefore, it is your five times more likely to have myocarditis in the unvaccinated group. Get it? This is a fraud. This is how our government agencies are lying to us and using science to manipulate the entire story. Don't forget this. When you're reading studies, look at what group did they select? Did they select only the sick kids compared to all the healthy kids in the vaccinated group? That's how they do it, folks. We're going to keep watching this game and showing you how the fraud is played by your own government agencies.

All right, Jeffrey, thank you for indulging me in that. I hope that that made some sense, but we see it all the time, whether it's changing timelines between the two groups, changing the size of the group. This is how they play the game and why we no longer have any trust for the CDC, nor should we. I really appreciate your reporting on this, Jeffrey. Really important stuff and a lot to celebrate.

So thank you for the work that you do because I think that we are bringing truth and that truth is spreading. And clearly it is now getting to government agencies and they're realizing they're in trouble. Absolutely, Del. No, you're very welcome. All right. I'll see you next week. All right. So, you know, there's so many ways to look at this.

I love how many of you tune into the high wire. How many of you support the high wire and the work that we do? One of the things we look at like Jeffrey Bark, when you look at this COVID, vaccine. When you look at what they're getting away, and by the way, what even determines a positive myocarditis, you know, examination? We don't even know where they're coming up with those numbers. All of this stuff is being faked. And they're getting away with it because we don't have decent data collection. We don't know how many being injured, partly because there's total liability protections. Originally, this exists for the entire childhood injury compensation act in 1986. We

blocked, you know, manufacturers from having any liability for their products in all the vaccine program. But then when COVID hit and they were rushing this vaccine out, they decided to take it a step further with the PEP Act. No vaccine manufacturer. There was the HRSA rule. Let's read what it originally said. I think that's the 1986 Act. No vaccine manufacturers shall be liable in the civil action for damages arising from a vaccine related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine because the manufacturers don't believe in the product enough to stand by. like they do all of their other products. It doesn't say that, but that's what it should say. They will defend the other drugs that they put out there. But when it comes to vaccines,

they were losing so much money from death and injury cases. They blackmailed our government and said, we will not make any more vaccines if you don't protect some liability. That was 1986. Then all of a sudden they want to rush the COVID vaccine out. And by the way, that has to go through an approval process. You have to get through the FDA. And then you have to get the CDC and the protections to the 1986 Act only happened when it's recommended on the CDC schedule. They knew they weren't going to have the time to get it protected into that protected class of vaccines going through that gauntlet. So they decided we need to make a new act that just blanketly protects from liability for this totally untested product. And in fact, there was even

countries like Belgium that tried to push back and say, we're not giving you liability protection on this untested product. And I believe it was. was AstraZeneca, the head of AstraZeneca said, well, if you won't give us liability protection, then you don't get our vaccine because we cannot be held liable for serious adverse events that happened five years down the road because we didn't have enough time to test for that. You're the ones making us rush, therefore you should be protecting us in liability. That's how it went down. That's how they excused this whole thing.

And that's why so many people are being injured in heart attacks and all of it. But because you can't point to court, because you can't say this many people have like, you know, proven that they got myracarditis, you know, Mandy Cohen's allowed to lie to you and say, well, we don't have any evidence. And I'm not lying because I found one study that we totally manipulated that makes me sound like I'm telling the truth. Well, we are going to go after the PEP Act. We go after some big things. We're the only ones that have ever pushed the law back just a few months ago. We brought back the religious exemption from Mississippi, something that had been gone since 1979. Now people in Mississippi can opt out of a mandated vaccine program.

to go to school. This is the heart of the work that we do at the informed consent action network. These are bucketless moments, but we're going to go after liability protection now. And specifically, we're starting with the Prep Act. We've just announced that we have filed this case against the Prep Act, and there it is, ICANN's attorneys file a major lawsuit to strike down portions of the Prep Act. I'm joined now by one of the greatest attorneys in world history, our attorney for the informed consent I love doing that to you, Aaron. Here he is. Aaron, Siri. Hey, Del, good to see you. It's really good to see you. So, to start out with, why don't you

describe what the PEP Act is and sort of how it came about? How does it work? So when there is an emergency that's declared, the Secretary of HHS can decide that all countermeasures for that emergency, whether they're vaccines like the COVID vaccine or treatment, supposed treatments like ramesivir, are going to be given immunity, effectively blanket immunity from liability for injuries. The idea is to spur companies to go in rush and create products because they know that, hey, as long as we get it to market, we could sell it. It's an emergency, the government will buy it, and we don't have to worry about being sued for injuries. You know, I would submit that all that does is it spurs innovation to create products that

are probably not safe, not products that are going to be better for society. The immunity is a really bad idea. The companies already have the incentive to make the money. They're going to rush. There's no reason to say you don't have to pay for injuries. Right. I agree completely. And so they had these protections.

And ironically, I was just talking to. Jeffrey Brarky earlier, those same protections should have been on because it was also about trying new things, trying off-label users. If we're in an emergency, do whatever. We're not going to hold you accountable for trying things when we're in the middle of a crisis. You might find some obscure drug nobody thought about in your own exploration of a cure or an answer. You should be held and not liable for that. Ironically, in the middle of this, the PEP Act would have taken care of all the hydroxychloroquine doctors that were using that and the Ivermectin, but instead they've gone outside of that to try and pass laws to take away that protections,

which already naturally exist. Am I wrong about that? I mean, shouldn't the PEP Act have been protecting those that were trying other treatments that especially had been proven safe in like hundreds of millions of people around the world? As long as they were considered by our federal health authorities as a countermeasure or deemed as such, then they would have actually been given the protection of the PrEP Act, even if it's an existing product, but they weren't, as we know. All right. They weren't deemed that way by our federal health authorities.

Okay, so now let's get a little bit into this liability issue. And I think part of where the case is at, what is it about the PEP Act that you think is vulnerable right now? And what are we looking at? So the major feature that people think about when I think of the PEP Act, as you just pointed out, is that you can't see the manufacturer for injury. Now, recognizing that, Congress didn't leave folks injured by the countermeasures, in particular the COVID-19 vaccines with no recourse. They left them with virtually no recourse.

Why do I say that? Because they created something called the CICP, the counter-injury measure conversation program. And what that is, this program is where if you're injured by a COVID-19 vaccine, you can file a claim. The problem is, is that when you file a claim in the CICP, it's the equivalent of shoving paper into a black hole and just waiting to see what comes back.

Why? Because in the American judicial system, what are we all used to? What do we understand to be due process? We understand there are basic requirements for due process. Now, the government doesn't have to set up a system. It doesn't have to give you a way to challenge a zoning, you know, to create exceptions to a zoning requirement or challenge any other government process.

But when it does, that process needs to meet basic constitutional due process. The CICP program, we argue in this lawsuit, does not in any way, shape, or form meet that very basic constitutional due process requirement. Because when you file your claim, what do you have to put in your petition? Not clear. who's going to review it? You don't know. Meaning you don't know who the judges, who the trier fact is.

Can you petition them with more information to ask them questions about how they were going to review? No. Do you know what experts they're going to use? No. Can you ask their expert questions? No, because you don't know who they are. The entire process happens in a black box. You have no rights.

You have no discovery rights. You have no rights to address the tribunal. You don't even know if they're. have conflicts or not because you don't know who they are. And you can't even confront, as we all know, so they're able to confront the other, right? So they're not only then basically sitting as the judge, they're also the prosecutioners.

I mean, there's basically no distinction there. And so what we argue is that that process, the CICP is an absolute violation of the United States Constitution's due process requirement. And we ask that it be corrected in all of those ways that I just listed in others, it's all laid out in the complaint. Yeah.

And that if it's not corrected and that the entire statute needs to be struck down. It's a similar thing we've done in other lawsuits where the judge rules, look, you've got to fix this and if you're not, the whole thing has got to go. When you, you know, in these cases, one of the things I've learned with you is that judges are not really keen on restructuring scientific, you know, things that involve science. They don't like saying, if you do this, this will fix it. They tend to say, look, one part of this car is broken, scrap the whole car, go rebuild it, and come back to me,

but I'm not into trying to describe to you how you fix a car that's not what I do as a judge. So in some ways, there's a good chance. If you break this part of it and show it's unconstitutional and not giving people their right to a correct trial, then since that part is broken, there's a chance they could just rule that this whole thing should be scrapped, right?

Yeah, the judges, you know, Article, the judiciary is the Article III of the Constitution. Article 1 is the legislature that writes the laws. And so the judges don't sit around, you know, trying to rewrite or reformulate laws. If the law is unconstitutional, no, they typically, though there are variations, will typically find and say, hey, look, this law is unconstitutional. And the CICP program really is inextricably intertwined in many ways with the immunity provided, right, to the manufacturers. So if the CIC program is not fixed, yes, the correct remedy is that the heart.

whole statute, including the immunity to liability, should be struck down. So to give me a sense, like obviously, I know a lot of people were reaching out to the high wire looking for, they had injuries, they wanted to find some way that they could deal with that. How many cases did you end up looking at? I mean, I know a lot of people were reaching out to your law firm. Is this something that, you know, is part of your understanding of this law and the fact that it's not working correctly from the amount of people that you were seeing? Oh, as Dell, as you know, I can, the informant action, ICANN has gotten inundated with folks reaching out about COVID-19 vaccine injuries. And, you know, and our firm has as well.

And so there has been a, you know, we're set up to deal with all the folks who calls about all the other vaccine injuries. I've got a whole team that deals with folks who have been injured by other vaccines and we filed claim for them in the, which you mentioned earlier, the vaccine injury conversation program. But, you know, we were not, we weren't prepared for the very quick avalanche. It's different than other vaccines because, you know, you're only giving a Hep B vaccine to, you know, a smaller cohort of people. They gave the COVID-19 vaccine to 270 million people more than once often, sometimes more than two times. So that is an incredible number of people to vaccinate. And, you know, just one group, which is also a plaintiff in the suit that we filed, React 19.

Just one group has over 30,000 seriously injured people who got the COVID-19 vaccine. I mean, that's what I was going to ask next. I mean, I know when I look at VERS, I see 30,000 reports of deaths. Over 30,000 reports of deaths. Here we go. Here's the number is 36,000 reported deaths. Now, let me be clear. These are just reports, but these are people that file reports that should be going on and asking for compensation

in some sort of judicial review of what took place to see if they should be compensated. 210,000 hospitalizations, 152,000 urgent care, 253,000 doctor office visits, 10,000 cases of anaphylaxis, 17,000 cases of Bell's palsy, paralysis in the face. So when I look at all of those numbers and we look at this prep act, how many people have been paid out for their injuries so far of what clearly looks like hundreds of thousands of people that should have a right to their day in court? Four. Four people have been paid out. That's it. And this is a program, by the way, that they don't, in over 12,000 claims have been filed. In a program, by the way, that our federal authorities have not gone out of their way to not promote. Right. Right. Most people do not know about it. Most folks who have an issue for COVID-19 vaccine don't know about it. And, you know, when somebody's going to take the time to actually do this, because they're not, lawyers are not really involved with this program. The program won't play attorney's fees. and the amount of damages you can get, even if you win, the most you can get is $50,000 in lost wages a year

and your lost medical expenses. It doesn't matter how much you're suffering, no much pain, nothing else. That's all you can get. This is all that program. So if you're retired and you are now in sufferable pain for the rest of your life and you've got Medicare, you know, health insurance,

even if you win, you get nothing because you're not losing any income and you have your medical bills paid. Wow. So yes, we've got those $12,000, I think a very very small percentage of the folks out there who probably could file a claim they just don't know about it or then this is very very common there's a one-year statute of limitations so you're talking about folks who are

really injured they finally come around and and they find when they find learn about it most of them are out of time they can't file a petition anyway it's incredible 12,000 folks over 12,000 people have filed a claim today amazing that they set a time limit on the amount of time that you have have to claim an injury, but, you know, didn't even give you that time limit when they looked at the vaccine. There's no one year, two, year, three, year, five-year studies saying how far down the road an injury would happen. I mean, it's just, it's so egregious on so many different angles. Okay, so who are the plaintiffs? Tell me a little bit about the plaintiffs in this

case, because I think that's always important. This is, obviously, this is a case that I can as funding, which means not actually us, but all the people that are watching this program right now that sponsor us are making this happen. So who is it that we are, you know, helping bring their case against this egregious government. I guess I could call it an oversight if we're going to try and keep it from sounding nefarious. Well, that's very, very kind, term. I mean, especially considering a lot of these folks from Andy to get this product as well. With that said, most of the plaintiffs are individuals who have been injured by the vaccine.

I should say that if the case is successful, it's not just seeking relief on behalf of being named individuals, but it should extend to everybody in the entire country if it's successful. So it's a number of individuals who have been injured by the COVID vaccine. Some of them filed a claim, some didn't file a claim, some, you know, they're all in varying situations, as well as I know to React 19 is also a group, and I believe, you know, you had. I've worked so much with them. There's just a great group of people that really have spoken out, even through pain and injury, traveling when it hurts them and their bodies are shutting down, still going to try and spread the word. So many horrific injuries there. And for those that have been

experiencing vaccine injury through the years from the childhood vaccine program, again, as you put it, this was a tidal wave of injury that took place because everybody, as we, know was told they had to get it in order to work and and live their lives in America. And certainly the rest of the world has their issues, but this is right here. Specifically, are there any cases we would know about? Maybe even talked about here on. Yeah, sure. You know, one case, for example, was a young girl in high school who got the J&J vaccine.

And you may recall that at one point they paused the J&J vaccine for quite a lot. a while because they discovered it can cause something called TTS, which is thrombosis, you know, blood clotting, at the same time as it causes the thyroid of cytopenia, reduced platelet counts, right? Usually we have less platelets, you don't have clotting, you have thinning blood. So it's the opposite. So these folks were presenting to the hospital, and the hospital was then going and treating them for low platelet counts, giving them a medicine that would then cause more blood clotting, And that could cause even more issues. So, you know, they had six cases that they identified.

She was one of those six cases that then resulted in the pause of the J&J vaccine. And as you recall, they said, oh, yeah, this is actually happening. They have confirmed causality of the federal authorities, which is why, you know, they then put in all of these warnings and so forth. She filed her claim back, I believe, was in November of 2021. So it's been, you know, almost two years and still no decision, nothing. No help with her medical bills, nothing, even though she was one of the known reasons they stopped the vaccine and then put warning labels on everything. Yeah, I mean, she had to have brain surgery.

She can't really walk while her parents get to sleep with her because she can't really pull the blanket over her. She needs help going to the bathroom. She can't write her type. Her family has had to move to a new house to be able to accommodate her. situation, getting two vans, like in a comment. Serious expenses, devastating impact on her life. It's such a heartbreaking story. And she was just doing what she was told.

Government said, go get it. You just heard Mandy Cohen say, go out and get these shots. It's good. It's this, you know, the benefits outweigh the risk. Well, certainly did not outweigh the risk for this young lady. She is paying an incredible price. and what the government is doing to her now is really, truly adding insult to injury. Because every time these family follows up with the program, they're told, and they've been often told by them,

that they're going to get a decision in a hot minute, a hot minute. They literally say that a hot minute, is the terminology being used. That's my understanding, which is a very true. I mean, so, you know, that's just one example. Let me ask you this. Okay, go ahead. Yeah. No, no. I want to ask you this, because this worked the same way the 86 Act is, which is there's a tax on the COVID vaccine that goes into this fund and then is there to pay for these injuries. Is that how this act also works, PEP Act? Is that where the money is coming from? That's not my understanding when it comes to the CICP for the VICP for the vaccine injury compensation program.

So it's not the same. Well, because my question is this, is whatever point. pot of money and they've only paid out for people, how much money is actually going to what it's supposed to to, you know, adjudicate and pay these people for the injuries that clearly it's already admitted it's happening to this young lady compared to, you know, the bureaucrats are involved in whatever it is they're doing. That's a great question. And as you know, we have been foyering the federal health authorities trying to get to the bottom

of that. As best as we can tell, there's about $5 million. set aside to compensate this folks, which may explain, by the way, the four people who they did provide compensation to, they've only gave them about $2,000 each. And the only thing... Wait a minute, wait, wait, look at what this just said, folks. It's a little bit different than what you were saying there, Aaron. Bring this back up. CICP lacks accountability, transparency, and cost-effectiveness. This is the Journal of Law and Biosciences and Cost Effectiveness efficiency with 94% of its total cost spent on administration rather than compensation.

So there's a bunch of fat cats getting rich off of the payment. What they seem to be doing is blocking anybody from actually getting compensated. That is absolutely so incredibly egregious. It's because as far as we can tell, there's virtually no money set aside to actually compensate people. The only money that's really there is to actually administer the. program so that percentage is probably lumping in the the money that's that you know the program has which is de minimis you know just just to pay this one young lady who's was injured is going to

take millions of dollars no doubt in life care expenses so if they've set aside if there's a five million dollar that that's that'll help one person if they're even want to do it and remember they're they're not going to compensate her under this program for her pain and suffering They're not going to compensate her for all the different harm she has. They will give her at most $50,000 in lost wages. She's in high school. She's not working. And any unpaid medical expenses.

And there's going to be a fight probably, even if they agreed to compensate her on whether or not that, you know, what is considered medical expense. But here's the thing with her is that at so far the four people and the other folks, what they've signaled is that for the most part, it looks like they're only going to limit. It looks like. Time will tell that they're going to limit this to folks with myracoditis and anaphylaxis. That appears to be what they're willing to admit effectively at this point, whether or not they'll actually, you know, this program may choose to take a different route on her situation. Tom will tell. All right, Aaron, I want to thank you for bringing this important case.

This is why we do this. This is why when you and I first got together and I was starting the informed consent action, network at the end of 2016. We wanted to make a difference and you have been so instrumental in doing this. This case, I think, is critical. And so I want to thank you for bringing it. I think we've got the best guy in the house to do it. I know we could talk about all the incredible plaintiffs that are out there, but I think we get the idea. And I don't want to hold up any more of your time. You've got so many brilliant cases. I want you focused back on. So thank you for taking the time and joining us today. Thank you. All right. Take care.

All right, folks, this is what I want to say. You know, Emma is just one of the stories out there. Paralyzed by a vaccine is struggling to get through and no one's compensating her. Even when she's one of just a handful that they knowing, they stopped the vaccine program from the Johnson and Johnson, and then end up putting warning labels for everybody else and never took care of her. So today, if for no other reason than Emma right now that deserves to be, be compensated and how many hundreds of thousands that don't even know about this program and the millions that are injured, we want liability back on the manufacturer. We want to say, get this

government program out of the way and let these people that made and rushed this product out, skipped all their safety trials, let them be accountable. That is what we're trying to do here, and only you can make that happen. I can't stress this enough. You've watched the success that we've had. These are big cases. We're going up against government agencies. They're going to stall, they're going to try and get around it. And the only reason we're able to stand our ground and bring justice all the times we have is because you make this happen. Nearly 50% of all the donations that come into the High Wired Informed Consent Action Network actually go into the courtrooms around America to fight for you and people like Emma that deserve to be taken

care of. Help us today. Help us make this happen. Become a recurring donor. All you have to do is go to the top of the page at thehighwire.com. Hit Donate to I Can. This is such an important issue right now. Nobody else is going to do it. Nobody has the ability. We're asking to donate, become a recurring donor. $23 a month would be great. You can't imagine what we can do with that if everybody watching right now gets involved. But I get it.

Times are difficult for some of you. Maybe it's just a cup of coffee. Maybe it's $5 a month that you say, you know what, let me skip Starbucks on Wednesday and go ahead and put a donation in because I'm not going to let people like Emma sit there, courageously put herself forward to try and stand for what's right in all the other kids. I'm not going to leave her alone. I'm going to get involved. This is how we do it.

This is how you change the world. This is why we are seeing governments turn around and say maybe we've pushed too hard. It's because we are pushing so hard and we're winning. I want to win more. There's so much that needs to be done and I need your help right now. Please become a recurring donor. We'll make it easy for you. Just text us right now.

Text the number 72022. Write donate in your phone. And when you send that, you'll get an easy link back that will help us bring this case that will not only hopefully take care of the Emma the rest of her lives, but will stop this fraud and stop the cover up and stop the ability for these manufacturers to do studies of 10 mice and then stand in front of us on television and tell all of us to get it. It's perfectly safe. This is what we do here at the Informed Consent Action Network,

and this educational program, the High Wire, you make that possible. For every one of you that has already been donating and helped us win all these cases, thank you for all of your support. We are truly changing the world. You're a part of our network. Become a part of this family, the informed consent action network. I hope you'll make that happen today. We're talking about courage.

We're talking about people that are changing the, dynamics. And when you look at the UK changing their dynamics around these situations, today I want to talk to one of those courageous individuals that pushed back in England. One of the great heart doctors from really a legacy and a family known for the great work they've done in medicine in the UK. Of course, I'm talking about Dr. Asim Malhotra. We've had him on our show before. Boy, has this guy been speaking truth to power in case you forgot. This is what that has looked like. Please give a very warm welcome to Dr. Asim Mahatra.

Welcome to the stage, Dr. Asim Alholtra. It's Dr. Asim Alhotra. Physician, cardiologist, medical researcher and author. Dr. Assim Malhotra, a global expert on health and disease. I was one of the first people to take the jab. I helped out in a vaccine center. I was on Good Morning Britain helping tackle vaccine hesitancy. I did not conceive of the possibility that a vaccine could cause any way.

real harm at all. It wasn't even anywhere in my brain. My father, who was a very prominent doctor in the UK, he suffered a very shocking, unexplained sudden cardiac death in July of last year, 2021. And he was very fit guy, healthy diet. I'd actually done some routine heart scans on him a few years earlier. But his post-mortem findings did not make sense to me at all. He had two critical stenosis in his arteries. In other words, severe blockages in two of his arteries. And I couldn't explain it. How did you become this controversial COVID character? Well, it's interesting. My, I think controversy with me probably started a much many years ago. I broke into the mainstream saying, why are we serving junk food to my patients in hospitals? I then went into a deep dive to try and

understand why we had an obesity epidemic. What was driving poor health for many, many people was biased and corrupted information that was coming from two big industries, big food and big farmer. Evidence-based medicine has been hijacked by powerful vested interests. Drug company-sponsored research shouldn't be determining medical decision-making at all. No. And we've seen the history of what they've done over the years. And that's at the root of our healthcare crisis. Over-medicated society, not just with the vaccine, is considered to be one of the leading causes of death after heart disease and cancer globally because of side effects.

I think all cardiovascular conditions have got worse because of the vaccine. This vaccine is not safe and is not effective and it needs to be stopped and pulled now. As soon as your work threatens an industry or an ideological cabal, you will be attacked, sometimes unrelentingly and viciously. We need to stand up and speak the truth, because if we don't, not speak.

speaking the truth is going to cause us more harm in the long time. History will not be on their side and the public will not forgive them for it. Well, it's a day full of heroes. This is a really big one. It's my honor and pleasure right now to be joined by Dr. Sine Malhotra. Dr. Mahaltra, I mean, it just, you have really taken it on in many ways. In the UK, just such a powerful voice. First of all, you know, you know, you have really taken it on in many ways. all, you know, you were on this program, I think it was December, so almost a year ago, you were sort of just really entering into this journey and there's always pushback. There's

so many doctors here in America, many of them have lost their licenses over these conversations. We just talked about a law that, you know, was going to try and strip doctors of their right to free speech. What kind of pushback have you dealt with? Where are you at right now? Is your license, you know, are you having any difficult? with your license in the UK right now. Dale, thank you for having me on again. It's great to speak to you. And I just want to reiterate also, thank you for all your work,

because this is a, you know, I see myself as a medium for a collective message, if you like, for humanity. And then you are, and the high wire in yourself have been, you know, very prominent in this process. So thank you for everything you're doing too. In terms of the backlash, it's interesting. You know, there was a, I didn't expect that collage you put together, but there was a point where I think I said to Joe Rogan,

as soon as you, in fact to yourself, as soon as you threaten an industry or an ideological cabal, you will be attacked sometimes unrelentingly and viciously. And you have to grow a rhinoceroside. And not long after we spoke in Austin, I was called up by the BBC in January, early January 2020, in fact this year, sorry, early January this year.

I was called by the BBC to discuss whether or not we should be giving more people, healthy people, statin drugs, cholesterol-lowering drugs, one of the most prescribed and nuclear drugs in the history of medicine, because over concerns of excess deaths, which I know you've covered and is an issue globally, our chief medical officer only a few weeks earlier

had gone on TV and said that it may well be the reason why people who have the excess deaths have gone up, which are predominantly driven by heart disease, because people have stopped taking their statins and blood pressure pills. And the reality was that that was simply not true. So they asked me to speak about this. And of course, in that interview, I decided that I had to discuss the elephant in the room.

And I mentioned the fact that there had been a concern about the COVID vaccine. And I'd done my own research on this. And there was more than enough evidence to call for its suspension. That video, that BBC news item went viral. I think it's currently close to 25 million views. In fact, people have said it's almost as many views for the BBC for a particular segment as the Queen, the Queen of England's funeral. So clearly that was, but as soon as that happened, and I was very pleased to get that out there,

I knew there'd be a backlash. And within 24 hours, the lead story on the Guardian newspaper's website was, you know, BBC criticized for allowing cardiologists to make a false claim about the COVID chap. And, you know, that backlash obviously, you know, is something that I expected. But of course, for me, Dell, as I discussed with you, I saw that as a marker of pro.

You know, I often quote Mahatma Gandhi who said, first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. So I saw that as a marker of progress. But in amongst all of that, I mean, ever since I even campaigned quite heavily and was part of a group of people that were successful in overturning vaccine mandates for healthcare workers, towards the end of 2021, early 2022, I received a note of the number of, from a prestigious medical organization that I was affiliated with, that a number of anonymous complaints had come through from doctors saying that I was bringing that organization to disrepute by spreading misinformation on the COVID vaccine. So that was ongoing, that level of, I would say, harassment. But something since we spoke happened in the last few months, which is unprecedented in the history of British medicine.

The General Medical Council are the organization, if you like, the regulatory body that controlled doctors license to practice. And despite a number of complaints to them from anonymous doctors predominantly, saying that I was spreading misinformation and therefore I should be investigated for my fitness to practice, they stood their ground and they said, although they don't agree with my views, they didn't feel that I'd done anything to bring my fitness to practice into consideration. And therefore, they decided not to investigate me and they made it public. A group of anonymous doctors are now currently suing the general medical council, are trying to take them to the high court for not investigating Dr. C.Martre myself.

And that at the moment is in a pre-hearing stage with the judge. We don't know what's going to happen from that. But I think, you know, that's quite extraordinary and quite interesting that that's happening. Interesting in the sense that the general medical council felt that, you know, and I like to see, listen, Del, Del, I think one thing I've learned in life, is that people are not black and white. You know, there are shades of gray. I've heard mutterings from people close to the general medical council that there are people within there that are on my side

and feel that, you know, Assam Mulhotra is raising legitimate concerns. He's probably the most prominent person or has been in the last decade speaking out against big farmer manipulations. And if we go after him, who else have we got? And the thing is, Del, I also play with a straight bat. You know, it's a cricketing term.

When I came out with my advocacy, I did it after very detailed research, after publishing a peer review journal, I talk about the fact that I think there are rational explanations to understand system failures that have driven this problem in the first place of the COVID vaccine. So I think that probably has helped to give me some protection, if you like.

But ultimately, as I said to you, Del, you know, when I published my paper, even though I had warnings from colleagues and friends saying you're going to lose your medical license, it wasn't enough to stop me saying what I needed to say. And for the primary purpose of protecting my patients doing my duty because if I didn't do that, I wouldn't be able to sleep at night. You know, it's amazing to me.

In one way, I think, isn't that how all doctors are supposed to act? I mean, the bar in so many ways has just been lowered where doctors are no longer held accountable for the, you know, just patient outcomes. Or when you look at this idea, I remember, you know, in California when I watched all, they lined up all these pediatricians on the microphone to support the bill that would investigate any doctor that decided to write a medical exemption for someone that's got an autoimmune disease or something like that. And I just saw these people lined up. I was like, you're literally censoring yourself. You're asking for government agencies and now stand between doctors and patients,

and you want to be supporting that. And in this case, to think doctors, even if you're wrong, Let's just say you're wrong, but you're setting a precedence where you're demanding that a doctor be silenced for their opinion. How is it these people do not say that that's ultimately going to affect you? This is going to ruin your ability to investigate. What is going to happen to the future of science and integrity and advancement? How do you advance if every time you step out of consensus thinking and try something new, your own medical professionals and peers are going to say, you shouldn't be allowed to do that.

Are we just signing off here? Is this the, this is it? We're locked in. Science is settled. We're not moving forward. No new cancer treatments. No new anything because God forbid somebody steps out and has a different opinion. I mean, it's really crazy to me.

It's like they're killing themselves. Del, you're absolutely right. And you speak rationally. But unfortunately, we are living in a system that is broken and is irrational. And you've alluded to this even earlier on in your program, when you talk about biased studies. The system is broken and no amount of money itself will fix it. In fact, I would argue the opposites.

When it comes to the United States, you spend 18% of your GDP higher than any other country in the world for healthcare. You have amongst wealthy nations the worst health outcomes. You know, even pre-pandemic, Dell, I mean, I came across a very startling figure recently, even pre-pandemic. The age-adjusted mortality rate in the United States compared to other, to average of other wealthy nations pre-pandemic resulted in results in an excess of half a million deaths per year. Wow. And that's and you're spending $1.5 trillion more than the average compared

to other countries. So we can what I'm trying to do and what I've been advocating for is to try and help people understand how that's happened. And you know, alluding to your point around this so-called craziness, all of what's going on with this so-called suppression of free speech, suppression of doctors speaking out when it comes to highlighting concerns of patients and patient safety is a product of the fact that we have these very powerful entities. I call them entities in this particular case Big Pharma, whose only purpose is to make profit for shareholders. And quite often, I would argue maybe more often than not, in that process actually behave

in a way that can only be described as psychopathic. And what does that mean? Well, it means, you know, callous and concern for the feelings of others, incapacity to experience guilt, repeated lying, deceitfulness, and conning others for profit. And if you look, for example, just at the, you know, the Pfizer-MRNA vaccine, which we've discussed in a lot of detail, you know, that's made Pfizer about $100 billion in profit. It's probably the most lucrative medical product in the history of medicine. And yet, when you look and break the data down, you're also talking about a product which has extremely. extremely poor efficacy and comes with unprecedented harms. Side effects, serious side effects, you mentioned the VARS data recently. Yeah.

It's extraordinary when you think about it. Absolutely astounding, you know. And the death rate could be, because of the vaccine, one estimate published in BMT infectious diseases, although that paper was retracted, not because of any error, but because it looks like the editor was put under pressure. One estimate from a survey suggested there may be as many as, you know, as, you know, 300,000 Americans that have died purely because of the vaccines and a million

serious adverse events. I mean, these numbers are absolutely just extraordinary. So this is really what we're eating. There's certainly enough to warrant investigation. There's certainly enough to warrant, you know, a warning, a pause. Let's not rush any more, you know, new boosters out, certainly not on the backs of 10 mice. Maybe we should be a little bit more thorough moving forward. You have, you know, you're coming to the states. You're such a clear voice and it's really awesome. You have an amazing event coming to California. Just tell me a little bit about that because I want to get into some of the things you're covering there too. Yeah, sure. So this is taking place on the 28th of October in San Jose Civic Center, Northern California. I'm speaking alongside Dr. Van Denner-Shiver.

who's an environmentalist has been very prolific pointing out all of the shortcomings when it comes to what's going with the food industry and agriculture. Dr. Drupinski, as many people knows a household name in the United States, is going to be moderating. And of course, my friend who is also going to come and give his perspective and in many ways offer political solutions because we need them, Robert Kennedy Jr. is also going to be speaking. And we have some surprised guests as well, which I think is going to really start all the audience. in a good way, but I don't want to give that away yet. And what the aim of that conference is called reclaiming food and medicine, Dell, is multi-fold. But really what we want to do is get to the roots of the issue, why American healthcare system

is failing, what's driving chronic disease, empower individuals both on a health perspective, but also, as I've said earlier, the system is broken, and we can't sit back and just expect the authorities now to sort the problem out. I think there needs to be an increasing grassroots movement and we want to help individuals know what they can do to try and clean up this broken system and this mess that we're in this medical misinformation mess this health misinformation mess you know we're fighting for the soul of medicine and to paraphrasing and Martin Luther King said in the 60s that you know he was fighting to reclaim the soul of America from war racism and poverty I think those issues are still outstanding very much so but we really want

to focus on how we can help people to, you know, lead the best possible lives they can mentally, socially and physically. So we're covering quite a lot in that, in that conference. I wanted to be certainly with everything I do. I always try and improve on what I've done before. And we're hoping that this conference will be certainly the best up-to-date health conference in the United States this year, potentially the world, I would like to say. And we're doing this, which is, you know, not for profit. No one's making any money out of this. We've, you know, we're fortunate to have a generous philanthropist from Australia called Adrian McCray, who has put the money down for the venue, which is a beautiful venue. San Jose Civic, I went to visit recently, and

I saw some amazing photographs of people that had actually performed there before, including the Rolling Stones and the Who. And I thought, wow, this is going to be quite an interesting place to have this event. But it's a beautiful venue. And all ticket sales, of course, will make money back for Adrian, but anything excess is going to be given to charity. So, This actually is an event that's giving back to society in more ways than one. Here we are, folks, October 28th. It starts at Noons, San Jose Civic Center for Events, Tickets, reclaim food and medicine is the bit.

Just very quickly, one of the things that I really love about this, and it is so true, our mission statement here at the Informant Consent Action Network, our nonprofit is dedicated to an eradicating man-made disease. That's not just pharmaceutical products. it's not just vaccines. It's also our food supply, which is something that I love that you're branching out. And in many ways, I think that the vaccine issue is the tip of the spear of issues that are out there, but it's the one that's the most vivid right now and that we really saw, for those of us that

were awake enough to witness what happened, we saw the sausage being made right in front of our eyes. We watched the regulatory agencies become cheerleaders for a product instead of being the skeptical science body they should have been, would just say we're not going to rush this out until it proves to be effective and proves to be safe. You can count on that. Instead, before they were even into their trials, we're saying, we guarantee you we're going to rush this out to you, which scared me to death. But it also is our food. You know, when we talk about, I talk about the rise of autoimmune disease and issues in America, especially. We are the sickest nation, certainly in the first world of the first world nations, and really around.

the world, highest levels of autoimmune disease, highest levels of neurological disorders, highest levels of drug and pharmaceutical use. So clearly, the pharmaceutical industries are not making us healthier, and they happen to own all of our media and a good chunk of our government agencies. But what I loved, even in watching that sort of montage of your work, that what really brought you to sort of stepping outside of mainstream thinking was just food and a hospital. Why are we feeding people such crap when we got them, we're trying to heal them? Just quickly, is there a difference between big food, big ag, big pharma? Many ways they're not.

They're very similar. In fact, actually, Kelly Brownell, professor from Yale of psychology, a lot of work in obesity and trying to understand what was driving in the United States. Actually wrote a great paper which people can look up. It's what for me it was very empowering and it helped me with my advocacy and certainly highlight the harms of excess sugar in the UK and also influencing a soda tax over there and it's called how big food played dirty sorry how big tobacco played dirty and millions died how similar as big food and del you're absolutely right if you look at the chronic

disease pandemic across the world but if united states for example six out of 10 americans have at least one of chronic disease whether it's heart disease types of diabetes cancer high blood pressure, dementia, etc. I mean, that's a huge proportion of people who are suffering unnecessarily. You've unfortunately, even pre-pandemic, lost two years off your life expectancy in the United States from 2014.

You've got more and more people living in unhealthy lifestyles. And again, that's a lot of unnecessary suffering. So for me, trying to understand the root cause of that, when you look at food and the food system, you know, the Lancet Global of Disease Reports, just to give people some perspective in, the hierarchy of what's maybe most important. Poor diet now is responsible for more disease and death globally

than physical inactivity smoking and alcohol combined. So if you're gonna fix healthcare, at the forefront of that means fixing the food. And I started my campaigning well over 10 years ago on the issue of the fact that having an interest in food and how it was related to heart disease, I was trying to make sense of the fact that, you know, how did we allow our hospitals

to become a branding opportunity for the junk food industry. 75% of the food purchased in the U.K., I suspect, not dissimilar in the US, is ultra-processed junk food dealt? So how can we be as doctors, healthcare professionals, advocating for improving people's health, yet we are selling sickness on the hospital grounds? And that has been the result of Big Foods' amazing success

of making their ultra-processed junk foods available to anyone, anywhere, at any time, including even bed-bound patients, in hospitals, Dell, that have had heart attacks that can't leave the bed for more than 24 hours, so for at least 24 hours, where there are contracts with hospitals where they have to be taken to the bedside in trolleys, you know, sugary drinks, sodas, potato chips, candies. There are contracts that were created to make sure that happen. And then at the same time, we're trying to educate the public on healthy diets. So you can see there's a big conflict there.

Amazing. Dr. Seymalch, I know you have a lot to do. You're going to be in the States. This is a really important conference and some really big, awesome voices. Dr. Drew Pinsky, also someone that's taken his television career, put it on the line. Of course, we all know Robert Kennedy Jr. that's been fighting for transparency and science in almost every way of life. And Dr. Van Danes-Shiva, I mean, just a brilliant voice for the world's great lineup on October. 28, 2023. I want to thank you for taking the time to join us today, but really especially for your clarity. It's so beautiful when not only do we see as a doctor and a scientist, someone that's, you know, willing to speak so openly, but it's so absolutely incredible at it, Dr. Simaultra.

You're just, you're a courageous leader in this very important time. It's just an honor to know you. Likewise, Del. Thank you so much. All right, take care. I'll see you soon. Make sure you don't miss out on that event. San Jose, look, you have so many friends in California. Drag them out. It's close. Come for a ride with me. Come listen to some of the great voices that have studied these things. They're putting it all on the line. These are the types of events that are going to change people's lives, including your own. All right, well, we're reaching near the end of our Freedom Files.

There's a group of interviews that we did while we're at Freedom Fest in Memphis. We sat down with all sorts of great minds and speakers and things like that. And this week is Michael Shermer and Emily Austin. Michael Shermer is the editor, I believe it, is of Skeptic Magazine publisher, funding publishers of Skeptic Magazine, a science magazine that celebrates that it is the heart of science, which is skepticism, right? asking the appropriate questions. Well, in our interview, I was a little surprised to find out

that he'd stop questioning something I knew a lot about. In fact, this may be one of the most heated interviews I've had in a long time. I don't know if I handled it really well, but you should see how it turned out. This is just a taste of what's dropping on Monday. And by the way, if you want to be seeing these Freedom Files and other things that we're doing, get on that list, right? That newsletter list is how you'll be told when these things are dropping the highwire.com. I talked about it earlier. Canada all around the world, you better be on this list. If you want our show when they're censoring you, we're probably okay in America, at least for a few more weeks. But please get on our newsletter. This is one of the benefits.

You're going to love this interview, I'm sure, because it's a rare moment when I get this intense. Let's clarify a couple things. Yeah. There is a scientific method. There's the evidence. Now, sometimes the evidence is clear. Sometimes it's not. Agreed. It's all right to go on Joe Rogan and talk about it.

I liked that fact that RFK Jr. went on Rogan. I happen to think he's wrong about vaccines. Well, let's have this conversation now, then, since you're well educated on it, I'd enjoy this. Part of this is what we call changing the goalpost, moving the goalpost. In fact, the original claim back in the 90s was that vaccines cause autism and other problems because of the mercury. Now, autism rates may not actually be increasing. the category may be expanding that more people are being diagnosed on the spectrum. Okay, let me challenge that because I think that's one of the stupidest scientific statements ever made.

I want to thank Michael Shermer for doing that interview. Hopefully somehow in this conversation, we can change some minds. I hope to have another opportunity, but if you want to see how that all really turned out, get on our newsletter. That will drop Monday in the Freedom Files. You know, I think this is a beautiful day, a bright, shining day in a very dark time. There is so much sadness and darkness in the world today, so many things that we would like to talk about or get into. But we are literally unable to address some issues because there is so much control over how we talk about it, how we share on it.

We have stood here in the high wire one of the most controversial issues of all times in this vaccine space, in the health freedom space, in this idea that this crazy idea that you should actually be in charge of your own body. It used to be you couldn't talk like that. You were ridiculed. You were attacked by mainstream media. You were attacked by your social media groups. Well, now those attacks are beginning to quiet. Your social media groups are starting to ask those questions. The mainstream media will probably be the last to change because it's owned by those dark lords that drive us into all the sickness and cancer that is spreading throughout this world.

And I don't just mean the cancer of our health, but the cancer of rage, anger, war, deceit, and lies. But in the end, the people, this is a nation of people, we were all brothers and sisters. And as you can see, as the litmus test of the work that we've done here in the Highwire, very focused on a very specific set of issues, but as controversial as anything could possibly be, what we've shown is that when brothers and sisters honor each other, when we start having intelligent conversations with each other, when we're not afraid to speak our truth, when we're not afraid to listen to a truth that may not line up with ours,

but share our feelings and start to converse, we can see that we start seeing changes, not just in our households, not just in our neighborhoods, but as today you are seeing government agencies, having to repeal laws, having to repeal approaches that, as they said, may have been too hard hitting. Now it's okay. You're going to get to choose whatever car you want to drive. We're actually going to let you have your freedom because you have stood in your freedom and you've made it clear to these government agencies, even though through all the propaganda, we wanted you to believe you've had no power, your power we are now bowing down to today. We have a power to create change. We have a power to bring truth. We also have

the ultimate power to find love and to spread love. And right now, in these times, around this world, no matter what side of the spectrum you are on, remember that every human being is our brother and sisters. Some are misguided. Some are lost. Some are terrified. And we can always find in his story looking back some reason to hate our neighbors, some excuse that will justify anything we do in this world. One day, I pray, we will stop looking in our rearview mirror. We will recognize that we are brothers and sisters together. We are grand when we stand together. And we will put aside all that we've done to each other, all that we can point to and stand in who we are, all brothers and sisters, God's people. This is my prayer. This is what I feel like we have shown in the work that we've done.

People can change their minds. We can evolve. We can win. Most importantly, we can love and we can be heroic. So the High Wire celebrates every single day, every week, no matter what's happening in the world. I look forward to seeing you every week. I'm glad that you're here and I look forward to seeing you next week on the high wire.