The Highwire with Del Bigtree - Episode 350: HEROES OF SCIENCE

Episode Date: December 15, 2023

Pierre Kory, MD, MPA premieres new short film ‘The War on Ivermectin,’ based on his incredible book about the life-saving drug, details science on COVID Spike Protein Shedding, and breaks down an article he wrote on Excess Mortality which is making the rounds in the mainstream; Jefferey Jaxen Reports New Side Effects of Taking Statins, and more evidence of auto-immune disorders post COVID vaccination; Tess Lawrie MBBCh, PhD details the WHO’s attempts to assume control of global medical freedom through amendments to the International Health Regulations, and how you can help to stop them; Finally, the World Premiere of the film ‘The War on Ivermectin.’Guests: Pierre Kory, MD, MPA, Tess Lawrie, MD, PhDBecome 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? Many of you know I grew up in Boulder, Colorado, which is like Planet of the Hippies, my parents were hippies. And there's this one of these concepts that I grew up with that I think they've disproven, but there's lots of books written about like the hundredth monkey, this idea that on one island, you know, one monkey started doing something with the food that they were eating. And then when a hundred of them finally were doing the same thing, then on another island, of monkeys it started there too, that somehow there's this collective unconscious where everyone wants enough people get it or enough monkeys get it, then finally it moves on and starts to spread

around the world. Well, that may have actually happened this week, the human version of it, with an article that came out in the hill. Now, we've been talking about this issue since the beginning of COVID, and we've been right about it, but we may have finally gotten to the 100th monkey. What I'm talking about, well, this is what it looks like in the news. The Hill writes the following, this is bigger than COVID. Why are so many Americans dying early? It goes on to say life insurers have been consistently sounding the alarm over these unexpected or excess deaths, which claimed 158,000 more Americans in the first nine months of 2023 than in the same period,

2019. That exceeds America's combined losses from every war since Vietnam. mortality, up 26% Dr. Mark among 35 to 44-year-olds, up 19% among 25 to 34-year-olds. What in the world is going on? And I want to add to that before I answer it. By the way, great report by Kevin Cork. Both of us read our heads off tonight. We're doing much worse than Europe.

We lost during the heart of the pandemic about a million more excess deaths per year than Europe did. And now after the pandemic, same thing. Why are they doing better than us? We have a very high standard of living here. It's also cutting trace across all socioeconomic groups. It's not just poor people. It's not just socioeconomically disadvantaged. It's everyone. Now, I had a good conversation with you before it came on. I mentioned obesity. You made a great point. You said, look, that rate hasn't gone up. So I would say part of it, at least, is the long-term effects of obesity. It leads to high blood pressure.

And during the shutdowns and the lockdowns, people didn't get medical care, and they got anxious. and they got depressed. There was more suicide. All of that is continuing. All of the anxiety is continuing. Stress-related diseases are up. Drug abuse is still up. Alcohol is up.

COVID itself may have long-term effects. That could be it in terms of on the heart, lungs, kidney. But the vaccine, which definitely saved lives, nobody's studying what the long-term effects of the vaccine are here. That's also an elephant in the room. All of that has to be looked at. You can't just say, well, it's smoking. Well, it's this, it's that.

We need a careful examination of why this is happening. Terrible trend. I don't know if you were sitting there with COVID, but Mark Siegel is one of those people that was pushing the vaccine hard for him to finally say, you know, talk about the elephant in the room, which has been there the whole time. But this article is not written by the Hill and say the article by the Hill. It's written by an author. And that author joins me now.

Dr. Pierre Corey. Hey, Doe. Always awesome to have you. This is a firestorm, man. I mean, it's really, you know, lots of articles have been out there, but this one really is taking off. It's hitting the news. You're on Lori Ingram tonight, correct? Talking about this.

Yeah, yeah. country is that we're seeing legions of young people die and no one's asking the questions the government is not being transparent with the data we don't know of any organized focus to really study the cause and you heard Siegel who mentioned is mainstream guy now seems to be walking it back he says well maybe this could be long-term effects of the vaccine so the idea that a mainstream you know pundit on television is now saying the thing that a lot of us been saying for a long time I think that's really a big change I think Mark Siegel may

be the 100th monkey. It's the perfect description for a guy that pushes. But look, up until this moment right now, saying that you wanted to investigate the safety of a vaccine, just immediately just planted you, you're an anti-vaxxer. Like, there's no need to do any science here whatsoever. I think there's clearly a shift going on now where people are moving. In this article, for those that haven't read it, what do you think were the turning point moments? We've talked about the insurance, but what has stood out to you is you just can't look the other way. What is it in your article that's got, because there's been lots of data, we've been seeing excess mortality. What is it that is just you can't look away now? I think it's the scale. So 150,000 Americans in the

first nine months of 2023, more than all the-158,000. I think Vietnam was what, 68? About 58,000. So if you total up all the losses in all the wars since Vietnam, it doesn't come close to them. And that's in one year, mostly young people, insured. And I think people, it's not just old people dying. In fact, the old people in 2023 are dying at a less rates because a lot of them died off in early COVID. And so you can't ignore this. And, you know, these sudden rises, you can't blame it on drug addiction and obesity. Those things have always been happening.

They didn't just suddenly, you know, shoot up in the third quarter of 2021 where we see the biggest signal. And, you know, we all know what it is. That we, you know, theirs has been exploding since the beginning. We have seen legions of deaths in newspapers of young people, ballplayers, athletes. And I think now you can't escape the data. And I think, you know, this is the third op-ed we've published in a major mainstream media outlet. We did one in USA Today about six weeks ago, then Newsweek, and now the Hill. And I think somehow where finally there's an appetite.

The censoring is actually getting pulled back. People are willing to look at this. I don't know why now, because like you said, we've been doing this for a long time. but something's changing. And now we're actually able to have this debate in an open society. I think it's incredible. Well, it's great to see Mark Siegel open up to it.

Maybe one of the reasons he's so late to, you know, the party here is we actually went to his, like, to his YouTube channel and to his social media to just see what was about. And this is, this is what we found. Look at this. We've been blocked. He won't watch the high wire. Nothing that we're doing is being seen by this man.

Apparently, so in our effort to try and like celebrate this guy, like we can't even get to him, so it's shocking that he's, you know, finally waking up when we've been talking about this from the very beginning. I want to get into a subject that you're doing a lot of speaking about right now. And it's probably the biggest question we get from our audience. I think a huge part of our audience didn't take this vaccine, but are concerned that, you know, that there's this idea of shedding. We've seen these issues on, you know, menstrual changes, you know, menstruation changes and things like that. But you're really starting to sort of the same way you wrote this article, there's this sort of critical mass that's now happening around shedding.

What are the main things that you think, you know, when you look at this? Well, first of all, you know, I started to see it in my practice with my partner. We saw it in our patient population, whether they were long VACs or long COVID. And anyone can be shed upon. Just because you're vaccinating doesn't mean you can't be susceptible to shedding. Okay. But really the big change for me was, and I started to look into this topic, the FDA literally has a document from 2015, which gives guidance on shedding studies around gene therapy products. And we know these vaccines are gene therapy products.

The FDA is aware of it. They recommend strongly animal and human shedding, so they know it's real. And then I discovered that there are other gene therapy products where in the insert, it warns of shedding for up to seven days. That's just that product. And then as I started to look more and more, we have some pretty concerning studies

suggesting that shedding is happening on a large scale. Now, I think there's a difference between shedding of spike protein that's symptomatic in someone or asymptomatic. Because I would say it's a minority of people who are capable of developing adverse vaccine effects from shedding. It's a minority. I think they're physiologically sensitive folks. So they just didn't get the vaccine, but they're around somebody that doesn't, now they start having real issues because of it. You mentioned number one is menstrual irregularities. What I've seen in my experience is women are much more susceptible.

in men and the most common is menstrual irregularities. But there are others. I mean, I have patients who get vertigo. And it's interesting, I wrote this whole series on shedding, and many patients in my practice read my writings. And so in some of my patient visits, they've been asking me questions about shedding. And I saw someone this week, Dell,

literally spontaneously tells me, in our visit, he says, you know, Dr. Corey, I found that I can't go to grocery stores. Every time I go to Trader Joe's within minutes, I feel ill, I have to get out of there. He says, I can't go into those stores. It happened when I was at the farmer's market last week where it was really crowded. And I said to him, I said, well, you know what that is, right?

And he says, no. And I said, it's shedding. And I had to explain to him what it is. I sent him my links to my writings. And he was shocked, but it made perfect sense. He'd already figured out that there were certain places he couldn't go. Now, he happens to be sensitive. It's not everybody.

Right. What is the mechanism? I mean, what does the term shedding mean? How does someone, is it the same as being sick and having a virus for a germ? No. So shedding, I'm going to use the FDA's definition. It's literally the excretion of viral or bacterial gene therapy products. So what is the product of this particular COVID-MRNA vaccine?

It's the spike protein. But it's not the natural spike protein, which is something I'm going to get into a little later in the show with Jeffrey. It's this. It's the manufactured version. And so those can be shed. And they know that. And that's why they want people to do shedding studies.

The other thing is, the other thing that you can classify these vaccine as is they are nanoparticle technology. It's kind of a wider category, which is the MRNA is within lipid nanoparticles. And those fatty sacks, tiny little fatty sacks, they're well known to cross almost all physiologic barriers. They can cross the skin, the eyes, exhaled in the breath, they can be inhaled. And so when you have MRNA or even spike protein, which then gets enclosed into these lipid nanoparticles, they literally can be shed and excreted and absorbed because there's a lot of gene therapy products that are in development where they're using creams, skin, nebulizers

to deliver it. It's not just a needle in the arm. So nanoparticles are well absorbed by the body and there's a lot of products on the market right now using nanoparticle technology. And the last thing I want to say about that is in every review paper I did on nanoparticle technology, there's always a few sentences.

More studies need to be done to ensure the safety of these products. And this, to me, this is a very thing. This is just another example of humans adopting and proliferating a technology without really understanding the short or long-term risks. We've seen that over and over with the vaccines. And this is just the latest chapter, right? You have DNA contamination in all the vials.

This week we had a paper about frame shifting where the MRNA is misread and is making all these novel proteins. And now we have shedding. And my last worry is, although I'm not symptomatic by being around vaccinated, again, it's a minority. I worry that those DNA plasmids can be taken up in. into natural exosomes, which is the natural equivalent of a lipid nanoparticle, and those can be trans. So what's happening with the DNA that's in all these vials that's going

into people? Could it get to me, and is it going to affect me? And those are all questions. And there's lots of studies. The one I thought was interesting was, you know, where they had kids of adults that had been vaccinated. And then those kids ended up having, you know, antibody titers not to COVID and not to just a spike protein, but very specifically, they had developed an immunity to the man-made spriters. spike protein, which says somehow they came in contact and they weren't vaccinated. No. And so you have to wonder why are they making antibodies to spike when they weren't vaccinated and they didn't get COVID. So they're finding it in households of adults were

vaccinated. And in that paper, the authors, again, there's so much censorship and propaganda. Get stuff published. You kind of have to write things that may not be true. And they said, they hypothesized that it's antibodies being shed from the adult. So if that's true, I would be immune to every disease that my parents are. It would almost be a brand new branch. of science. Exactly. Like we've just, we're going to go ahead. And this is where, like I was thinking of the Occam's Razor thing, like it couldn't possibly

be the most obvious answer. We're going to develop a whole new, you know, smoking gun that has to go through 50 different doors to get to where it is instead of just explain the obvious. But there's a worse study than that. It's a study that got a lot of attention when it came out. It's still on a preprint. But it was one of the first big studies which correlated vaccine rollouts with excess mortality. in countries across Europe and U.S., North America.

And I didn't pick it up at the time. It was only when I was doing research on shedding, but in that study, they actually found that in areas where adults were getting vaccinated, they saw a spike in excess mortality amongst children who weren't yet being vaccinated. Remember when we were only doing adults? During that period, as the adults started to get vaccinated, you saw this rise in excess mortality of children, which lasted for about 18 weeks, and then it went back to baseline.

no other explanation where a suddenly unvaccinated kids. So there is shedding. There's also secondary shedding, which I don't want to get too crazy, but it's where you can be exposed to someone who's shedding a lot of spike protein, and then you can actually bring it home and have someone else. I have a number of patients where that's happened. So here's my question, because in some of our investigations, actually, we're looking at chem trails in some of these delivery systems,

and one of our questions is, Are we working on some sort of technology to drop vaccines from the sky? We've seen some articles. There's clearly things out there. But something we're investigating. We haven't really done a show on this completely yet. But there's a whole branch of vaccine science now looking at these hyper-infectious vaccines where the entire goal, they state it, to make a vaccine that even the people that refuse to take it will get it

because they will be infected by the person that got the vaccine. And you see this in the works. My question is, is that what this was? Is this, I mean, they're all acting like, oh, what, it sheds? Is there the possibility that that's the exact purpose? Because the polio vaccine, by the way, that we use, you know, over in Africa, that's one of the things they know they're not going to get to everybody. The idea is that it should shed.

It's causing a major problem now. And we're having polio starting to spread across the world. But have you thought about that? Is it possible that is baked into this? There's no limits where you can go with how much they knew of what they were really unleashing and how much they willfully didn't investigate, right? Because the shedding studies, although the FDA document falls short of requiring it, it's essentially recommended. There's a huge guidance around it. They did not do them. In fact, I shouldn't say that. There is evidence

through FOIA that they found some mention that Pfizer did a shedding study in rats. Don't know the results. And I can't actually find the original document anymore. It's off the internet, but this wasn't studied, and they know it's a possibility. So what you're saying is true. I mean, these are gene therapies. We know that our body can, in many patients, they can make a lot of spike, they can make it for a long time. The spike stays there a long time. So they have a capacity being shed. And the study you brought up where children are now showing antibodies and they weren't vaccinated, wouldn't that be an example of a kind of a self-spreading vaccine? I think it's totally a possibility. When I look at this, you know, your

a doctor, I've lost a lot of hope in doctors because there's very few that seem to be critically thinking. But this God complex thing, and when I look at this vaccine program, when we look at this idea, we know it can shed, clearly they want to make vaccines that do that in the future. So none of us can escape. This is the ultimate God complex now because now what we're saying is we are going to release our own man-made virus on the world. And there's nothing you're going to do about it because our virus is better than the national virus or than God's virus or some evolutional process we've been in. I mean, this is madness at a level that, I mean, so now I've got to figure out how to not

only protect myself, my help, I'm getting a cold, whatever that's out there. And actually, I got these bozos releasing things that they think are somehow going to protect me that have, you know, the same side effects were worse and aren't studying it, aren't even looking at it. It's infuriating. It's absolutely infuriating. And the thing is, you know, we already know that informed consent was, went out the window in COVID, right?

the concept of bodily autonomy and free choice, this would be an example of like it's just a global violation. They're releasing medical interventions where they can't contain it in the one person who elected to receive it. Now, your choice now affects me. I have to now be exposed to the medical intervention that you chose yourself. And I mean, when will they stop? There's no, it seems like there's no safeguards. I mean, honestly, I think when we're all dead, it's like it's like imagine a recall in a car, but now, oops, our bad. We've got a defect in this vaccine that now you're all breathing it and we don't know how to stop it. I mean, that should be the next, you know, movie on HBO is the virus that, you know, you did do us.

All right. Yeah, I get it. So obviously what puts you in the middle of this is the war on ivermectin. And your work with ivermectin, you and Mickey Willis, you know, got together to make a mini doc. It's very powerful. We're launching it at the end of the show today. I just want to show people just a little clip and we're going to talk about it. All right.

So take a look at this. What initially led this was an FDA Twitter account that used the term y'all to express denigration of Ivermectin as a horse drug. The truth is that the dose that's used for horses by body weight is the same dose that's recommended for humans, but it's formulated and manufactured to a quality standard that's very different. The CDC put out a national advisory on this, warning the whole country against taking this drug Ivermectin formulated for horses and cows. with that memo fired to every doctor then suddenly me and all my early treatment colleagues around the country we were faced with problems like we'd never had before so it was the first time in history that we ever saw a doctor who could

be prosecuted for using a generic safe and effective drug for the application that doctor thought was appropriate if ivermectin were an effective treatment the vaccines never would have gotten emergency use authorization in the U.S. The key paradox is if you look at the mortality rate in the United States, one of the most highly funded medical care systems in the world. What we find is the mortality in the United States is among the worst in the world. People need to understand that academics have been threatened with losing their position and threatened with getting no further research grants if they speak out against

It literally is, in my mind, the single greatest public health achievement in our history of infection control in the world. This is an awesome video. We're going to play the whole thing at the very end of the show. People can check it out. Then they can go check out the work you're doing on your website. You know, it's amazing, you know, hearing Dr. Robert Malone say, you know, we had the highest death rate really in the world, one of the highest in the world.

And we've been saying that on this show from the very beginning. In fact, I think we were the first ones to point out, hey, wait a minute, the emergency use authorization here, they cannot push this vaccine out at warp speed if this drug works. It seemed like, you know, with everything, with any case, you have against something, what was the motivation? And now you have Dr. Mark Siegel admitting the same stat. Worst death rates, you know, from COVID in what's supposed to be the greatest hospital medical system in the world. Highest paid doctors, free to do whatever you want. And now we're having the highest excess mortality rates. And in the middle of this, I'm thinking Tony Fauci is going on the stand, I believe, next week in front of the Congress, to answer to Wuhan and covering that up and all of these things that are going on.

And, I mean, this guy is like Time Magazine's hero of the year. Should this be, is this one of the greatest medical catastrophes of all times as far as leadership? I don't think you could ever come close to what they did here. And Fauci is at the center of it all. I mean, as an expert on a number of facets of COVID, I've seen that man go on national television, which is really global television, and utter brazen lives,

completely divorced from science. And there's a heavy weight he should be carrying, and he's responsible for, I think, millions of needless deaths. There's not even a question about that. I think the fact that your Hill article is hitting so hard this week going into next week and all this is coming around, It just really feels like, I mean, there's a critical mass taking place here, as there should be. I mean, as there should be, an investigation to what the hell happened here?

Why did we take a perfectly safe drug? I mean, I always say, even if it didn't work, what difference does it make? If it just had a placebo effect, it's as close to a placebo in a drug as you can get. It's so safe. Why would you make it so that no one can get near it? I mean, clearly, it's a crime. Do you think, do you believe we'll ever see people like actually go to jail over this sort of decision? You know, actually, if you had asked me that two days ago, I would have said no.

But I don't know if you're aware there's an article right now. There's a Minister of Health in Italy who is actually apparently up on murder charges because they have evidence on emails that he was aware of numerous deaths that are occurring around vaccines and told them to keep up the narrative of safe and effective. And we know that health ministers around the world did that to support. the vaccine campaign. And so that is, one, if true, that seems to be that maybe other things are changing. I think there is a reckoning coming out. And we've been kind of, you know, reassuring ourselves for a couple of years that the truth will come out eventually. And, you know,

we keep pushing out that truth. And I think we're making some headway lately. And when the truth does come out, crimes are going to be revealed. And I do think people will have to be held accountable. I mean, what's amazing about this. And to me, you know, we're not a political show, but Tony Fauci gets carried between, from Donald Trump, gives, give it all the power. You know, I don't mean, I don't care where anyone's at politically. Both of these presidents use the same fool to destroy our lives. And so when you start thinking, like, what difference could be made here, if you're going to let a bureaucrat like this, literally shut down my business, make it illegal for me

to breathe the air, decide what drugs my doctor is allowed to use, and then go with ones that are not properly tested remdesivir, you know, manipulate studies around. I mean this whole thing is so disgusting. I've been saying you know more and more when we look back at this period of time and history tries to write what happened here people are gonna be scratching their heads like how did this many people in authority think they could get away with this how many doctors that just went along with it you know it really outs a severe it's as bad not not to not to bring like the Holocaust part of it I'm not making that comparison that is bad that way

But when you look at the ability for people to be brainwashed, intelligent people, doctors. Yes. I was just talking to a doctor the other day, a really good friend. In fact, James Newinschwander, and I said they're idiots. And they'll say, Del, they're not idiots. Doctors are smart people. I said, well, they don't have any intuition. And as far as I'm concerned, you die in nature if you don't have some instinct.

They've got no instincts whatsoever. So to me, they're stupid. I think they're, in my more generous moments, Del, Del, I think of them as too trusting, especially in the institutions of science, like the journals and the agencies, they really do think that's the best science and the most knowledgeable experts speaking, and they don't understand that those institutions are captured. And then so in my most generous moment is I look upon our physicians of our country as really victims, victims of unrelenting propaganda, shot at them from journals, from the mouths of agency

leaders, from the media 24-7. And I do find that many of them were defenseless against it. They tended to believe what they were told, and then they passed it on in positions of authority with their white coats. And so I think some knowingly did this. I think some of the leaders who executed this pandemic response, I think, like you mentioned, they knew what they were doing. They knew there was other objectives, and it wasn't the consideration of the patient. But I think a lot of doctors just, I think they were too trusting and not questioning enough. I agree.

We cannot question enough. Let me plug this thing right here. The war on Ivermectin, hey, everybody, you know, this is a, It's one of those incredible stories about a little tiny pill, but really it's, I think you have uncovered the heart and the problem of what's happened in modern science and in modern medicine. And anyone that has a question about anything. Today we're going to be talking about stat, same story. You know, like across the board, what is the safety science? What is the effect? You know, what is the efficacy studies? How is it we have a system where the company making the money is the one that does all of its own safety testing? And then when that product suddenly becomes generic or they can't make any money off of it, then they

trash it. They'll tell you, oh, that doesn't work. We've got a better product now. And now no one's allowed to tell. There's just so much of this going on. And then you look at the vaccine, doesn't get on the market if, you know, Ivermectin works. They cannot rush it out. And we would have seen all these side effects and problems because that safety trial would have lasted,

at least the two years it was supposed to be. Instead, they vaccinated the entire placebo group as soon as they were able to kill this thing. and rush it out. I mean, it's so incredibly corrupt. I was saying this morning, I am struggling to find any science. I feel like I can trust anymore. I feel like I got to go in the archives and just burn everything and start over. I don't, yeah, I have trouble. I don't know what to trust anymore because I do know that the science that were presented, especially in the high-impact journals, is highly curated. You don't see the negative studies, like statins, on-ending, repeatedly positive studies. And then when you look at pharmaceutical company conducted trials,

And then independent examinations, you find two very different conclusions. You don't find the safety. You don't find the efficacy. And so you're right. It's really disoriented because I don't know what to trust. I know the high-impact journals. I have a lot of skepticism over. You want people who are free of conflicts of interest.

That's about the only science that I'll trust at this point. Would you ever work in government guy? I mean, I feel like there's a couple of politicians out there, Robert Kennedy, Jr., Ronda Santas, maybe even Donald Trump. He's singing about his vaccine. is a disaster. But I do have a sense that some of you guys are being looked at. Is that something you would consider doing? NIH, CDC, HHS? Could you clean up that swamp? Here's how it answered. Could you clean up that swamp? Bobby, who I have the most respect for, he's the only candidate,

again, I want to get political. But as a physician who's been deeply studied and who has seen the suffering and all the deaths that through this corrupt exercise of this COVID response, he's the only candidate who has a really well thought out and clear and I think impactful way to try to reform our health agencies and really put together a health system in a way that we're not so beholden to these massive financial interests. Well, I would imagine, because he knows people like you.

So do you do it? He calls you? If Bobby Kennedy called me, I think it would be impossible for me to say no, but I would not be rushing to Washington, but you're putting me in a bad position here. Speaking of politics, but I find hystericals because I know you're like a bleeding heart liberal and you have been your whole life.

I used to be. Right. But now you're on Fox. Like you're going to be on Fox like all week long, you know, why is this a political issue? I don't even understand it. That's a fascinating one. I mean, yes, suddenly if you believed in the science around one medicine, you were politically aligned with one political party.

The best of me I saw is who likes penicillin better, Democrats or Republicans, which shows you how ridiculous the politicization of medicine has been in COVID. That's never happened before. You never had a political divide around medical therapies, right? Yeah. I think it had to do with trust, I think, one side of the aisle. distrusted what was coming out of these captured agencies and the other side did and then that's why it became political and I think it's because one side was much much more skeptical of what was coming out of government and that's the side that I think got it right

the more skeptical you were the more correct you were you can get your book you know right it gets a great Christmas gift you can get it on our website but also if people want to see this movie we're going to see it at the end on our show here but I want them if they want their friends to check it out they should go to your website so where do we find out So the movie is housed on my substack, which is Medical Musings or p.rchore.com. And then I'll put it out on my Twitter. I'm going to ask a lot of my followers to spread it around. I think you'll include the link. Yeah, the movie will be out there, and I hope people watch it. And, again, it's not just about me selling books.

I really do think, like you mentioned before, Del, I think I wrote that book in a way, that if someone reads that in 10 years, they want to really know what happened in COVID, I really do think that book will illustrate it in a way that it'll be very, very real to people, even 10 years from now, and I hope people read the book. Oh, I agree. I think this is going to be part of that historical record that's going to have us all scratching our heads. What happened there? Keep up the great work.

You are really, you're making a difference. You're bright, shining star here. You know, we've thrown out of a lot of flares, but you hit it this week. I am so excited about, you know, this sort of transformation that's happening in the mindset of this country. I know it's going to affect the world, so keep up the great work. Thanks, still. pleasure and i'll tell you you know Tucker Carson made a comment this week about doctors and the ones that got it wrong you're right a lot of them got it wrong and maybe they were too trusting what's

really shocking is the amount that still aren't admitting it and this is what he just said take a look at this fundamentally everything they said was wrong about the vax and it's heard a lot of people and like where all the and some doctors i know the three that you mentioned and they're great but there are tens of thousands of doctors in the united states and why aren't they all standing up and saying, oh my gosh, I'm so sorry. I cannot believe I recommend it. I mean, I endorsed the Iraq war in 2003, and at the end of 2003, I realized I was wrong, and I felt bad about it for 20 years, 20 years. In fact, it was 20 years ago this week that I went to Iraq. And I felt bad about it ever since then, and at every opportunity, I apologize, not to please other people, but to maintain my dignity, my self-respect.

I mean, that's a prerequisite. You have to, if you hurt someone unintentionally, you have to say, I'm sorry. And I can't believe that 99% of American doctors won't do that. And I'm not going to them, by the way. I would never go to a doctor who was still lying about COVID because that's a dangerous person. That's an immoral person and a dangerous person. Or an idiot in the way that I look at it. And I totally agree. Look, if you're going to a doctor that's still telling you you should get the booster shot, turn around, find somebody else. This is a person that has no ability to understand science, no ability to see what's happening around them. So how do they have any concept of what's happening inside of your body? Clearly, they are a doctor, Google. Their Google is to the CDC. And whatever

the CDC is telling them to do, whether it's jump off a bridge or cut off their own arm or cut off your arm, I'm pretty sure they're going to do it. So I would find somebody else. I could not agree more, Tucker nailed it on the head as usual. We're going to, you know, we have a great show going on. I got Tess Laurie coming up. We're going to get into the WHO that seems to be one of the major puppeteers, the UN, this sort of global attempt to keep all of us from thinking and threatening any one of those doctors that decides to, you know, come around and wake up and admit they've done something wrong. Really important conversation coming up. But first is time for the Jackson report. Well, I feel like, I mean, it feels like the clouds are parting just a little bit wider than,

you know, we've had a lot of successes. But this is a big one. I mean, you have some real focus now on all-cause mortality. This vaccine. It's, it's moving. And Dell, where, obviously, where were all the doctors? Where are they now? Well, they're speaking up. They're starting to speak up one by one. And just understand, this isn't over yet because we're dealing with the wake. of the damage and the injuries that this vaccine has caused. The medical community, the people that are still in this and still not really subscribing to the fact that this COVID vaccine is questionable,

or maybe there should be long term studies done on this. Better wake up quick. And one of the doctors we haven't heard from was really Dr. Drew Wiseman. He was the co-recipient of the Nobel Prize for helping get this vaccine technology out to the public. Well, listen to him on an interview. Did he warn about this technology? Take a listen.

All right. So how can we be sure that this vaccine will not cause long-term negative impact in humans? Like, that's one of our big questions that we hear a lot. So, I mean, the first is to understand what the vaccine is. The MRNA in the vaccine is identical to the RNA in your cells. So the RNA in your cells isn't causing long-term adverse events. So the RNA in the vaccine won't either. The RNA is degraded probably within a week.

It's completely gone. The lipid nanoparticles contain four types of fat. Two of the fats are identical to what's in our cells. They're physiologic. The other two are present at, incredibly low levels, they are gone within 24 to 48 hours. They're just, the body degrades them. They're gone.

So nothing of the vaccine is left after days to a week or so. The question that comes, well, then how do you get a long-term adverse event? Well, you can't from any components of the vaccine because they're gone. It's just hard to imagine how it could have long-term effects. 90% of adverse events, the vaccines, happened in the first six weeks. We haven't seen anything. 15 million people have gotten the vaccine already.

The only really serious adverse event is this anaphylaxis like reaction that we're seeing in about one and 100,000 people. Other than that, there really nothing, you know, 15 million people have been injected. That's a lot of, of people. And if we were going to see an unusual adverse event, you know, would you care about something that occurred less than one in 15 million? I mean, besides the fact that this guy is totally

full of it, I know you're about to get into this. This is just a lesson to our audience. Number one, stop going to a doctor that tells you need the booster. And don't inject yourself with anything made by Uncle Fester. I mean, it's just this guy, seriously. But I know you have more information on the depth of this beyond the fact that he looks like he's the walking dead himself. Those are just laughable statements that he was making. But, you know, like you said, the world is turning on this vaccine. Mark Siegel on Fox is questioning this, saying that there's no long-term studies. He's calling it the elephant in the room.

Remember, to be clear, this is an old bit like this is early on, right? This isn't him this week, right? No, correct, correct. This is early on. But again, it's just a couple days. It's degrades. It's everything's natural in this. Well, you know, how do you get a patent on living nanoporicals if they're all naturally?

You can't patent anything natural. I think Kevin McCurnan pointed that out. But also, he's saying this is just going to go away. What about the machinery? It kickstarts in your body. And that's what we're going to talk about. But just back to Mark Siegel for a second. We and so many others were censored.

We took the hits. So Mark Siegel now has the luxury to make, to throw out these softball questions that everybody sees now. So we're seeing the rise in all cause mortality. And we're seeing the issues. Now, these deeper issues we're getting into now. We're getting into actual cellular machinery that this vaccine has been reprogramming and the shedding. So Pierre Corey, Dr. Pierre Corey just talked about the spike protein and the shedding of the spike protein.

Well, we now have a study that just came out. This is the detection of recombinant spike protein in the blood of individuals vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2. So remember, I was just going to stick around for a couple days. Well, this is what the authors wrote, the results. The specific P.P. Spike fragment was found in 50%, 5.0%. of the biological samples analyzed and its presence was independent of the SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody tighter. The minimum and maximum time at which P.P. Spike was detected after vaccination was 69 and 187 days respectively. So this thing's hanging around for like six months. This guy literally said it

won't be there for two or three, two or three days and then it's kicked out of the body just like it would be if it's natural. And what I find incredible about this moment right now and what we're reading, you have his testimony basically not realizing if he's telling you this will be out of the body in three days. If it wasn't, yeah, sure, if it was lasting longer than that. I mean, how do you get long-term side effects if something disappears? You don't. I don't even know if that's true. But here, based on his own principle, the only way you'd have long-term effects is if my product was still in you, 60, 180 days later.

Now we know for a fact it is. So your entire argument on why this is safe is now in your face. Either you knew and you were lying or you didn't do proper testing to know. Either way, you're dead wrong and based on your own, you know, clinical, you know, point of view, anything that lasts and persist then can have long-term lasting and persisting problems, which is what we're talking about now. And Dr. Wiseman is saying, well, look, the lipidano pyricles, that delivery system that delivered it to the cells, it basically is saying that's gone in a couple days. So it's like saying the car with the bomb in it, that delivered the bomb into your house. house, the car's gone, so there shouldn't be any problems. There's a smoking bomb in your house. Right. So let's go back to, let's go back to this study here. We have a chart just to break it down. If you don't want to listen to me, read anymore, you can just check out this chart from the study. There's the spike protein, P.P. Spike, that's the spike that the MRI coded for that you

injected yourself with days after vaccination. You can see there, it's over 180 days. And then to the, to the right, you see that little blip of an orange line. That's after infection of the non-vaccinated. So that's naturally infected. You get that spike protein for a couple days and your body clears it. The way it's supposed to, when you actually let nature and your body deal with this the natural way, it lasts for a day or two. So no, you have not recreated God Weissman. You have failed. You've done something that is now persisting in the body and won't go away even after clearly the immune systems of these people is trying to fight it and create antibodies and get it out of the body.

It can't clear it. And remember, Mark Siegel, well, there's no long-term studies. Well, these are the new studies. This is the new kind of horizon that we're on here. This is what we're finding out. And this is mainstream news now, Telegraph, one in four, who had Pfizer-COVIDs experience unintended immune response. Listen to this. And it is the hat tip to Weissman in here.

Research in the field spanning decades has been slow work. It often stalled because RNA itself is often attacked by the bodies, by the bodies a foreign invader. That's autoimmune people. But in 2023, the Nobel Prize for Medicine went to a pair of scientists who had spent years working to fix the problem. It was done by taking one of the RNA bases uridine and swapping it is in a very similar synthetic alternative. It was thought the minor tweak to uridine caused no problem in cells. But a team of researchers at the University of Cambridge Medical Research Council toxicology unit have now found when this partially synthetic code is read, the protein making machine in the body sometimes struggles with the uridine.

analogs. Because it is not a perfect fit for what is expected, there can be a momentary pause, which causes the process to stutter and a letter in the code can get skipped, much like a bike slipping a gear. It goes on to say, this issue caused by the Jab's code throws the process completely out of sync and the entire subsequent code becomes garbled. This is being called a frame ship. Yeah, and the title is it's called a Frameship. Now it goes on finally to say, in the case of the COVID jabs, the end result is a nonsensical and harmless protein, so they say. The team found, which the body attacks and leads to an immune system flare-up. Can you imagine immune system flare-up is nonsensical?

Yeah, well, you know, don't worry about it, but your immune system's going to go totally haywire. But don't worry, it's not doing anything. Exactly. So they say the new study published in Nature found this occurred in around 25 to 30% of people. So here we go. your body's making a new protein. I wanted to stop right here because I'm going to make our team do a little bit of research. I want us to go back right now while we're talking here, Jeffrey,

because the telegraph is now finally talking about this pseudouridine. Can we find out the first time that was mentioned on the high wire when we first introduced this idea of this synthetic pseudo-uridine, you know, mutating and changing the spike protein so that it would never leave the body? I just want to remember how long ago we told you this was never going to, you know, was going to persist and cause problems. Right, right. So again, new protein, this nonsensical protein, no idea what it does. They are saying it's harmless.

They have no science to support that, but it's so harmless, it's causing your immune system to flare up. That's, again, autoimmune issues in your body, 25 to 30% of people with this thing. So another issue on this is they're saying it garbles up the system. It throws the code off. It shortens the code. The code gets skipped when it's making these proteins. Well, we go to a study from 2018, and this was by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center researchers. And this study, the title of this article reporting on the scientists find cancer drivers hiding in a new place.

And it says, if the mRNA copy doesn't include all the exons in a gene or is cut short, then the protein made from that mRNA will also be truncated. It may no longer function properly. And if that protein is a tumor suppressor, one that protects against cancer, then that could spell problems. Now, in that article, so many people were pointing this article at the beginning of the pandemic, they had to put a little disclaimer on it saying this has nothing to do with the COVID vaccine.

But now as science is starting to catch up, there's a question here that what happens if this truncated protein, this thing that got cut short by this nonsensical protein, this nonsensical pseudoridine was in a protein that was a tumor suppressor. Now we got a problem. So all this talk about cancer, We have Dr. Weissman. He's the co-recipient in his Nobel Prize. What's he doing? Is he riding off in the sunset? Is he patting himself on the back? Well, that was a great pandemic. I really had a great time with that.

Well, no, he's doing this type of research. New headline, Godfather of MRNA vaccines reveals plant to immunize people against cancer years before tumor strike to prevent disease from ever appearing. He's focusing all his attention on cancer now. And the mutations in the body, these silent mutations, you're going to try to figure those out so they won't appear. That's his main focus now. Great. It kind of makes you wonder. Got it dead wrong to begin with. Either lied to you or I was too stupid to know the difference.

And now I'm going to go on and make more problematic vaccines. I found that we have the date on episode 234, September 23rd, 2021. All the way back then, we mentioned to you back in 2021 of September, we said there's this pseudo-uridine and we believe it's going to do what? cause cancer. That was the show we did all the way back then. And now finally, even, you know, scientists like Mark Siegel and all these scientists that telegraphs reporting on are finally getting around to it. I'm just putting that out because when, you know, we're talking about needing some sponsorship here, pharma is funding you to be lied to it by a bunch of people that

are blocking us on the internet so they can't even get this information. But you can. All right. Go ahead, Jeff. So now let's move on. Let's move on from the vaccine for a moment. And we have a very interesting trend that's happening in the United States right now. We have former officials, head officials for departments under both the Trump and the Biden administration are coming forward now and saying some really interesting things about the lab leak. Before they were kind of just completely mute on this topic, no one really threw their hat in the ring, had an opinion on it. But as soon as they leave their administration, they start talking. This is Robert Cadillick. Robert Cadillac is responsible for Operation Warp Speed. He was at the time, Assistant Secretary of Health

and human services and the preparedness and response. So he went on Australian news television, not United States, not American news, Australian news, and said this. Dr. Robert Cadlick was a high-ranking official in the U.S. government's preparedness and response department. He reported directly to the president, and he was also technically Fauci's superior. Here, for the first time, he was,

opens up on camera. The key is not to let the story die because there are people who would like it to kind of go away. It's really important to kind of keep people focused on it and I think there has to be accountability across the board. What discussions did you have with Anthony Fauci and others behind the scenes about deliberately deciding to turn down the temperature on a lab leak? Well, it was early on in the...

the event, when I did have the conversation with Dr. Collins and Dr. Fauci, it was the intent then to get the White House involved. What we were trying to do was trying to make sure that politically that you would not get into a situation where people would make accusations or allegations, but quite honestly what happened was the exact opposite. You and Fauci in those discussions just wanted to turn the rhetoric down, is that? Correct. That was it. Cadillac says Fauci was worried about protecting his own reputation, and that could be why he diverted attention away from the lab leak.

That would be a natural reaction of him or anybody, particularly, you know, I think for him, to saying, you know, what could this do to me and to our institute as a consequence if we were found to have some culpability or some involvement in this. And I think it would probably make that even more acute was the fact that they didn't have good visibility into what they were doing

and what they were supporting through the grants, through EcoHealth Alliance, that went to the Wuhan Institute of Irology. I think that just probably magnified that concern. It's pretty extraordinary to reveal the conversations that you had with Fauci and Collins. it's pretty extraordinary to publicly say that you did try to downplay the rhetoric around a bioweapon and a lab leak. Are you doing this interview in part because you feel guilty about that?

I just feel like it's an obligation that I have to kind of say what happened. And I think to factually try to portray this, not to get sympathy or forgiveness, but more to saying, actually here's here's what happened. This is what we tried to do. Did it work? No. Something tells me he's not doing this out of the goodness of his heart. He's jumping ship because the congressional hearings are on. The investigations are on and nations around the world are looking into this doing investigations. People's heads are going to roll and this is the beauty of having a free, you know, sort of government and judicial system. Once these investigations begin and you start putting pressure on people, they jump ship and sort of stop their, you know,

holding hands with each other. And clearly people are running from Tony Fauci just moments before he's going to be on the stand in just about a week. I'd hate to be Fauci right now. I think, I think the water's getting warm in there. Yeah, moral obligation. Come on, man. So like three years afterwards, he's like one of the last people on Earth that comes to these conclusions. Well, so just to recap, we censored people, we hit evidence because of, politics, those were his words, and because NIH has hands all over funding on this and because of Fauci's reputation. That's why we did this. So, okay, cool. So yeah, as you said, as you said, here's Fauci. This was just breaking congressional hearing, Dr. Anthony Fauci to appear for transcribe

interview and public hearing. This is January 8th and January 9th. So look for that. Look for the information come up from that because that's going to be talking about what he did to hide all of this information on this lab leak. And then we have. of a former Biden official. This is Rajab Panaji. So this is a former NSC. So National Security Council think Deborah Birx, he was running the National Security Council. This is the headline that he is creating now. He went to a talk recently. Biden's ex-COVID advisor admits pandemic may have been caused by a Wuhan lab leak and warns there's a 50% chance of another pandemic by 2050. This is a big deal because nobody from the Biden administration really at the higher ups have come forward

and put their name on ink when it comes to this Wuhan, either way, with this Wuhan Lab League. So him coming forward, once he steps out away from that administration, this is a really big deal. So what does everyone know here? Obviously, Fauci is going to be up on a congressional hearing, but there seems to be some type of flashpoint happening. And this is a report by the global biolabs.org. This is her 2023 report. And in there, they said this.

In 2021, we identified 59 BSL4 labs. that's biosafety level for us, the highest level lab you can possibly have. These are dealing with the nasty pathogens that were in operation under construction or planned in 23 countries. By the beginning of 2023, that number had increased by 10 to 69 labs. This is a huge deal. It says the COVID-19 pandemic has triggered another building boom for BSL4 labs. Since the start of the pandemic, nine countries have announced plans to build 12 new biosafety

level four labs. And so we're seeing all of this proliferation of these labs dealing. with these really, really pandemic pathogens. And yet the public, the takeaway from the public when it comes to this conversation is this from the hill. Climate change could spark next pandemic study fine. So we're being told it's your fault. It's cows farting.

It's your breathing. It's your gas lawmower. That's going to start the pandemic. Or the idiot that just walked out of the lab with a virus on their sleeve. I mean, one or the other. Global warming might get to us faster. than that. Or the lack of safety, the fears around these labs, the really just the lack of oversight whatsoever. And this is something that's also happening. This is the push pole in this conversation.

Here's the BMJ. This is one of the original investigations. U.S. quietly shuts down controversial wildlife virus hunting program amid safety fears. The BMJ can reveal that a flagship project for hunting viruses among wildlife in Southeast Asia, Africa and Latin America to prevent human outbreaks and pandemics is being quietly dropped by the United States agency for international development, that's USAID, after private and bipartisan criticism over the safety of such research. So it sounds like a lot of people are starting to really say, hey, stop pulling these things out of the bowels of nature, bringing them to these biosafety labs, and then making them pathogenic to people so they can spread. Stop doing this. And then handing that, by the way,

when we bring in this technology, it's not just like we keep it in our awesome labs in America, we hand it all over the world to labs that we aren't in control of that aren't running as well as we Wuhan's laboratories were already being busted for, you know, releasing other things prior to any of this happening. This is the problem is it doesn't even just stay with the scientists. I don't agree with it at all, but it's the way that they internationally deal with these things that makes it even more dangerous. Is in the Ukraine, do they have the same safety standards we do or China? You know they don't. And we're on the precipice, Dell, of forcing that into an international treaty for people to do that literally by international law.

And that's the WHO's pandemic treaty, something we've been covering here a lot. But this is Article 12 of that pandemic treaty. And it specifically says of this. Now, this is a legally binding treaty. And it's called the WHO pathogen access and benefit sharing system, PABS. And it's, you go into this and it says the parties. Now, the parties are all the countries that are going to be signed on in this. Parties shall implement the WHOPABS system in a manner of strength and expedite and not impede

research and at all times, both during and between pandemics. And it calls for uploading the genetic sequences to publicly accessible databases. So when they go out into the wilderness and they find these things, they're supposed to upload these genetic sequences into this public database. I mean, these are select agents you're talking about here. These are pandemic pathogens potential. This is a really not a good idea. And this is just one of the many reasons people are opposing this WHO pandemic treaty because

it's forcing these countries to go out. and find these and report them so everyone can share this all at once. And you'll say, well, this is, you know, during pandemics is a good thing, but it says in between pandemics at all times, do it all the time. And so you're sharing again, just like you said, with labs that don't have this biosafety, with countries that don't have an infrastructure or any type of legislation on the books to really look after this or have the safety protocols. So big red flags here.

Yeah, big time. And, you know, something that I think we, need to really tip all the things that need to be investigated. I mean, it is time to spend a lot of money, you know, like you've spent a lot of money trying to force us all to take an untested product to fund labs like Wuhan. Now we've got to start funding investigations into who is in charge of this debacle. Right. And so Del, anybody watching the show should know that with pharmaceutical companies and their products, it's kind of a trust to trust but verify or don't trust and verify, But you want to do that first.

And so let's talk about one of the biggest blockbuster drugs of all time. These are statins. These are cholesterol lowering medications. Everyone probably knows someone on them or has been on them themselves. And this, again, billions, hundreds of billions of dollars, these have generated pharmaceutical companies. And one of the biggest ones was Pfizer's Lipitor. And Lipitor came out in 1997.

It was just, it changed the whole game at that point. And so looking back, there's an article on this. It says about how it changed the game. It's titled, it took a brilliant marketing campaign to create the best selling drug of all time. And it says here, Pfizer benefited from some lucky timing. Lipitor went on sale in 1997, the year the food and drug administration first allowed drug ads targeting consumers. So you started seeing those commercials. It says, so Pfizer spent tens of millions on ads, including on the popular drama, ER, first urging patients to know your numbers. And then showing patients discussing, discussing, discuss how Lipitor help them get their cholesterol numbers below guideline goals. Listen to this. Meanwhile, health groups, now a lot of these health groups have been found to have a huge conflicts of interest. Meanwhile, health groups kept lowering the cholesterol targets and national guidelines, making millions more patients good candidates for statin treatment.

So it's devastatingly evil, the marketing, because if you have a new... Literally, like, create a problem and then say you have the solution to fix it. Oh, well, no, just lower the cholesterol. See, your cholesterol's high. You need us. And people like millions of me, I mean, I think it's like almost half of this nation of adults are taking a statin. And so the statins, the lipitor for that matter, for at-risk patients with a cholesterol number at whatever level at that time. So the brilliant marketing, if it wasn't so evil, the brilliant marketing is instead of going back and testing, it takes hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions, to bring these huge drugs like this to market and sustain them.

So instead of going back and doing that, they just paid industry groups. They had these conflicts of interest to just lower that cholesterol number. And oops, now we have a whole new group of people that are going to take these drugs. And Lipitor became Pfizer's best-selling drug. It literally sustained the company for years, about 20 to 25 percent of its annual revenue. Just give you an idea on that. And it became the conversation around statins became so loose around that time. And during the 2000s that people were talking about.

putting it in the safety was just so safe no problem at all just like opioids and the rest of the stuff we've covered right vaccines you know it's just natural these natural components lipid nanoparticles you saw headlines like this would you like statins with that fast food outlets urge to hand out cholesterol lowering drugs and even this one USA today statins in the drinking water now that was just kind of a play on that it was almost a joke but it got the conversation going and people really understood like wow this is just such a safe drug they're talking about maybe putting in the water this it's no big deal then i'll obviously take this well but it's been known, obviously, with statins that there's people that take them, they get muscle pain,

they get neuropathy, sometimes liver issues, sometimes vision issues. But in all the studies, they'll say, well, those risks are worth the benefits that this drug will give you. But now we've been continuing seeing new studies coming out over the last three, four years, of some really bad side effects. And the pharmaceutical companies are really silent on these. Here's one of them. Statin used to lower cholesterol linked to double risk of developing dementia.

Patients, it says, with mild cognitive impairment or normal cognition who use lipophilic statins were found to have more than double the risk of developing dementia compared to statin non-users. Over time, PET imaging of lipophilic statin users also showed a substantial decline in metabolism in the posterior cingulate cortex, the region of the brain known to decline the most significantly in the earliest stages of Alzheimer's disease. So looking at this study is almost as if it's accelerating this. And these are the lipophilic. These are the fat-loving of statins. There's a couple different types, but these seem to be a pretty big question. Now, here's another study. Now, we get even further into these really, really nasty disease. Amelotrophic lateral sclerosis.

This is ALS, a terribly bad wasting disease associated with statins, statin use, a disproportionality analysis, the FDA's adverse event reporting system. So the CDC has the VAERS, the vaccine adverse event reporting system, and FDA has its own. So when these drugs go to market, they have, you know, small trials that are usually done by the manufacturer. And as we've seen through COVID, they say, looks good to me, get it out to the public. And then we'll see the real safety profile. So that's where these reporting systems, if they're working good, come in. And so the study says this. The aim of the study was to examine U.S. FDA there's reporting system data to compare reporting odds ratios of ALS and ALS-like conditions between statins and other drugs for each statin agent.

So simply what they did was they looked at, let's look at all the drugs people are taking and look at people taking statins. Is there a difference in ALS with statins? And this is what they found. The reporting odds ratio for ALS were elevated for all statins with elevations possibly stronger for lipophilic statins. Reporting odds ratios range from 9.09 to 16.2 times. Now, this isn't percent. This is times for resverastatin and pravastatin. These are hydrophilic. These are water-loving. To 17, 23, and 107 times for a trovastatin, simovastatin, and lovastatin. It was a lipophilic,

respectively for simovastatin an ror of 57.1 was separately present for motor neuron disease so they found that too at over 57 times regular regular just medication people are taking so let's pause right there for a second let's just take a let's do because i bet you there are people in our audience right now that are saying oh my god i thought it was okay this was safe um you know and when we look at these things I just think even talk to Pierre Corey, you know, why is it that science just makes this assumption that there's going to be no downstream effects? Like even this is the problem with science. It's looking through a microscope. Oh, look, it reduces cholesterol.

It does exactly what wanted to do? But what does reducing cholesterol do to the rest of your body? And how many years would it take and how many people would have to be in that study for us to figure it out? On these numbers, not that many people would have to be in it. If you're looking at nine, 10, 20 times, 50 times the amount. I mean, it's, it's, you know, it's clearly a super strong signal and really alarming. Absolutely. And so during the pandemic, a researcher came up with a medical hypothesis of ALS, and this is how it goes. This is the title of this paper, mycotoxins causing amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.

It says ALS remains a terminal disease without an established etiology for the majority of patients. They don't know, they really don't know. The dormant theory of ALS, I'm sorry, the dominant theory of ALS before the 1970s was the presence of a poison. One of the primary means of treating patients with a toxic exposure has been plasma exchange, but plasma exchange of ALS patients failed to alter the clinical course. The failure of plasma exchange assumes the patient is no longer exposed to the poison. If the exposure to poison continued, then plasma exchange alone would fail. He goes on to say this.

I found laboratory evidence of a poisoning in every patient, with ALS examined. A search for specific poisons found evidence of mycotoxins. Treatment with antifungal agents corrected the laboratory findings. All of the ALS patients had evidence of immune suppression. There's mounting evidence that many mycotoxins cause both neurotoxicity and immune suppression. These micro toxins may be able to explain the full spectrum of pathology in ALS without

a secondary event. So that's a pretty big deal right there. And there's a lot of people and researchers that are now starting to look at this route and starting to study this route. But let's go back to statins for a second. What are statins? How are they found? Why would an antifungal work in this space?

It begsly, asked a lot of questions. A lot of questions here. So let's introduce the fungal component, or it's a mold component, penicillium, citronum. And you can see here from this paper, you go into the title, targeting cholesterol synthesis therapeutically. It says first isolated as a mold, penicillium, citronum, statins have become. one of the most prescribed medicines in the world. So this has been synthesized from a mold. It says in 1973, after a year of painstaking work assaying more than 3,800 fungal strains,

Akira Endo's team discovered a potent HMGCR inhibitor, mevastatin, also called compactin. Under the trademark Mevacore, the pharmaceutical company Merck developed a chemically related compound lovastatin in 1987, which became the first statin to reach patients. Over subsequent years, a number of statins have become available, each tending to be more potent than their predecessors. With Lipitor being what was called a turbostatin, it was so potent that you didn't need that much of it at all. So here we have the... People are taking this every day, right? Like you're just constantly subjecting your body to this, you know, mold derivative. Right. And how many people are taking this? Well, this is an article just recently. It says

35% of eligible adults in the U.S. use them. We're talking 100 to millions around the world, but 35% of eligible adults. And so is there a benefit from these? So, I mean, we're back to the square run here. We're finding out all of these, you know, you call them adverse events, these major harms, these, you know, life-ending harms in some cases. What's the benefit? Is it really worth it? Well, we go to Dr. Assimahultra. He's somebody that people on our show may have just first heard of on the vaccine conversation. But he has, has been sounding alarm for statins because he is a cardiologist for several years. Listen to him talk about the efficacy. The reality is when you break down the data even from industry sponsored

trials on statins because most of this information comes from drug companies sponsored trials, so it's likely an exaggeration. But even if we take that as gospel truth, if you are at say low risk of heart disease, you've not had a heart attack, then the chances of a statin benefiting you over a five-year period based upon the trials that showed those benefits on an individual level are about 1% 1 in 100 so what i would say to my patients if i'm having a conversation with them about statins for example is i would say listen if you take this drug religiously every day for the next five years there's a 1% chance it's going to prevent you having heart attack or stroke but it will not prolong your life by one day because that that isn't shown to be beneficial for mortality in low risk people

Wow. And I mean, this is where, again, you just see the pharmaceutical machine, the pawn doctors that are just pumping this stuff out. They're fed with these studies that is totally effective, does so much, and is perfectly safe. And how many people have been pumped full of this crap and have done nothing really except just put their lives at risk and raise the potential of a very long, slow, ugly death. And as long as we're on air, we're going to expose every single one of these. I promise you that. Every single one of these myths that have been sold through multi-million dollar marketing like they did with Lipitor and OxyContin and all of these, we're going to expose every one of these. We'll show you the documents. We'll show you the discovery in court cases. If people are lucky enough to get these creatures into court and get discovery, we'll be doing this every week on this channel. It's amazing, Jeffrey. The way, you know, you and our team are piecing all these different bits together. It's not just a headline. The whole history. It's so important for us to

understand this. Great work, Jeffrey. Really great. Thank you so much. I'll see you next week. Thank you. You know, as I've said before, before anyone else said it, it was said here. If you want to be safe in this world, and if you've been watching this show for some time, you know that we take accuracy in our science very, very seriously. There are a lot of topics that have been on other podcasts that we haven't covered, some that we're still tracking, that we just haven't seen enough evidence on it. So we're not going to alarm you. We're not going to just jump up and down because everyone else does. When it appears on this show, we feel like we have finally triangulated it from multiple sides so that you can now see. There is a lot of sciences point in the direction that we are pointing

ourselves and our focus and our cameras. That is what you get when you watch the high wire. It's what you get when you donate to us, when you fund us, nobody else is. Trust me, and it's got to be obvious by now, no one in Farma is ever going to give us a red cent. And no one in the government that has been bowing down to Farma is going to give us a red cent. And no one in television or any other advertising for that matter, because they all go back to Monsanto or Bear or Pfizer or Merck or somebody that we're obviously pissing off here on this show. So we're all alone here. We're all alone except for you. Except for you and the informed consent action network. That's what you are. So when you're donating to us, you make it possible for us to do the investigations

that no one else is. We're not going to wait for Mark Siegel to be the 100th monkey before you finally find out the truth because it's about two years too late. All right? We want you to know the truth right up front and that's why we think this work is so important. Now, I told you, let's go ahead and switch over this camera here. I told you, you know, earlier on in this season that just about a month ago, we had some great sponsors that said, you know what, we love the work that you're doing so much that we would love to create a $1 million match. And then just two weeks ago, someone added that and turned it into a $1.1 million match. Last week, we had managed to match about $583,000 of that.

Well, here we are this week. Let's see how we're doing. We're up, one, two, three, four, five, six, and we, 702,000 drum roll, please, bam. There it is. I want to thank all of you that took part in this week and making this happen. Obviously, that's $1.4 million that goes to all the research that we're doing. And that research then also goes to our legal team. By the way, this is the only sort of one-stop shop that I know of that uses media and

an investigation science team to look into an issue. When we find the issue, then we take our science. We call our legal team and say, hey, we got to do something about this. or we've got to get a FOIA request out there. Well, that's exactly what we did. And Aaron Siri brought that FOIA request in. Take a look at this. On behalf of ICANN, we submitted a FOIA request to the CDC,

asking it to provide the documents, data, support that it has for the claim that people can get the COVID vaccine, the flu shot, and the monkeypox vaccine all at the same time. We submitted this request on behalf of ICANN because the White House monkeypox response, team put out a video in which they said, yeah, of course, you can get all three of those at the same time. One thing, though, is that the science shows each of those vaccines separately and independently have a risk of myocarditis. You would think taking all three together would increase that risk, and so it would be good to know whether or not it's been studied. The CDC responded to the FOIA request, and incredibly, it cited a number of sources, none of which support the safety of giving

those three shots together. Incredibly, one of the sources that they cited to support their claim that they're safe to be given together is the very video that prompted the four requests in the first place, which itself did not support that giving all three together was safe. I mean, it's absolutely astounding what our, you know, regulatory agencies are calling science now and what they're doing. And only you, you can decide whether you want to keep listening to these people that are stepping on your television sets in line to you, but we're bringing the truth here and we're bringing lawsuits and we are pushing, we're bringing FOIA requests. We've had, you know, over a thousand FOIA requests go in over the last couple of years. And all of that is it's a massive team that

we're now funding in the legal department, you know, other over 20 specialists now that are involved in the legal cases that we are bringing, which is only made possible by you. I want you to think about it. I know we're sitting here and we're talking about raising, you know, right now $1.4 million. That's a lot if you're an individual. By the way, it's not a lot if you We're in courts all day long and are suing all over the place. So we're really wanting to take advantage of this moment. We need every set we can get because it's about protecting you. So please, you've got two more weeks right now to donate to ICANN and help us be able to

continue to do this work. And by the way, you know, this year we've been great. We, you know, we are right about where we were last year. And I know these are difficult times. But we have more work we want to do. We're actually being held back because we can't do all the cases we want to do. We can't do all the science we want to do. We can't do all the investigations.

We can't stop, in this case, as just in Mississippi, we're trying to free the other five. We've brought back the religious exemption in Mississippi. No one ever thought that was possible. We're looking at California now in the other states. All of this is being made possible by you, but it's coming to the end of the year. And I really, really need your help. What better gift could you give to let your friend know, you know what? I just saved your ass because I donated to I can in your name.

When you do that, you affect many lives. Imagine if the person that is inspecting your house to make sure that it doesn't catch fire is no longer there or the fire department is no longer there. Why? Because they just didn't like the science. For whatever reason they decided they didn't want a vaccine. And then they were fired. We've done this to our military. We went up and stepped up and took care of our military.

You've seen videos about that. Well, this week we want to feature the story of a fire investigator that would have been out of job, unable to protect your health. house if it weren't for ICANN. This is this week's episode of ICANN's impact. A firefighter gets rid of the fire, but a fire inspector prevents a fire. So I became a fire inspector. When the pandemic first hit, we had to be part of this COVID-19 task force. It was part of the keys to NYC mandate with Mayor DeBosio, and we would have to give out masks. And we will also do these key to NYC restaurant inspection, making sure that they had the right six feet social distance stickers on the ground,

that they had all the supplies in the bathroom, that they had the COVID checklist, and we were doing this for multiple restaurants. When September hit, that's when the mayor decided, okay, now if you want to go inside restaurants, you actually have to be vaccinated. You have to show your car. And then the mayor decided to officially release

the New York COVID-19 vaccine vaccine mandate. I had a week to get vaccinated or I had to file a religious exemption. So that was the route I went. I was raised religious by my grandmother. I consider myself a religious person. My faith in God has only increased during these times. The city emailed me stating that my religious exemption appeal has been denied and that was heartbreaking because now I knew that my job was really at stake. I could lose my home. They told me, if you don't get the vaccine by June 9th, you will be placed on leave

without pay. They did not explain to me what was wrong with my faith or with my belief to deny. When June 9th hit, I got clocked in and I was able to work. The city never put me on leave without pay. They allowed me to continue working. I was scheduled to work July 4th, and that's when I found that I was actually terminated. That's when my life turned upside down. One of my friends who was also vaccinated, also terminated. He was in a group. From that group, amazing firefighter Sophie Medina,

reached out to me. She said, hey, we got in touch with ICANN. They heard our story. They want to help. And with ICAN, we were able to get funded to go against the city. New York City will end its vaccine mandate policy for all city employees. The day I found out that I won, I started screaming.

This victory recovered my entire life. I was reinstated. Immediate reinstatement. I received back pay from the day I was fired, July 1st of 2022, all the way to reinstatement day. So it's 13 months of back pay. This lawsuit changed my life in a tremendous way. I now have increased faith.

I'm just so ecstatic about ICANN supporting me and my beliefs. Thank you, Ican. for supporting those with medical and religious freedoms and just continue doing the good fight and doing the Lord's work. I suppose some people can watch a story like that, say, well, it's really great that we helped that individual, but you know, what does that do for me?

Do you realize what we're achieving when we're winning these lawsuits? We are winning lawsuits against government agencies and forcing them back pay, making expensive. You don't even get away with it, you're going to hand this guy a giant chunk of money. And guess what that does? That sets a precedent. It's called a precedent.

Now we have legal precedents that we've set in the military. We've now set in the fire department, all because I can seize that in the future, if we're going to keep listening to what they're telling us that there's another pandemic right around the corner. Bill Gates can't wait for the next one. Maybe it's, you know, within the next 50 years, I doubt it's going to take that long. You know how this goes. But the next time they try to do this and they try to lock down and they try to take away our jobs, guess what we'll be able to do?

Say, ah, judge, that's unconstitutional. and we already proved that in a lawsuit two years ago. That's what's happening. So not only are you protecting the individuals that we're fighting for, you're protecting your future, your children, so that this can never happen to us again. We are building an arsenal. There are so many different departments in so many different spaces

that we want to win so that we are fortified that can never get to us again. I need your help. I need you to do that. And by the way, I didn't like come into this life saying, you know what I want to do the rest of my life? I want to raise money. This is not something that's fun to do. I only am passionate about it because I get to see what we're achieving.

And you get to see what you're achieving by being a part of this. And I don't want to share in these victories alone. I want you to be a part of it. So even $1 makes a difference. One dollar every month can literally help us change this world. And by the way, for only the last two weeks, you can do $23 a month because after that, it's turned to $24 a month. So please take advantage of this now.

You get double matched when you do. It's a great thing to be a part of. I really feel like we're making a difference. I hope you do too. And by the way, we make it easy for you. You can just match. 72022 is the number to text and just type in match. And they'll be right there on your phone.

We're going to make it really easy. And by the way, while you're looking at our website, that legal update that Aaron Siri just gave us, that comes out tomorrow. And if you want these things in your inbox, if you want to see all the details of how we went about with the FOIA request, the details of what unfolded there. It's free. All you have to do is just scroll down our website right now at the highwire or at I Can Decide.org.

And you'll find a little fill-in email address. It's that simple. Put in your email address. We don't share it with anybody else. That's for us so that you will get all of the legal updates. You will get all the information that is found here, including where to find Pierre Corey's book or the movie or any of the science that we're laying out. all of those studies, Jeffrey Jackson just cited on statins, and you want to call your uncle and tell

them about it, you don't have to say Del Bigtree said, you get to say, here are literally the studies that are being done. I think you may want to think twice about taking those drugs every single day. That is all in your hands for free. All you have to do is sign up to our newsletter. Well, you know, huge breakthroughs here in the United States of America, though it does seem in many ways, not only did we kill more people during COVID, do we have more people dying of excess mortality. We also tend to be the last ones to admitting the problems that are happening. There are other nations that are not even going near the COVID vaccine with their kids. They're still pushing it here at the CDC because, as I'm going to continue to say, I think

they're morons. Or they're dangerous and deadly. I don't know. But what seems to be happening is the United States of America is no longer leading. We're not leading in truth. We're not the beacons of light and hope right now, which needs to change immediately. But we seem to be pawns. of something so much bigger. What's bigger than the United States? Why would we hand that away? I've said it time and time again. It feels like our country is being run

from something outside of our borders. Because none of these agendas, they're not making it easier for any of us to buy a house. They're not making it easier for any of us to pay for some gas. They're not making any easier to start a business or keep a business going. They're not making it any easier to stay healthy.

In fact, the things that they're giving us are proving to make us sicker and sicker and sicker, and they're even telling us, like we can't go to work or go to school unless we take these untested products. That's what's happening in the United States of America and we're seeing it around the world. Is there something bigger, marioneting all that? Well, that's what I'm going to ask Tess Lorry about. She worked for the WHO and now she's singing like a bird and we're going to see what she's singing about.

This is Tess Lorry. Dr. Tess Lorry. Dr. Tess Lorry. CEO of EBMC Square. Health-focused think tank. Medical doctor and a research consultant. an external analyst for The Who? I'm a mother of three and practicing medicine in Africa and the UK.

The COVID-19 vaccine has only been around for, as you know, 18 months, and it already has 3.8 million adverse end reports. I've had to re-look at a lot of the things that I've held to be true. And one of those things was preventing disease through vaccination. It is not safe and effective and it's potentially fatal. And the official data do not support the use of these genetic vaccines. It's really time for us to give a voice to independent doctors and scientists around the world who have been raising concerns.

It doesn't matter what other people say, we are the ones who are tasked with you and we have the experience to look at the data and reassure everybody that this cheap and effective treatment will save lives. So how long are you going to make people carry on dying and necessarily? I am a warrior of the light. I stand up for the truth. I always have and I always will. Well, it's my honor and pleasure be joined now by the co-founder of the World Council for Health.

Tess, Lori, Tess. Hi, Dahl. It's my pleasure. It's really great having you in studio here joining us today. For people that don't know, how would you describe what is the World Council for Health and sort of the goal or mission of the work that you're doing? Yeah. Well, firstly, we are the alternative to the World Harm's Organization, not to be, I mean, the World Vaccine Organization. Right.

We believe people need a choice. So we envision a world where everybody has access to the information they need and the resources they need to protect and sustain their own health. as well as the health of their families, their communities, and their environments. So what I find interesting in when we first met, your work, I mean, you have worked with the WHO for many years. So it, and I guess my question always is, you know, at what point you were doing, you know, research and, you know, ethics, review of studies being done by the WHO and things like that?

So it seems like at one point were you used sort of a pro-medicine science, vaccines. I mean... Well, you know, I was so pleased to be invited by the World Health Organization in 2012 to assist with it guideline development as an external consultant. So I always worked as an external consultant and they would hire me and my company in to help with guideline development, evaluating bodies of evidence and then helping panels make recommendations whether to recommend something or not for clinical practice. And you know, I always thought I was in a position to make a big difference and help people.

And as the years rolled on, it was clear that we weren't making a difference and, you know, health disease or disease and poverty were just skyrocketing. And there was no suggestion that what we were doing was making a difference. And then COVID came to, along and it was clear that the strategies they were following weren't evidence-based at all and and I mean prior to that I'd also become aware that there was a huge lobbying from external funders donors such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation which was very disturbing and disconcerting because it meant that you know they had a huge influence on what on on what guidelines

were developed and what was recommended. So you were starting to see that even before COVID, that this work that you were doing, that there was an influence and outside influence that wasn't just going based on the evidence you were looking at. Yes. And I was working in the reproductive health team. So I wasn't in the the COVID team, you know, there wasn't really an obvious way in to assist with the COVID evidence. Reproductive health. That's interesting. I didn't really thought about that because I just feel like there's one question that's out there right now. It's really on this idea of birth.

I mean, we have really low birth rates now across the world, you know, and there's all sorts of issues around that. And, you know, when you think of WHO now, I think it really connects very strongly with WEF, with Bill and Linda Gates Foundation, and a lot of voices talking about population reduction. as a part of the agenda. They had a lot of money going into contraception and sexual health.

That is a separate department on its own. Okay. So the work that I was doing was on pregnancy and childbirth, and I helped prepare a number of guidelines on antinatal care or positive pregnancy experience and then also a positive childbirth experience. So, you know, those guidelines I really felt were a big shift in the WHO approach because previously it was a guideline to prevent maternal morbidity and mortality. So it was always about preventing death.

Well, there's a lot more to pregnancy than getting out alive, you know. So COVID comes along and then obviously I think a lot of, I mean, almost I would say anybody that has blood moving through their brain would say, wait a minute. I mean, I thought the WHO was there to assist in health decisions, certainly in third world nations, where underserved countries, but now all of a sudden it became this dictating machine to the world or by which, you know, this message of... Yes, it was quite a funny transition because it was always apparent when I was working for them that the, Western countries didn't really pay attention to what the WHO said. You know, the Americans followed the American guidelines and the British followed the British guidelines in the years. It was almost like people thought that the WHO was making guidelines for

developing countries, the poorer people, you know. And then suddenly when COVID came along, everybody's following the WHO guidelines and they're not evidence-based. So, absolutely without question, every government around the world was following their guidelines. So it was very strange to see from both the inside and the outside how that came about. And when we, early in 2021, tried to share the evidence of a rigorous systematic review with the American, you know, with the FDA, the NIH, Canadian authorities, the UK authorities and the World Health Organization, they were just not interested. Yeah. How do you, you know, I mean, I know you've, I know you're like all of us, you sit there and try and figure out what happened?

What is really going on as you look at that? Was it, is it just because there's so much power from these NGOs coming as this outside influence and agenda? Is it, and I guess the question was, is it always what the WHO was? Was the WHO, let me ask you this, did the WHO always think it was speaking for the whole world? It's just the first world nations just weren't listening to them. and then suddenly we started listening? Or were they focused on, you know, underdeveloped nations and then suddenly got this mandate,

oh, let's expand. Yeah. I realize, you know, my core skill is evidence synthesis, integrating, making jigsaw puzzles, really. Right. And it's quite clear now that there's far more going on. And what we've been witnessing is the end game of a long game of stealth.

So yes, the WHO was making guidance for the whole world and the Western countries were not listening, but the WHO is controlled by supranational entities. And now it's clear there's a military industrial complex, there's a world economic forum, there's certain states that have huge influence, and powerful individuals as well, wealthy individuals who use foundations to influence health policy.

And this has been going on a very long time. So we're sort of seeing the end game. And in a way, you know, it seems like they're aware that we're aware. People are waking up. And so there's this sort of last minute thrashing about to get as much done as possible and as quickly. Is that making sense? Yeah.

It's like I sort of see it now as a sort of, you know, a parasite in a way that's been, that's in its sort of death throws and there's a struggle. You finally realize, oh my God, I don't feel very good what's going on and it's, you know, in stage. And not to, I don't want to, I mean, I want to get to, you know, sort of on the other side of this. But I would agree with you. I mean, it feels like this, there's a long-term goal here that's finally in it. And, you know, was just on the verge of its, you know, taking, like having control over humanity,

like having control over the world and the populations of the world, all the way down to how many births there are and resources and all of this, you know, idea that we need to be in control of all of these things. And I feel like a lot of people talk about the they, You know, the they and this big, you know, these invisible people or power structures that are running everything. And whatever they is, it seems to me, that there was always going to be, if there was this plan, it was coming along, there was always going to be this one unpredictable moment that they were going to have to deal with, which is we can get to their children, we can be forced vaccinating, children all over, we could get people. but a certain point, you're going to have to reach the average citizen and take their rights away. You're going to have to get them to accept tracking systems and, you know, that they don't have control over their own bodies,

that there's a, you know, supernatural or international force, if you will, that actually owns their bodies. They had to know we can get this thing all the way to that moment, but there's going to be this very visible hand that's going to come out and have to seize control of humanity. And at that moment, you know, I always feel like that was the one unpredictable part. I mean, they've been studying our psychology. They even have all the AI, like everything we're buying, everything we're doing on our cell phones. They're watching all that. But I always think that the one place that they just, I don't think they would ever know. And probably COVID was the test of that is what happens when we actually go to take people's rights away?

Like that final step, I think they were shocked. I think they were shocked that at least as far as I'm concerned, this idea of you're going to hand your body over and just be vaccinated. You're going to sign up for a tracking system. You're going to not be allowed into certain buildings if you aren't complying with what we are saying health is. Though it was successful on some level here in America, you know, 70% back, but 30% totally resisted the vaccine here. You know, even more, I think, when you think about 30% didn't go along with it at all, what percent that did didn't want to but really just felt like I can't have my job, I can't, like we're really coerced into it.

That to me probably puts 50% of America. I would think 20% really were reticent. And now you have this massive turn against CDC. I mean, I think by the last I saw under 5% getting the latest booster shot. you know, more and more. I think they're saying 40 to 50% of parents are now questioning some part of the childhood vaccine program. So there's people that will say, oh, this was just step one in the takeover.

I'm like, no, I just, you know, or they planned on it to go like this. I'm like, I don't think so. I mean, and if this is just a test, this is a very, it was a test that's backfired. It woke up a lot of people to say, wait a minute. And now I imagine they still have this agenda they need to complete, but they've got everybody watching them. So I feel like they failed. I feel like they have failed in a major way. I'm not one of these people's like, oh, they just expected us to act like this.

I don't think they did. What is your feeling? I totally agree with you. I think they are struggling now because there's this push for this legally binding treaty to go through. I don't know if you saw there was a tweet by Ted Ross, the Director General, you know, saying that there's all this misinformation out there. And the comments, you know, the people are so awake and aware that he cannot get away with saying those things on social media anymore.

It's just people know. And these documents, I hope you will reference them, there's the compilation of amendments to the international health regulations. It's on our website, and we've highlighted and read the amendments. It's incredible when you look at it. It's like the whole document is read. Wow. And in that document, it clearly shows that the WHO will be given legally binding authority

to declare fakes, public health emergencies of international concern, and then be in charge of the self-perpetuating industry to a pandemic industry or emergency industry because they get to declare. the quarantines, the interventions, the vaccines, whatever. So people are awake and they're not going to put up with it. But they're awake to an extent. So they're awake about vaccines, but they haven't quite got the health security part of it. The security part comes with the digitalization.

And digitalization is absolutely part and parcel of this globalist agenda. So while COVID was happening, there was also, while everyone was locked down and all of that, The vans putting in the 5G networks were all aren't busy working all around the world. And the digitalization, this surveillance, has been scaled up to such an extent. And I think people have been, you know, they've been not very keen to engage in the 5G issue, which is another, it's just like the vaccine industry in that it's an unregulated technology. The vaccine is an unregulated medical. technology we've never had these sorts of vaccines before so we have these two

unregulated technologies running side by side and they need these two things together to succeed in their plan because for a body and an internet of bodies which is what they're planning they need the microwave technology right I mean and I think about that you know I had a friend that was waking up that bought in a house here in Austin they have really these smart areas now. And he's like, yeah, when I got the house, like they told me this neighborhood's awesome.

There's a camera on every street light on the street. He said my oven talks to my doorbell. And like, he's like, oh, it's like, everything's, you know, monitored. And he's like, and it felt, he's like, when I moved in, he's like, this is awesome. My family be safe. And then as COVID came in, he started going,

oh my God, I'm under, my house has got me under surveillance on a constant basis. basis. Yeah, I would like to just give your viewers an alternative thought about the word smart. It's actually, apart from the E, is the word, spells master. And they are setting up a slave system and smarts, and a lot of this is through the use of word spells, making us feel smart to be using the smart technology, these smart meters. It's a slave system they are setting up.

And we are the products of their industrial revolution. We are to be hackable animals that are chipped and tagged and tracked and jabbed to their prescription. And so the technology and the smart master system is part of this agenda. You know, as you say that, I think about one of the most amazing things that happened, And just through COVID was this mantra basically in all of media, even newspapers, which was people who do their own research are idiots. People who trust the authorities are smart. Like they use that. You know, if you're, you're, I mean, literally that.

Like asking questions. Like I, you know, I grew up as a kid and I remember they would tell you in school, there's no stupid question. Always ask questions. Now the world is changing. Don't ask any people who ask questions are stupid, right? People who just go along with the authorities and trust the science Those are the smart people and and it's interesting as you think that like a master Slave system is don't question the master any longer is taken care of for you to be smart just being in compliance Just do what we say and Taitros is saying exactly that right? We've got to work on COVID showed us that people are not as compliant as we needed to know all this misinformation got in our

our way of achieving. That's why we need more authoritative control so that we can control this misinformation. And I've said on the show, the only misinformation I know of was coming from the WHO. You were wrong about the virus. Wasn't nearly as deadly as you said it was. The vaccine was a total disaster. Lockdowns didn't work. Mass didn't work. All the science shows us that. So what misinformation are you talking about, right? It's the information that said that you're supposed to think for yourself, that's now misinformation. And these new documents and the amendments enshrine the WHO's position. When we talk about the WHO, you must know it's not the WHO, it's the supranational entities

who are informing and influencing. But it enshrines their position as the, you know, the knower of all science and information. And they are the ones who will declare what the, what information we have access to, because apparently we're not capable of making our own minds up. Which leads me on to our approach with World Council for Health is health sovereignty, as opposed to health, disease security, vaccine security, we are for health sovereignty.

And people don't actually know what sovereignty means. So, you know, I mean, personally, I have to say a few years ago, I thought sovereignty was something related to the queen or a gold coin, you know, because the word has been, has been hidden from us. Sovereignty is what we are meant to be as human beings. And that is self-determining, you know, self-governing. We should be acting on our conscience. We should know right from wrong. We shouldn't need someone else to tell us. And we certainly don't follow orders. We make our own minds up, even if it's sometimes wrong, you know, we learn from our mistakes.

And we don't tolerate interference from others with regard to our own minds up. inalienable human rights, which is freedom to speak and to travel and to talk. And this is our property, you know, and it may not be trespassed upon. And this is, you know, sovereignty is absolutely essential to our health and how we thrive in this world, which is what we're supposed to do. Thrive and create. We human beings are naturally creative and courageous. So they do not want us to be creative and courageous.

They want us to be fearful and dependent. As World Council for Health, we are doing and we're a grassroots organization. We're not imposing anything on anybody. We have partners in 55 countries now, 220 organizations, some small, some big, but we are really working to uplift people, empower them with the tools they need. We are basically messengers, educators,

to help people get the tools they need to keep themselves well, and sovereign. You know, I find, and I speak to a lot of audiences, I'm traveling a lot right now, I think that that's harder than we think. Really understanding, first of all, sovereign, is you right, what is the sovereign body, but also what tools do I use to achieve health?

I feel like, you know, we've reached a place of waking up, which is like, okay, I'm awake to what's going on, but I'll say to the audience, how many of you are taking prescription drugs right now to get through the day? I mean, you're taking four or five for this and then to have the side effects. And I've been saying, you know, what really triggers me on this since I'm probably upset a lot of people, but one of the big stories is people who can't get an organ transplant without getting vaccinated, right? We get this call all the time.

Like you got to, I need illegal help. I can't get an organ transplant because I need to get the vaccine. It's a horrible, horrible situation. But it brings about, you know, a conflict for me because I think there's still a lot of people that think their health is dependent on the hospital system, but they want to have control over it. And at least in this interim period, what I think is going to be the scary part of what we're going into here is we've essentially recognized that this medical health system is being controlled by the very entities that starts with this Internet. international controlling WHO through NIH, CDC, all every, they're all a part of this. What we watched with COVID was hospitals just turned over our lives, literally just hooked up such machines that are killing nine out of ten people and robbing us of anything that actually

could cure or help us or protect us, hydroxychloroquine, more and more studies showing how effective that is and would have been, Ivermectin. So when we watch the hospital system, it killed people. And what I'm trying to say to audiences now is, what do you think happens when you call out the system? We are saying you cannot trust this hospital system anymore. You can't trust the doctors, though I think they mean well. For what it's worth, most doctors show that they will just go along with whatever they're told, and that's being dictated down from, you know, the pharmaceutical companies.

The pharmaceutical companies and all of it. And so how are we going to get to an idea of sovereignty and health? if most people still look at the doctors the way that they get to health. And so that's a real job that we don't have a lot of time to work out. It's really interesting that you raise that because what COVID has shown is really that we have outsourced our health to politicians and governments and the military industrial complex and whatever. And so we are complicit in what's happened and we need to recognize that. that we can't actually just blame the WHO and blame the pharmaceutical companies and all of that.

Obviously, they have been, they are enormously powerful owning most of mainstream media or influencing and so on. So they have a really unfair advantage and they have used our kindness and our desirable convenience. Also our fear of dying. Yes, fear of dying. Exactly. So our sort of disconnection from nature and so on.

It's all been exploited so that we feel our destiny is basically to get sick one day, get a disease, get some pills, and then die eventually and have declining health until we die. That's what we expect. But that does not have to be the case. What we would like to do is see people living in optimum health until they die and then saying, oh, I think I've had enough. I'm going to sit down under the tree over there and have a long sleep now. And that is possible. But, you know, I would like to, I would like your views to reflect on what they do for their car and what they do for themselves. Right.

So every year in the UK, you have to send your car for an MOT. I don't know what MOT stands for, but anyway, it's an annual checkup. Right. And that doesn't mean a whole lot of tests necessarily. It means changing the oil, you know, whatever, cleaning and whatever, all that stuff. But people don't do that for their bodies. Right. And you would never dream if you've got a diesel car of putting petrol in the tank.

You would always, you know, you wouldn't drive with flat tires. Yet, you know, we put so much bad stuff into our bodies and then think, oh, well, you know, I'll just go to the doctor when I get sick eventually. How are we happy with that deal? How are we happy with that? Surely we want to live now. This is the vehicle that we have to enjoy this world and to be physically active and to, you know, do all the things we love to do and dream of doing.

And so we should keep it in good nick, you know, and that's not just going to the gym every day. It's, you know, whatever, doing the things and making sure that you are having checkups with a trusted health professional, I would say not a doctor. Right. Because a doctor will run a hold of, they'll do... They'll test... drug pushers.

I mean, that's all the doctors have become it. There's a pharmaceutical answer for everything. That's who's walking through their door. That's what they're being trained to do. So if you don't want to be on drugs, then don't go to the drug dealer. Exactly. That's really what it comes down to. And also mind health, you know, if you just consider how we all expect to be feeling,

we all want to feel great and happy. But what we put into our minds, the horror and the hypersexual stuff and the violence and the and the fear from the news and the social media that we put in, you know, drives everybody to go on to feel they need antidepressants or anti-anxiety drugs because, you know, because they're simply not taking care of their mind health. Right. You know, which actually requires that we have quiet time,

that we're not busy all the time, that we actually, you know, have time in nature and have family time, have family time. and have family dinners and that sort of things. So if we want to get healthy and if we want to point fingers at drug companies and so on, we need to take responsibility too and start taking better care of ourselves

and recognizing that when we're not feeling that great, we need to change something. Yeah, I agree, and it's a very, very important message. And it comes even down to, I mean, are you happy? You know, what I think people should be asking themselves is, how much am I stifling my life, right? I mean, all disease, ultimately, cancers. I mean, several people recently that I've found are just not healthy. I've been watching them for years either in a relationship that's not working for them,

not able to speak their truth. But how many people are going to jobs? I mean, just think of this statement, people come up to me and they'll say, man, I was this close. My job almost made me get a vaccine. You know, and I was like, no, your job almost gave you a reason to get a different job. And then I think, you know, I was just speaking at a conference recently, and I said, you know, you go to these conferences like yours and people just feel this light. They get to hear these great speakers and they're, you know, maybe doing a meditation class and they're really finding something.

And then they leave and it's within days. It's like it all just disappears in the background. Then they're back to just barely hanging on 10 cups of coffee in the morning, get going, you know, five drinks at night to get to sleep and just burning the candle at all sides. At what point are we going to recognize that your life should be fulfilled, that you should be working a job that you actually love to do that work, and that you deserve to have good relationships. And you just, I mean, I just feel like this darkness everyone's worried about disappears the moment you actually become a lighter person and more in charge of all the things you want from life. I mean, I think you're right. We've sort of let, you know, health and everything be somebody else's job. But it's also spiritual, right?

It's also our mental experience. Yeah, I mean, so many people are worried about money, and it's money that keeps them trapped in unhappy relationships. unhappy jobs, you know, unsatisfying jobs. And people are being squeezed from all angles, you know, the number of people sitting in front of computers all day long. You know, we're not designed for that. We're not designed to be serving coffee all day long. We work far too long hours and we're sedentary.

And we're actually part of nature. and we're actually supposed to be spending a lot of time outdoors. So, you know, a whole new approach is needed. And I feel what we're seeing really with all of this is the end of a civilization. I feel we're seeing the end of a material-orientated civilization, a merchant civilization. You might say where money has been the... the goal of, we've been, we've been deceived in a way to think that money is going to give us happiness and a, you know, a job that pays so much will automatically bring satisfaction or, you know, if you get into Bitcoin or whatever, you'll get lucky, or you might become a millionaire if you win this or whatever.

So, you know, we're always looking outside ourselves for that happiness and imagine, oh, I'll be able to retire and when I retire, I'm going to go on cruisers every year, whatever it is, you know. without taking each day at a time, one day at a time and saying, you know, having quiet time and feeling, thinking how are you feeling and how you're going to enjoy your day to day and what you're going to do. So it feels, as I say, we're on the death throws of this civilization that we're realizing doesn't work is extremely exploitative and they're about to lock us in a cage for good. And we have this. opportunity to birth something new. So I know people don't really want to talk about COVID anymore and fair enough. Let's not, you know, let's talk about the sort of world we want

and what we can do to create it. Yeah. I think pry ourselves out of that, that iron lung we've been living in, that's sustaining our life. We don't need it to sustain our life. You know, it's really, I mean, It's so important your message and I love the idea that, you know, you have the WHO, but the antithesis of that, you know, which when we first spoke, he's like, I want something else for the world. So how is the World Council for Health, you know, achieving, you know, the individual? So we have, we have an individual strategy for, because basically we see the individual as the

foundation block of a healthy society. So if we, you know, if we build a society on individuals who are well, we're going to have a healthy communities, healthy families, healthy societies. So our focus is on the individual rather than the whole world. And we have a number of resources for people at this particular time, because I know there lots of people worried about, they're concerned about the vaccines now, whether they've been jabbed or not, whether they're ill or not. People want to know more and they want some advice on that.

So we're providing those resources. We're teaching people about their rights. We have new guides coming out on complementary therapies for cancer. Obviously, that's also on everybody's mind. And so we have those sorts of resources, leaflets and things, for individuals. We just did a conference in Asia where we had our amazing Asian partners sharing integrative health approaches, traditional medicine and natural therapies. I mean, Asia is an apothecary of nature,

of nature's medicine, and the expertise there is phenomenal. So wonderful speakers and so much wisdom shared. And we're having these community outreach, like the Bettaway Conference as well. You know, that's all part of our strategy. But further to that, we're decentralizing World Council for Health. Okay.

So we don't need more hierarchical institutions. we are decentralizing so that every country has its own counsel for health and and they make their own policies that are suited to their local needs, their local medicines, they accredit their own health practitioners, they will create their own integrated centers of excellence for health and in the event of another fake, which stands for public health emergency of international concern, we will always get together. Our steering committees and representatives from these different country councils, we do already get together every month and we are discussing the iatrogenic injuries from the COVID vaccines, iatrogenic meaning caused by the medical pharmaceutical industry. But in the event of any future emergencies, we will be getting together and providing real solutions for people and for countries. And we're also, you know, in solidarity, showing solidarity in the event of further mandates and, you know, of unlawful mandates, I will add,

for further, for masking, injections and so on. And we will be working together to restore law and order. So, you know, it's very important that the WHO and the World Economic Forum and these supernational bodies know that they are not going to be the dictator of the world. The people want a choice. and they have choice. And we encourage, we've set up 10 country councils so far, and we will be rolling out, we will be announcing more as the months go by. Is there a clock ticking for the work that you're doing?

I mean, do you have a sense that since COVID and we, you know, we've talked about WHO, these international powers, you know, do you think there's gonna be like another event? event? Will they use another catastrophic, terrifying thing to try and get compliance? Or do you think it's slow rolls now in some way? It's more subtle. Who knows? There's so much speculation. And they are the ones saying, you know, more pandemics. So Gavi Foundation and Tedros of World Health Organization in 2021 said the next pandemic will be Marburg, which is a hemorrhagic disease.

So, you know, I'm sort of hesitant to speculate on things, but it does mean that we do need to be aware that there is this predatory component to these new, this new supernatural entity that they're trying to establish, called the conference of the parties and the sort of one-world government, you know, they're trying to sort of rally us all into. So we need to be paying attention, and we need to be paying attention. and we need to be preparing for different eventualities, getting ourselves well, and being prepared to stand up for the truth, and to seek the truth, and to take actions. And I think ultimately the work that you're doing that we're attempting to do with ICANN and the high wire is

to know where you're going to find the truth when things get confusing again. Right? Who can you go to the trust? What's why I think having, you know, this decentralized system where it's, it caters to in my environment. Texas is not New York City. Like we have different issues here. If there's going to be a problem, we would probably handle them differently. So this idea of developing, you know, an international family, if you will, right, that have different talents and different ways of approach. it but that can communicate in the moments where it's necessary to be able to communicate. Yes and I think also that solidarity is important because I think especially for the United States, it's always been, you know, you've always been able to sort of sort yourself out and make your own decisions and policies that often would influence the rest of the world but not necessarily weren't solidarity with the rest of the world.

Whereas what's clear now, I mean you only get one vote, this whole country in the, you know, you're one country and there are 194 countries. So, and, you know, I think many of the amendments have come from this country too, one way or the other. So it sounds like your government would be for the WHO situation. So the USA needs the support and the solidarity of all those other countries. Right. not just in escaping the allopathic system or finding alternatives to allopathic healthcare,

because there's the most incredible natural solutions and innovative solutions that are coming out of non-farmar, non-hospital-based health care and health promotion, but also in solidarity to stand up to these unlawful mandates that are being rolled out everywhere. So just on that matter, because I don't want to forget this.

We are working with wonderful legal experts, and we have Dr. Willem van Art, who's an international human rights specialist, preparing a document for us. It's almost ready on the abuse of public health emergencies and how to prevent them. Because part of the reason we're in the situation we're in is because healthcare practitioners, lawyers,

Nobody really knows the law around health emergencies. And this is the way totalitarian ambitions have always been fulfilled through declaring unlawful state of emergencies and then, you know, and then one thing leads to another. And people need to watch this here in America. We see these bills coming up in states where they're, you know, under an emergency governor

gets these all-encompassing powers. Like, hold on. I mean, we've got, this is where citizens, we've got to watch is they're trying to consolidate their power and emergency is the way by which they do that. Luckily here in America, many of these orders ended up have proven to be unlawful. Masking on airplanes got pulled back. I think we were going to win that case. And then, of course, the Biden administration withdrew so that we didn't set precedence there. So all of it, you know, I think is coming around. But we really have to be vigilant and awake. I think that's a lot of what

you're doing with your work. And so in sort of, you know, sort of wrapping this up, do you have hope and what do you think is the takeaway for people right now? What is it that, you know, people need to know or be thinking about? Well, certainly people need to be thinking about detoxing from the COVID vaccines and other things that are, you know, and it's not just people who've been vaccinated. I urge everybody to look at our detox guide, Dr. Peter McCullough, who's one of our advisors, has also come out with a basic bromelaine, curcumin and naticinase base, which you can add other things to. There's a whole range of remedies, but immune boosting supplements and teas that one can take. And I urge everybody to consider

what they can do to improve their immune system. But on a general level, I just would like to urge people to consider on a daily basis what they're doing to change things for the better because there's a lot of anger and stuff on social media and a lot of, oh my goodness, did you see this and the sharing of, which actually feeds the rage and it feeds the sense of disempowerment and how it makes these megalomaniacs seem so powerful. But it's not really helpful. No. There's lots of freedom groups that are, you know, but they're not really doing, they're feeding the monster of fear rather than providing solutions.

So, you know, I would urge people to realize, A, they can't comply their way out of tyranny. You know, if you appease a bully, they just keep on bullying and increasing the things. So you can't react your way out of tyranny either. You know, you can't just, oh, look at this, look at this, you know. You have to create your way out of tourney. So we're in the most amazing creation process. We're birthing something new and wonderful. And, you know, if people can just hold that, step away from fear

and remove themselves from all the fake restraints that we are imposed on us and we feel are imposed on us, just remove those and say, what is it that I would do if I didn't have to worry about money? and do those things, you know, so just do those things. Go into and, and I just want to get in there. Our job is to protect the children. There's no body coming to save our children. It is our job to save them from this military-industrial complex

that has our children in their sites, both through vaccines, through technology, through this antidepressants, the gender issues, all of these things, sexualization, all of these things are aimed at owning our children, controlling our children. So please, our job, if there's one thing that I can, if there's one motivating factor, I just ask people if they can please protect the children. So, and finally, I would just like to say, you know, please, perhaps I'll just say it like this.

please stand up for truth and justice because they can't crucify all of us. So that's my final message. And of course, there's a better way we're creating a better world. And to paraphrase Arundati Roy on a quiet day, if you sit still, you will hear her breathing. Beautiful test. Thank you for all your incredible work. We can continue to follow it. And we're here to support you in any way that we can.

Thank you so much, Del. All right. Well, look, part of, you know, taking care of your body is very important, but what you wear is important. If you want to find your community, sometimes what you're wearing is how that happens. So many people come up to me and, you know, say, you know, how do I find my community? Or I'll be wearing a high wire t-shirt in the airport. And they go, oh, my God. And we hear so many stories like that.

Well, we've got the holidays coming up. We have a lot of merchandise. So go ahead and check out our merch. This holiday season elevate your gift-giving game with the High Wire's exclusive holiday collection. Introducing the ICANN's Talk to the Handglass Ornament, a sparkling addition to your tree that captures the spirit of ICANN. And don't miss the limited edition free and 23 ornament, commemorating ICAN's monumental legal wins securing a religious exemption from vaccination in Mississippi

for the first time in over 40 years, a piece of history to cherish. Or show the world you're proud to be a part of the high. Highwire family. Deck out your ride with one of our brand new highwire license plate frames. Whether you're keeping your loved ones cozy and cool with our highwire blankets, beanies, hoodies, and more, wrap them in the warmth of the highwire spirit this holiday season. It's a brave, bold holiday season at the highwire.shop. All right.

Some of you may not want to start the conversation right there in person. It gets a little uncomfortable. So how about this? How about a high wire frame? Someone's sitting behind you in traffic going, wait a minute. I am kind of questioning vaccines. Bam, there you go. Great Christmas gift for yourself and others.

And my favorite Christmas gift of the year is this book, The War on Ivermectin. You want to get this for you, your friends, your family. It's a great way to introduce them to science, the conversation of science, which is affecting our lives more than ever before. Who knew that they would try to take over the world through health? That's what's going on. And we're at the forefront of you.

I want to thank Tess Laurie for, you know, making the trip out here. What a brilliant interview and what a great person you are making the world a better place. And to Pierre Corey, definitely check out his substack. He's great writers constantly putting out great information. He's getting a lot of help from Jenna McCarthy, who's also co-writer on this book. There it is. Pierre Corrie, MD, MBA. You can check out his Twitter. There it is. And on his Twitter, he will be putting out the war on Ivermect in the film, which is. is going to premiere in just a few seconds here, but we would really like you to send all of your friends to his substack, to his Twitter to watch it. There's a substack. The QR codes are there. Let's make sure that we really support the work that he's doing and get everybody watching all the great remedies

and work that they're doing in drugs and vitamins and looking at what actually works out there. I want to thank all of you for joining us on one. Thank you for, you know, sharing everything. everything that we put out on this show. Our audience continues to grow for all of you that are brand new. Welcome. Yeah, we get into the weeds in science because it's affecting your life, as I said, like never before. And if you think that the COVID pandemic's all over and it's all gone away and we're all fine, just think about all the people that are still in government that

locked us down, that are still working on tracking systems. They're still working on ways to control us. They're going to think of something else to do. That's why we're constantly fighting for you. The war on ivermectin gets at the heart of all of that. And here is the brilliant film made by Mickey Willis. I'll see you next week. More breaking news this evening. Joe Rogan announced on social media today that he has COVID. So we immediately threw the kitchen sink out of all kinds of METs, monoclonal antibodies, uh, ivermectin. One of those drugs he mentioned, ivermectin is something more often used to deworm horses. So things are clearly bad, but they're being made even worse by people who have refused to take the vaccine and instead are swallowing.

Horse dewormer. Ivermectum is ineffective against COVID, but could put you in a coma. It can kill you. It can kill you. There's no clinical evidence that indicates that this works. It goes beyond that. We actually know that it doesn't work. We should talk about that. What bothered you?

It should bother you too. They're lying at your network about people taking human drugs versus drugs from veterinary. Calling it a horse to wormers, not a flattering thing. I get that. It's a lie. They shouldn't have said that. Why did they do that? I don't know. You're the medical guy over there. Ivermectin can be a very effective medication. touted as a miracle prevention and cure by far right commentators and anti-vaxxers, Ivermictin is a treatment for lice. What initially led this was an FDA Twitter account that used the term y'all to express denigration of ivermectin as a horse drug. The truth is that the dose that's used for horses by body weight is the same dose that's recommended for humans, but it's formulated and manufactured to a quality standard that's very different.

The CDC put out a national advisory on this, warning the whole country against taking this drug ivermectin formulated for horses and cows and sheep. With that memo fired to every doctor, then suddenly me and all my early treatment colleagues around the country, we were faced with problems like we'd never had before. So it was the first time in history that we ever saw a doctor who could be prosecuted for using a generic, safe, and effective drug for the application that doctor thought was appropriate. My group of five, the core five of us ICU doctors, collectively were some of the most highly published doctors in the history of critical care medicine. Paul Merrick is the most

published practicing intensivist in the world. As we sit here today, I'm the most published person in my field in history. But when COVID-19 hit, my clinical and academic world was turned upside down. That's when our lives started going sideways professionally. Paul started getting numerous complaints against him that he's never had in his career.

For the first time in my entire career, I could not be a doctor. I had to stand by idly. I had to stand by idly watching these people die. From the FDA, emergency use authorization of medical products and related authorities. For the FDA to issue an emergency use authorization, there must be no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the candidate product for diagnosing, preventing, or treating the disease or condition. If ivermectin were an effective treatment, the vaccines never would have gotten

emergency use authorization in the U.S. If a viable therapeutic strategy existed for outpatients, then the logic supporting universal vaccination with largely experimental products is no longer supportable. The war on Ivermectin is waged by very powerful forces with a lot of money. I mean, public health was built on an obsessive global vaccination policy, which Ivermec and would have threatened. We've got Pfizer's third quarter earnings. Revenue, they're projecting to be $98 to $102 billion.

Pfizer, Biontek, and Moderna. Do you know how much profit they made from these shots? $1,000 every second from Wuhan virus vaccines? You're talking about hundreds of billions of dollars and geopolitical implications that would be significantly affected if the people had access to a safe and widely available map. in widely available medicine. This is an incredibly cheap drug.

It's off license. It's generic. It can be manufactured in huge amounts in India. Remarkably low cost. Merck's patent on ivermectin expired in 1996. In 2021, Merck-Rexempted claiming that ivermectin was not an effective treatment against COVID-19 and bizarrely claimed,

quote, a concerning lack of safety data and the majority of studies. It was plenty safe for Merck to distribute widely when it was still under patent, but now they're claiming the safety record is insufficient. Folks need to understand that just because there is an article out there that asserts that something is false, recognize that those are paid. Every major media outlet in the United States shares at least one board member with at least one drug company. Let me put in perspective for you. These board members wake up, they go to a meeting at Merck or Pfizer, and then they have their

driver take them over to meeting with NBC to decide what kind of programming that network is going to air. They can't be honest and objective about Big Pharma because Big Pharma pays their bills. In fact, one analysis claimed that nine out of the top ten drug makers spent more on marketing than they did on research. CNN Tonight, brought to you by Pfizer. Brought to you by Pfizer. Brought to you by Pfizer.

Brought to you by Pfizer. Brought to you by Pfizer. Brought to you by Pfizer. Brought to you by Pfizer. The royal wedding is brought to you by Pfizer. If asked the question, did you know how much influence your former employer had on big media and so on? I had no idea. It is clear that the pharmaceutical industry has a great deal of sway on what goes on.

If you can shape the message, then you can shape the world, and that's what they've done. When was the last time you turned down the news and ever got an update about how to how the rest of the world is handling COVID. A group of South African doctors has launched an urgent court application. They are seeking easier access to ivermectin. Globally, at least five countries want to use ivomectin to treat COVID-19, including India and Argentina. There are numerous concrete tests in medical journals around the world that

ivermectin does work. The earliest reports we had, one of them we had in peru, where they got into a good mode of using multi-drug treatment, with an ivymectin-based approach that they were crushing their curves. And the president of the Tokyo Medical Association announced to all doctors during a summer surge that they should use Ivermectin in the treatment.

Within weeks, the hospitalization rates reported out of Japan were lower than at any other time in the pandemic. The real proof positive came when COVID-19 really hit hard in Mexico City. They finally, after lots of struggle, came with an Ivermectin-based multi-drug approach, and literally cleared out the hospitals. And then we had reports all the way through

that various states in India. In India, the government has been widely promoting the use of Ivermectin. State leaders have just declared that Uttar Pradesh is now officially COVID-free. A region with nearly as many people as the entire United States is totally COVID-free. The miracle success of Uttar Pradesh,

not one mention of Ivermectin being used. In the countries that it has, has been used in the countries where the studies are, the results are not good, they are overwhelming. They are well over 90% success rate. In the United States, it's a horsy-wormer, it's horse paste, and only the illiterate, ignorant, and or unvaccinated use it.

The key paradox is if you look at the mortality rate in the United States, one of the most highly funded medical care systems in the world. And what we find is the mortality in the United States is among the worst in the world. If you look at these individuals, innumerable failed policies. There's only one way to understand them.

They are literally written by pharmaceutical companies. They can design trials to fail to disprove the use of cheap medicines, and they can make things appear that they don't work. I sit as a non-voting member of the active committee for drugs with NIH. I've seen the dynamics of what are going on with all those trials, most of which have failed. Unfortunately, it's eminently possible to manipulate the outcomes of a clinical. clinical study. If you want to study to fail, that's dead easy.

Now their fourth quote-unquote negative study of Ivermectin in a major medical journal, and each time is a media frenzy. There was a systematic review looking at randomized controlled trials that have been done, and they found that there was no benefit for Ivermectin in reducing mortality, death to COVID-19, no reduction in symptoms or duration of symptoms for COVID-19, so it does not work. People need to understand that academics have been threatened with losing their position and threatened with getting no further research grants if they speak out against the narrative. Guess why that is? Two-thirds of the world's non-commercial

biological research is funded by just three bodies. The Welcome Trust in the UK, the NIH, and specifically the NIAID under Tony Fauci and the Phyllim Lindigate Foundation. There's this pattern that is consistent with a concerted effort to mislead the public by withholding information using modern technology, media, censorship, really, let's call it what it is, thought control. He could actually control exactly what people think, and that is our job. Whenever you have clear-cut evidence that a drug works, you have an ethical obligation to immediately let the people know so that they could have access.

What are you telling people is the optimal profile? I want a pill, orally administered, single pill, given for seven to 10 days, little drug-drug interaction, and low toxicity. Give me that and I'll be really happy. Ivermectin has been used safely for decades, has no known drug interactions, won a Nobel Prize for its success treating humans,

and is on the WHO's list of the same thing. of the safest, most effective medicines in the entire world. And it showed an 86% effectiveness to prevent people from contracting COVID. Ivermectin has been used over 4 billion times, and it's used for a wide variety of treatments. Ivermectin has been shown to possess different anti-inflammation, antiviral, and anti-tumor properties. That is the thing about Ivermectin. It's not good. It's great. Breaking news, the FDA lawyer announces that Ivermectin can be prescribed. for COVID-19.

I have never seen an evidence-based this large with 81 control trials, 10 years of in vitro studies in the lab against a dozen RNA viruses, all showing that Ivermectin stops replication. It literally is, in my mind, the single greatest public health achievement in our history of infection control in the world.