The Highwire with Del Bigtree - EPISODE 356: FROM GRAMMAR TO GROOMING

Episode Date: January 27, 2024

Djokovic Aces Response to Heckler Who Shouts ‘Get Vaccinated!’; Jefferey Jaxen Reports on Another Elephant in the Room as an alarming rise in maternal deaths coincides with CDC’s push to vaccinate pregnant mothers, and the hidden harms of ‘gender affirming care’; Gays Against Groomers Founder explains her organization’s fight to protect children from sexualization, indoctrination, and medicalization.Guests: Jaimee MichellBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

Have you noticed 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 any corporate sponsors telling me what I can investigate or what I can say. Instead, you are our sponsors. This is a production by our nonprofit, the Informed Consent Action Network. So if you want more investigations, if you want landmark legal wins, If you want hard-hitting news, if you want the truth, go to ICan Decide.org and donate now. All right, everyone, we ready?

Yeah. Action. Good morning, good afternoon, good evening. Wherever you are out there in the world, it's time for us all to step out onto the High Wire. Well, we have a big fan here at the High Wire. Maybe if you're brand new, you don't know about it. But Novak Djokovic has really been out there. He's been forthright about his belief that we should all be able to decide what is and is not injected into our bodies.

It's a novel thought, I know, and it's a bit of a mindblower for people around the world. But we all watch as he was kicked out of the Australian Open and many other of the, you know, the powerful tennis tournaments that are in that circuit, just because he refused to get the COVID vaccine, say, you know, not giving a lot of, you know, information on it, but just saying that he just didn't think it was a good idea for him. Of course, he's finally back playing tennis now that the COVID pandemic seems to be behind us. But that doesn't mean that the ridicule has ended. In fact, he's back at the Australian Open. And what's he getting heckled about?

Take a look at this. Four match points. Please. Man, I love this guy. I mean, talk about style, someone yelling at him right before he's about to serve. Get vaccinated. man and what does he do? Serves up an ace. Game, set, match, lifetime achievement award right there for Novak Djokovic. Now, what's ironic about this whole story is obviously he's got

himself in the middle of the attention around the conversation of the COVID vaccine. He's getting heckled in that audience. But this week, in the very same week, one of the biggest hecklers he's had is a top sports writer. And this is a guy named Mike Dix. and former Daily Mail tennis correspondent that gave him a very hard time. Unfortunately this week, he had a hard time. He dropped dead suddenly in the middle of the tournament. Journalist who criticized Novak Djokovic's COVID vaccine status dies suddenly, that term that's become so popular all around the world at the Australian Open. The article goes out to point out a few of the issue through various articles and on social media. He denounced Mr. Djokovic's decision and

claimed that the Serbian tennis star had tarnished his public image for refusing to take the shot. In one of his articles, he claimed that Mr. Djokovic had trashed his reputation beyond repair, while in another he wrote that he could ruin his chances of becoming the greatest of all times by refusing to take the vaccine. Well, Mr. Dixon suddenly collapsed and died last week at the Grand Slam tournament in Melbourne, Australia. According to his family, he was just days away from his 60th birthday, quite young. At this time, it is unclear what exactly caused Mr. Dixon's death.

You know, I think, you know, this is an opportunity where, you know, Novak probably could have made a statement instead. He took the high road. He tweeted condolences to Mike Dixon family. Rest and peace. Great guy. But just because Novak is sort of staying out of the controversy, I don't think we should. And I really want to have this conversation because we're at this point where, you know, you're really. ridiculed if you want to talk about why somebody died. And we're all just absolutely mind-blown

at this idea of sudden adult death syndrome or this died suddenly headline. We've talked a lot about it. We've never heard that. Do you ever remember that? I mean, when I look back to time, died suddenly is not something doctors used to say. You wouldn't, you wouldn't sort of admit that we were talentless as doctors at being able to determine what actually happened here. And so I think, especially for these people that either called out people for not getting their vaccines and ridiculed them and said they wouldn't deserve to be called the greatest of all times despite their tennis record, as though any of this had anything to do with tennis. If that person suddenly drops dead, then I think they've drawn the attention upon themselves and should be a part of the conversation. If you were getting a vaccine and saying, watch me, here I go, I'm doing what's right. and you made yourself a poster child in the world for being vaccinated,

then I think it's okay that we watch your health. And if you drop dead suddenly, I think the first question should be, you know that vaccine you were promoting, which was way outside your understanding. You had no understanding of the science, but that vaccine you promoted. And now suddenly the side effect we're all worried about, which is dropping dead suddenly from either a stroke or myocarditis

or some antithelactic reaction, which are all basically understood as side effects even by the CDC. When that happens, I don't think we should be ridiculed for bringing up the conversation. And, you know, to sort of put an exclamation point on that, this is what is happening, right? We're all being blacklisted for asking the obvious question. As I've pointed out, and we now know in the Hill article just a couple of weeks ago, this is bigger than COVID. Why are so many Americans dying early?

This was an article about the fact that over 150,000 people are in the excess mortality range in the United States of America, meaning more than usually die. I think they're comparing them to the years between about 2015 and 19. They took that average and said right last year in 2023, there was 150,000 extra people dying. If you think of the Vietnam War, I believe it's 60-something thousand, 63,000. 67,000 people died in the Vietnam War over all those years. One of the bloodiest wars we've ever known is tragic. Three times that just died last year. And anyone, like a program like this that dares to ask,

could it possibly be that product you gave enforced on everybody back in 2020? I mean, 2021. So that's the question. Are we not allowed to ask it? Should we be ridiculed for asking that question? Well, there was a very interesting interview that was done of a guy that seemed to have reticently gotten the vaccine but was talking about his concern. This was a famous bodybuilder. Take a look at this.

This is, you know, I think this really gets to the point and why this is such an important conversation. Watch this. Did you get the Vax? I got the vaccine. Did you really? Yeah. Oh. Even four.

Really? Yeah. Why? Yeah. And also, Brew, you know how it is. This is the same thing you go to a park. You were worried about your heart? And you have with the wrong people.

All of a sudden, you might do something on this party that you don't want to do because there's these people like, you know, you should do it. Dude, fuck. So I'm in this place also. I was in this place. We don't need to say where it is exactly. But I was there. And my friends said, like, if we can get it, you should get it, man.

And I'm like, you got peer pressure into the Vax? Yeah. Is that what you're saying? I don't know like, no. Yeah. Whatever. It is what it is. When I think about it later on, I'm like, what did I do, man?

But, oh, my God, just concentrate to read conspiracy theories because I did blood cleaning twice after all this. I did a plasmapherosis with taking out heavy metals and all that stuff. Oh, man, yeah, I did all this. I don't know. This is too controversial, probably to say this. Wait, no, say it. I went to the doctor and I did my blood work again because I took my blood work all the time. And then I showed to the doctor and we kind of see these particles.

And I'm like, what is this? And then they all. No way. This is from this. And I'm like, oh my God. This is crazy as f*** because I know you're the kind of guy who for sure you got your blood work all the time. And then you're telling you got the thing

and then you got your blood work and then it was crazy. And yeah, and this guy's also big into it. So he's like, you need to do a plasma forosis now. So they poke like a needle into your arm here which is like like the like a pen, you know, like thick like this bright. Unbelievable thick needle. And they take all your. blood out, put it into this machine and then clean it and bring it back. I did a D-dimer test and all this.

I don't know if you know what it is. It's like this determines like the clotting of your arteries and stuff like D-dimer and like my D-d-dimer was this and then after all this it was dead. And then yeah. Did it improve after you got that removal? Yeah, twice. I did it in six months period like one time and then the second time also expensive. It's no fun man. So yeah, I was so shocked And the doctor was like, you need to do it, man. If you want to like survive after you took these shots, bro. No way. You need to do this now.

Yeah, this was like that, actually. I mean, an amazing story he's telling there, right? This is a guy that got his blood checked all the time. So said, look at my blood and let me compare it right after I got the vaccine. And he says, and I found all these clots and particles in there. And the doctor is going to says, that's what this vaccine does. You got to clean your blood. Really a fascinating story by someone that's, you know, being very can.

about his thoughts and being peer pressured into it. I think just less than 30, like 30 days or so, about a month after that interview, this was posted. Fans mourn Joe Aesthetics, star Joe Lindner, after sudden death at age 30. The fitness community has been paying tribute to the late bodybuilding influencer. That guy you were just watching talk about it.

Joe Lindner death, YouTube bodybuilding star known as Joe Stetix, dies from aneurism, age 30. How many of these stories are out there? How many aren't telling their story on videos? And how many people are being hushed or silenced or ridiculed for daring to ask the question? Well, here on the high wire, we're never afraid to ask the question. We've been asking it the whole time. All the relevant questions, and those questions are getting louder and bigger

and more and more people are waking up to the reality that we were lied to. And I just want to sort of point out that when we do this work here, we take it very seriously. We are not reporting to you throughout this, things that we feel or hunches that we have. We've been bringing scientific evidence to every conversation. And that is why when people say, I have no idea how the high wire has been so accurate all this time, what you don't see is an international body of scientists, some of them whistleblowers that are in the top universities and medical establishments around the world that are feeding us with stories and letting us know where we need to look for something. We've got some brilliant researchers, and of course we have

one of the most powerful legal teams that has ever sort of addressed the government and government deceit here in the United States of America. We've won lawsuits against the CDC, the FDA, health and human services, the National Institutes of Health for everybody out there. Every time I have a news reporter saying that you spread misinformation, I said, really, you are aware that I've won lawsuits against the NIH, CDC, FDA, and Health and Human Services. Have you ever tried winning a lawsuit with misinformation? It doesn't happen, especially lawsuits against the government of the United States. We're on to something here, and we're sharing with you, and we're never going to stop doing that.

I have a really big and powerful and somewhat controversial show today. I want to give a warning that we give every once in a while. For all of you parents out there that use this show as sort of a homeschooling class, Today I would really prefer because there is some adult conversations about to take place based on education and other things that I think you should watch this show by yourself first and decide if it's appropriate for your children. I've given you that warning coming up. I'm really looking forward to an interview with the founder of Gaze Against Groomers. This is a conversation that I've been wanting to have for some time. If you want to know or curious, what is that conversation going to be?

Stay tuned. It's coming right up. But first, it's time for the Jackson Report. You know, just playing that video of the bodybuilder, Joe aesthetic, you know, we watch these videos and we see them go by. And sometimes I feel like, you know, I almost forget that this is just this beautiful human being. So beautifully sharing their laughing, clearly alarmed at what had happened, doing everything he thinks he can. let's put it out there, right? Of course, I'm sure someone will attack this show and say, clearly taking your blood out and trying to clean it is what killed him. And who knows?

Who knows? But these are the conversations that are happening all around the world. And I think this is what being in a free country is all about. We're supposed to be having these conversations. They should be debates. We should be putting it all on the table. Even a good argument once in a while, this is what a free country is all about until we get to the bottom of these issues? You know, hidden in this whole conversation, we're talking about excess mortality. And this conversation surrounds all these individuals, and it's heartbreaking. These stories are actually heartbreaking. And almost no government wants to talk about this. And one of the conversations in these excess mortality is what happened to expecting mothers during the pandemic? Well,

they didn't do too well. And this is the headline here in 2023 that kind of says it all. U.S. maternal mortality hits highest level since 1965. And fortunately, we have some researchers that looked at the CDC data. The CDC data took a long time to come out. They sat on this data for a very long time. But once they released it, we have independent researchers, medical professionals now, that are looking at this data. And this was the article that was published.

It says, ask why 429 moms died. And they looked at this CDC data, and they wrote this. We analyzed that data, assisted by a professional. and an actuary and found a disturbing trend of the 1,205 mothers who died in or within 42 days of pregnancy in 2021. 429 had COVID-19 on the death certificate as either the primary or a contributing cause, a 321% increase in COVID pregnancy deaths from the first wave in 2020. By comparison, total COVID deaths in the United States rules a relatively modest 20% 115 as much as in pregnant women. So there's a lot to unpack there, but basically what they're saying is during the first

COVID case, we had the first COVID case in January 2020 in the U.S. here. And it took almost a year until December 2020 to get that vaccine out. So they're saying we really didn't see these maternal deaths at that time. And if we look at the chart that accompanies this article, this was a chart that was created specifically for this conversation. You can see there. The orange is what we're looking at those are maternal deaths caused by COVID-19 on the death certificate. So you can see really throughout 2020 and even into 2022, the Omicron, we're not seeing anything with maternal deaths. It's just in that one spot there. And it's a big red flashing signal. And, you know, people will say, well, those are maternal deaths caused by COVID-19. Well, remember, we had John Bowdo went on last week,

and he looked at the death certificates from Massachusetts, Minnesota, and it found that a lot of these were COVID-vaccine deaths. They talked about that on the death certificate. but they didn't get coded. They got coded as COVID-19 deaths from the illness. So there's another aspect to this whole kind of. Put up that graph really quick because what you're pointing out here is really fascinating, right? We know COVID started, you know, running rampant in 2020. It was claiming lots of lives.

We had no vaccine. But while that was happening and women were pregnant in 2020, we weren't seeing them die from COVID. But suddenly in 2021, same amount of pregnant women. all of a sudden more of them are dying from COVID. And that's what these death certificates are saying, which is really weird. Why did you die from COVID

when it was sweeping across the nation, but a year later? It's really, you know, an interesting point. I'm sure we know where this is going. And at that time in 2020, hospitals were packed, were told, nursing homes were closed down, you couldn't go visit grandma, no vaccine, nothing to do except go home

and maybe wait till you can't breathe very well. And you're not seeing maternal mortality spike. Right. Just in that certain time. So what happened at that time when those orange spikes went up? Well, here in April of 2021 is the headline. CDC recommends pregnant women get coronavirus vaccine.

Now, at the time, the CDC was making just a mild recommendation, and this was still a new shot under EUA. This was Wulinski. And so, you know, you can imagine not, maybe not a lot of pregnant women went out there and rushed out there and got it. But August of 2021, and that's where that big spike happens, it becomes official. Here's the headline. CDC guidance now official, pregnant people should get coronavirus vaccine. So that is when it goes into overdrive. So let's go back to this article here,

and the authors write this. In 2022, after the Omicron variant took over and vaccination slowed, 88 women died from COVID in or within 42 days of pregnancy, about one-fourth the number of 2021. Erased was the 40% increase in return mortality of a year earlier. Now, in the article, they go on to suggest or they lean towards the cause for this was possibly something called Bade. This is vaccine-associated enhanced disease. So for those of you haven't heard about this, we covered this in the show in 2021 when they were talking about some of the original problems they had with this COVID vaccine development. And it's interesting because I look back at this timestamp. We covered it in August of 2021, the very month that maternal mortality spiked.

Take a look. One of the things that we're not hearing a lot about is the unique potential safety problem of coronavirus vaccines. This was first found in the early 1960s with respiratory syncytrial virus vaccines. And it was done here in Washington with the NIH and Children's National Medical Center that some of those kids who got the vaccine actually did worse. And I believe there were two deaths in the consequence of that study. because what happens with certain types of respiratory virus vaccines, you get immunized, and then when you get actually exposed to the virus, you get this kind of paradoxical immune enhancement phenomenon.

When we started developing coronavirus vaccines and our colleagues, we noticed in laboratory animals that they started to show some of the same immune pathology that resembled what had happened 50 years earlier. We said, oh my God, this is going to be problematic. These clinical trials are not going to go quickly because of that immune enhancement. It's going to take time. Okay, so immune enhancement. Remember, this can be called a bunch of different things.

It can be called antibody dependent enhancement, immune enhancement, disease enhancement, pathogenic priming, all of those being the same thing where the body is primed to overreact when it comes in contact with the virus and thereby potentially killing the hosts that received the vaccine. That was the warning. Now, when we finally saw the emergency, use authorization being applied for, which is the first time we were going to see what had happened in the trials, and whether or not they had covered this disease enhancement or immune enhancement issue, we reported this, that it was shocking to find that in it, this is what they

said about immune enhancement. However, risk of vaccine enhanced disease, what Peter Hotez and the high wire have been warning about over time, potentially associated with waning immunity remains unknown and needs to be evaluated further in ongoing clinical trials and in observational studies that could be conducted following authorization and or licensure. I mean, just think about when you're seeing it all play out right now, how reckless the FDA is. I mean, it's amazing looking back those moments. Sort of what I said to the top of this show. We have such an incredible track record because of the work that you've been doing and scientists, investigators we have all around the world. But just reflecting on that again, for anybody that this is new,

we went to the emergency use authorization. This is what allowed the vaccine to be released early before the safety trials were over, saying basically it was a right to try. And our biggest concern at that time was this immune enhancement or disease enhancement issue that they had seen in animal trials for decades of COVID vaccines. It was a problem they couldn't seem to get around. and Peter Hotez himself, who's proed this vaccine now. He got tens of millions of dollars after making that statement in front of our Congress to his university, Baylor University here in Texas, and he ended up changing his tune and saying,

oh, actually they can do it faster. I'm perfectly happy with this vaccine. He got a bunch of them, and he's looked like crap ever since. But the point being, though, that this is what was shocking to us. They knew they had a side effect that caused the animals to die and have life-threatening illness because the vaccine appeared to be making the virus worse. And when we looked and looked at these trials, that certainly was the one thing you weeded out right in your trials. You were looking for it. The FDA admitted it hadn't even looked at that

issue and that there was nothing in the trials that gave them any information on that. And to say to the world, we're going to let you all take it. Ultimately, our president, Biden, when he gets into office, is going to force you all to take it. And after you've taken it, maybe it would be a good idea to see if this disease enhancement phenomena exist that could kill you. I mean, it's that type of recklessness that is mind-blowing and it's everything we speak out against. I just want to take this moment, Jeffrey, and I hate to interrupt. But folks, this is why we do what we do. Do you know how many people walk up to me in airports, pregnant women, and women with children saying, oh my God, I am so thankful. I found the high wire because I was just about to get a vaccine

while I was pregnant. My doctor was saying it. And I saw an episode where you're pointing out all the dangers and I decided not to do it. And this is my, you know, little one year old or two year old running around. I've healthy kids. I'm just so thankful or people's, you know, all of those types of stories. And I want you to know right now that we don't get sponsorship, right? Of course, Pfizer's definitely not giving us any money. They're giving Fox and CBS and NBC and MSNBC. They bought them out. Just watch the commercials and see how many times to talk about drug products. That's, you know, millions, billions of dollars being poured in there, but you, and you're paying your cable bill, even more money being handed

to them for them to lie to you. But here, this show has been telling you the truth in time, on time. We could have saved every pregnant woman. In fact, we did that watch this show. And so I want you to know that when you donate to the high wire, when you allow us to bring this programming to the world, you are literally saving. baby's lives. You are saving children's lives because as I've said, we have never been afraid to tell you the truth. We are not afraid to tell you the truth. Why? Because we don't have some giant sponsors saying we're pulling two million dollars you're funding out today because you just reported that there's a problem with our product. That's what happens to every other television station

that's out there. We're protected because of every one of you that donate to us, you are protecting the truth. The last bashing of truth here on the high wire. being shared on the internet. Right now I have to tell you, we are building systems to try and protect ourselves should they ever try to shut our website down. We are constantly investing in making sure that this is here for everybody. We need your help right now because I am sure going into this next election season and all the lies the media is about to start telling you, we are going to be under threat. So please, if you are not already a recurring donor, take this opportunity to help us save the world. If you're on the high,

highwire.com website, go to the top corner, hit donate to I can, and we're asking to become a recurring donor so that we know how many lawsuits we can fight, how many things we can do, how many investigators we can send out there. We're asking for $24 a month for $20, but any dollar that you can give us, $1, $2, $5 makes a difference. And for those of you that have done really well in your life and are saying, man, I would really like to contribute and do something important. We may have a special project you can get involved with. So reach out to us at info at I can decide.org and let us know that you would like a special call to talk about some of the bigger projects that maybe we can even put your name on. I want to thank everybody that makes

this possible. It's days like this and stories like this that make us feel good about what we're doing. We're going to make it easy. Just text right now. If you have a cell phone, 72022, it's that easy. Type it in right now and then write the word donate. And we'll We'll send you a link so that you can donate and be a part of actual change now. All right. Sorry for getting off track, but I think it's really important. I want to see you to continue to do the great work that you're doing, Jeffrey. So back to the story, disease enhancement.

It was something that was the biggest warning we had here on the show. And frankly, this is one of the first articles that has brought this term up now in over a year. So it's interesting. I'm not saying it exists. Obviously, we're going to have to get more studies, but it is fascinating that this term is coming back around. I'm if we're about to start hearing more about it. Right, and we're putting these facts out, Del, on our network here,

in hopes that obviously the public is going to watch this, but in hopes that government officials, politicians, people in key positions in universities and medical centers, they're going to pick this up and do something with it. Yeah. And so because really expecting mothers had a really hard time, as we saw by that chart, for some reason, during the vaccine rollout when they were recommending to get the vaccine. And not only did they have a hard time, but their children had a hard time, too.

Let's look at OpenVares. This is the vaccine adverse event reporting system. And we can see reports of miscarriages and stillbirths post-COVID vaccine. Now look, April starting in April, that's where the recommendation happened by the CDC towards pregnant women to get the vaccine. And then in August, we have that spike. So even that, that basically tracks the same way as maternal deaths. And if you look at 2021 as a whole, there's a big problem there. Oh, my God. I mean, that is a rocket ship red line straight off, almost off the chart.

And so this is what we're talking about here. It's not just one data point or two data points. We're triangulating these issues. And on this topic, another graph, where we see it going to look at this, folks. Look at this graph coming across. This is anyone that's had a stillbirth reporting it. to the CDC system. Look how many reports there used to be, under 500, you know, in there. And then all of a sudden, boom, it absolutely explodes when, right after the vaccine is introduced. You know,

a bit of anomaly. And here's the point, Jeffrey, here's the point. As we've said before, we don't have evidence. There's no way to prove that the vaccine is causing that. But we certainly should be asking a question. But here is what is so shocking. That is a government website. the CDC and the NIH and the FDA are all staring at that exact chart of this, this firework that explodes, fires straight up in the sky in 2021 and explodes and its babies being delivered too early and dying. And we're now talking about that the pregnant women themselves, a spike jumping up right in the same year. And if you look around the world, that's that happening all around the world. So it's not the weather. It's not something, it's not a, it's not

some pollution that just suddenly got released in your city, your town, or your country, it's happening. It's a worldwide phenomenon. How many things that the entire world do exactly the same that would have the same exact diabolical result? And the fact that what's definitely not even on the table or in consideration at all is that it just might have been that product we made everybody take. There's no studies being done on it except for this one you're pointing out, not done or paid for by any government agency in the world. That is what is so egregious right now. That is what is so phenomenally criminal,

is that an obvious question should be there. It should be investigated, and our government is covering it up. Pregnant women used to be the last people that would ever get an intervention because of the vulnerabilities of the child and the mother. And so like Peter Hottes said, that during the COVID development of the vaccine,

we need a time to do this. They eventually settled on about 320-something days to get that vaccine out. Gavi's now saying they want to do it in 100 days or less. But the problem is no long-term studies, and they can't possibly know because they're not even looking for it. So here's independent researchers, not associated with the U.S. government, that are looking at some of the long-term issues for the children born to these mothers that have had the COVID vaccine.

And this was a mouse study or a rat study. But regardless, there's some findings here that are really concerned. prenatal exposure to COVID-19 mRNA, this is Pfizer's vaccine, induces autism-like behaviors in male neonatal rats. So it goes on to say our findings reveal that Pfizer's vaccine significantly alters WNT gene expression and BDNF levels in both male and female rats, suggesting a profound impact on key neurodevelopmental pathways. So let's pause right there for a second and I'll unpack that because we're talking some

medical jargon here that a lot of viewers probably are going to keep up with. So let's jump out to another research study. What is a WNT signaling pathway? Because they're saying that this significantly alters it, this vaccine. So we go to this study, WNT signaling in neuronal maturation and synaptogenesis. It says the WNT signaling pathway plays a role in the development of the central nervous system and growing evidence indicates that WNT also regulates the structure and function of the adult nervous system. WNT components are key regulators of a variety of development.

mental processes, including embryonic patterning, cell specification, and cell polarity. Kind of a big deal, so you don't want to really screw around with those. So let's go back to the Pfizer-COVID vaccine autism study. The researchers say this. Notably, male rats exhibited pronounced autism-like behaviors characterized by a marked reduction in social interaction and repetitive patterns of behavior. They go on to say, furthermore, there is a substantial decrease in neuronal counts in critical brain regions indicating potential neurodegeneration.

or altered neural development. Male rats also demonstrated impaired motor performance evidence by reduced coordination and agility. So these researchers go on to say that, hey, this is just a rat study. It's not one-to-one for humans, but more research needs to be done, long-term studies need to be done

because no one's doing them. Pfizer's not doing them. The U.S. government is not setting out to do these. These are researchers that are just looking into this because of their own curiosity, and this is what they're finding. So this is why we're reporting this, because we need other researchers to step up here and do the job the government's not doing. Absolutely. It's really disturbing. And this goes back, right? This is that question a lot of people have.

Well, what about the other vaccines? You know, this is the COVID vaccine. What about the other vaccines? All sorts of studies like this, too, on the other vaccines that ask the question. And when we've looked into it with all of our research, you cannot find any ability for science to refute, to truly refute the idea that vaccines are contributing to autism. have been once again, when does autism start going like this from one in 10,000 to now one in roughly 30, exactly at the point where the vaccine program starts exploding. So, you know, there's a smoking gun, but, you know, whether or not it's truly a smoking gun, it is definitely a signal, which is all science has to look at. It's the only key function you have. Is there something that's sparking off at a, you know, a specific time, and what should we look at that lit that fuse?

That's what we think needs to be done. And ironically or shockingly, there's one product that keeps being left out of that investigation. Right. And looking at the media today, if you go on Twitter or X or you just read the headlines, there's so many polarizing events happening in the world today, seemingly appearing out of nowhere for people watching it, the conversation surrounding gender, the sexualization of children, and this evaporating idea of parental consent around all of this. this is creating a lot of division.

And if you don't know what I'm talking about, take a look at this video. Fired up parents and students attended a school board meeting on a controversial topic. Should kids in school learn about gender identity? Present our children! Protect our children! There is now a war on children happening

within our K through 12 school system. Temperes flared over books on gender and sex that some parents are calling porn. You want to know what it has in it? sodomy, rape, and drug use. Please stop the sexual grooming of our children by these types of books and illustrations. A controversial children's book teaching graphic sex acts,

complete with illustrations, making the rounds in school libraries and classrooms across the country, leaving parents and communities outraged. These kind of books in our pre-KK school system, by binary. One concerned pastor tried to read the book at a school board meeting, but officials asked,

him to stop. If you don't want to hear it in a school board meeting, why should children be able to check it out of the school system? This book is for children 10 years of age and up. It details explicitly with pornographic images, homosexual sex, lesbian sex, um, straight sex. One of the chapters in here is about sexting. I'm going to interrupt you at this point. Sounds like you have a concern about a book. I don't understand how it's appropriate for kids and it's not appropriate for the school board. You've made it abundantly clear

that you will continue to pursue questionable subject matter without parental inclusion. It is a controversial topic that has fueled a lot of backlash whether to require teachers to address students by the pronouns they prefer. Send emails to students without parental consent, asking if the children want it to be known by another name or gender. Parents say this is an absolute betrayal

on their ability to raise their children, how they want to. I want her to hear from me as a parent what her gender identity means to her and to our family. Not from a book. My daughter went home crying, she did. I'm so afraid that she could turn into a boy. I just got out the phone my wife,

who took my nine and seven-year-old boys to the doctor today. And the first thing this woman asks him is if he identifies as a boy, a girl, gender fluid, or non-bibir. him. My son, he's never heard of any of that before. So what are you trying to plant a seed in his head? Story books that teach five, six, and seven-year-old children that they can change from a boy to a girl or that their sex is assigned

or perhaps misassigned at birth. The day my daughter shared with her guidance counselor that she felt like a boy, the counselor immediately affirmed this new identity. From then on, the counselor continued to have one on meetings with my daughter without my knowledge. My daughter changed very quickly, was bullied. This was a time when she needed me the most and you kept it a secret from me. Treating every parent as a potential threat to their kids is wrong. It is my job to teach my kids about sex. It's y'all's job to help teach about reading, writing, arithmetic.

It can be argued, oh, well, that's what we're doing to a transgender student, but are you not invading my daughter's privacy when a man walks into her bathroom? You pray upon impressionable children and indoctrinate them into your insane ideological cult. the idea that boys are girls and girls are boys. Disturbing footage surface of a drag queen performing in front of infants, yes infants. Now does anybody in this room know how to twerk? And then you just move your bum up and down like that, and that's twerking. Robbing kids of their innocence in America as we allow diversity, inclusion, and equity to dominate our school.

School board, I quit. I quit being a cog in a machine. that tells me to push highly politicized agendas on our children. Lead this district, protect our children, or get out of the way. Jeffrey, let me just take a moment. I just want to say to our audience, I want to be perfectly clear. This is a very controversial issue. And what we're going to talk about, you know, I, this is the United States of America, live and let live.

If you're an adult, however you want to express yourself, you know, as long as it doesn't hurt other people, that is perfectly fine. you, you're a brother, you're a sister, or whatever you want to identify as. But the question we're going to be asking right now is what do we teach our children around these issues? And again, I don't think we should be afraid to be having these very difficult conversations in putting it on the table. This is what we're going to do here now. We mean no offense to anybody. We're asking what is safe for the children. Thank you. Yeah, and tell, there's a lot of offshoot to this conversation to focus on, but we're going to

focus on the one that's grabbing the most headlines right now, and that is around the World Health Organization. And they announced new guidelines just last month. This was the actual announcement. WHO announces the development of a guideline on the health of trans and gender diverse people. And then shortly after that, they announced their board members. This is the announcement right here, guideline development group is what they called it. And shortly after that, the headlines erupted. Half of the WHO's transgender health committee members have no medical background and majority are activists. You go into the article, it reads, half of the members of the WHO's transgender health policy committee are not qualified medical experts, and most are gender activists.

Of the 21 member panel who have been invited to help formulate guidelines that will shape how countries treat gender dysphoria, 11 have no formal medical training, seven are trans themselves, 10 have no, 10 have a medical background, and of those eight are doctors. The rest are a mixture of activists, social justice advocates, human rights lawyers, STD researchers, and policy advisors. Several are also members of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, WPath, a nonprofit dedicated to promoting medical treatments for gender dysphoria, which has been accused of being too pro-medication. So let's look at what some of them said. One of the panelists is a controversial Canadian trans TikToker who has co-written a study that said

that puberty blockers and hormone therapies ought to be treated as a default option for children with gender dysphoria. Another member believes that transitioning causes no health problems and claims the only actual side effects of getting a sex change are a significantly improved quality of life and trans joy. Here is the group WHO chose, and you can look at this entire group here, and here are the ones who aren't medical professionals with the circles on them. So you can obviously, you know, just by this conversation here, you can see that there's not a, there's not consensus across the board. You have articles already coming out here. This is the Washington Examiner. They basically highlighted a letter by a woman named Riem al-Salem.

Al-Salam is the United Nations Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls. And she wrote a letter directly to the WHO director General Tadros saying, saying amongst other things this. This is the article right here. UN Women's Rights Leader criticizes WHO's transgender health policy. She says, it says in the article, El Salam also highlighted that from the 21-person group, not one appears to represent a voice of caution for medicalizing youth with gender dysphoria or the protection of female-only spaces. And you can see here, bringing back from our last segment, the CDC jumps right into this

female-only spaces and erasing those. Here's the headline, CDC erases women from new vaccine guidance. now uses gender, neutral, pregnant people. That was from a while back. But you can see this is kind of, this is infiltrating a lot of different parts of society. But the backlash was pretty fierce for the WHO, and they announced that.

So they actually had to come out on January 15th with an update or, in their words, a frequently asked questions on the developmental guidelines. And they wrote this in there. The scope will cover adults only and not address the needs of children and adolescents, because on review, the evidence-based for children,

and adolescents is limited and variable regarding the longer-term outcomes of gender affirming care for children and adolescents. So they were spotlighted, clearly scared, getting pushed back, forced to step away from the kids. But here in America, we're going full steam ahead. This is the American Academy of Pediatrics in their own journal. This is the headline of the article that they have posted, prohibition of gender affirming care as a form of child maltreatment, reframing the discussion. They want to reframe how people think about this.

They says, this article has two main names. One, to refute the idea that gender affirming care of GAC is child maltreatment and to demonstrate how withholding GAC is harmful to children and amounts to state sanctioned medical neglect and emotional abuse. So they're going hard in the other direction and saying, if you don't do this for kids, it's medical neglect and emotional abuse. So obviously there's, to say polarizing division is not even accurate. There's hard polarizing division here in this conversation. And you can see it even in the legislation.

So this is just recently, Ohio became the 23rd state to really throw their hat in the ring here. Ohio bends gender affirming care and restricts transgender athletes despite GOP governor's veto. They joined 22 other states. You can see by this map here who have restricted gender affirming care. those are in red. So one of those states is Missouri. They did so. They passed laws on this topic after an internal investigation started from a whistleblower. Here's one of the headlines. Missouri officials investigate transgender youth clinic. This is one of the biggest youth clinics, transgender youth clinics in the state. And whistleblower came forward with an affidavit,

and this is really what it said in here. Let's look at just some of what was said. During my time at the center, I personally witnessed. The center health care providers lied to the public and to parents of patients about the treatment or lack of treatment and the effects of treatment provided to children at the center. I witnessed staff at the center provide puberty blockers and cross hormones to children without complete informed parental consent and without an appropriate or accurate assessment in the needs of the child. I witnessed children experience shocking injuries from the medication the center prescribed.

Then I saw the center make no attempt or effort to track adverse outcomes of patients after they left the center. She goes on to say, but nearly all children who came to the center here presented with very serious mental health problems. Despite claiming to be a place where children could receive multidisciplinary care, the center would not treat these mental health issues. Instead, children were automatically given puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones, even though the Dutch study excluded persons experiencing mental health issues. We're going to get into that in a second. The Dutch study is really, there's a series of two studies, one in 2011, one in 2014, that,

form the basis medically of transitioning with puberty blockers and these hormone therapies for kids. But, you know, it says in there, this whistleblower says in there, and this has been a common theme people have come forward, that, you know, whether people have, if they have a mental health problem or if they're coming in with any type of issue like that, the default option is just to throw them on these medications and start this transition as if it's a panacea, as if this will fix all of their problems. Here's a clinical social worker in basically an information session, the clinical social workers kind of the go-between between the insurance company and getting these therapies green lit. This is the clinical social worker in a training session.

Take a listen. We sort of will go again into understanding that I'm not going to be a gatekeeper. I'm not going to be a person that's going to stop them from accessing care. I'm not there to determine if they're trans enough. I'm going to write them this letter. Any psych history that might be helpful to sort of showing the necessity. So if let's say a client has a psych history that includes like suicidal ideation or a suicide attempt, and you can connect it to the gender dysphoria, that actually can be sort of a positive, persuasive essay piece. And I'll talk about that in a little bit because you can kind of show what this is so necessary, right? This is how this is impacting this person's life and this is why this procedure is necessary and need it. I have found that when

I frame it in a, you know, we're going to kind of use this as a persuasive essay and we're going to really, you know, kind of stick it to them. There's a little bit more fun with it in the way we even use language. So I found that to kind of be helpful with clients. Let's just stick it to them. Amazing. Yeah. So, I mean, you can see there, obviously, there's just one person, but open door policy, suicide. attempt, suicidal ideations. That's fine. Let's just get them on these.

Yeah, full speed ahead. So we're talking about endocrine disruption by medication. So 21 of some of the world's most qualified endocrinologists have come forward in the Wall Street Journal and published an article titled this, Youth Gender Transition is pushed without evidence. This conversation is really getting mainstreamed here. And they're saying psychotherapy, not hormones and surgery, is increasingly the first line of treatment abroad. So we have, this is a systemic review looking at all the data here. And they're

looking at the title of this is hormone therapy, mental health, and the quality of life among transgender people. And this is where this conversation is really going, because they're looking at it all, all the studies. And they said, certainty in this conclusion is limited by high risk of bias in study designs, small sample sizes, and confounding with other interventions. could not draw any conclusions about death by suicide. So they're saying mental health in general, there's way too many risks of bias, small sample sizes. There's a lot of issues with these studies. But when it comes to suicide, impossible to draw any type of conclusion if these hormones are actually helping or not. And why might that be? Well, a lot of people point to studies like

this. This is another kind of literature review on brain development and puberty, understanding the role of puberty and structural and functional development of the adolescent brain. So remember, you're blocking puberty. It says, overall, this review reveals a mixed literature concerning the role of puberty in the development of the adolescent brain. Evidence from animal studies reveal that puberty has effects some sex specific on development of different brain regions. Furthermore, manipulation of pubertal hormones and animal models has shown that delaying or preventing puberty impacts brain development. Although the number of studies investigating the relationship between puberty and different aspects in the human brain development has increased

in the past few years. This review demonstrates that there continues to be limited data across neuroimaging domains and the data available are not always consistent. In other words, we don't know yet what's going on. And a lot of the Nordic countries have already abandoned this. And remember, the Nordic countries were famous for getting out of the COVID-19 vaccine business for kids because of myocarditis. So they seem to be moving away from this conversation as well, at least for Yeah. Yeah, yeah. I mean, they have obviously some good medical professionals there with courage.

And so here's one of the studies that was coming out of a Nordic journal. This is adolescent development and psychosocial functioning after starting cross-sex hormones for gender dysphoria. And when we read this, it almost seems like common sense, but they said this, results. Those who did well in terms of psychiatric symptoms and functioning before cross-sex hormones mainly did well during real life. who had psychiatric treatment needs or problems in school, peer relationships, and managing everyday manners outside of home continue to have problems during real life.

They concluded that the medical gender reassignment is not enough to improve functioning and relieve psychiatric comorbidities among adolescents and gender dysphoria. And they're talking about really appropriate interventions are warranted, blah, blah, blah. So they're basically, I mean, it's a common sense study there saying, look, these puberty blockers are not going to solve everything. We really need to look at this in a different way. And this is what other countries are doing. This is what your headlines are seeing in England here. England's health service says it won't give puberty blockers to children at gender clinics. And then in Sweden, this is in 2022. Their National Board of Health and Welfare had to update their

recommendations for hormone therapy for gender dysphoria, specifically in young people. They said following a request from the National Board of Health and Welfare, SBU has drawn up a literature review in which all relevant studies on the effect and safety of hormone treatments have been reviewed. In the report, which is published today, it appears that it is not yet possible to draw any definite conclusions about the effect and safety of treatments based on the scientific evidence. Based on the results that emerged, the National Board of Health and Welfare's overall conclusion is that the risks of puberty inhibiting and gender-affirming hormone treatment for those under 18 currently outweigh the possible benefits for the group as a whole. So that's a pretty resounding statement

right there from the Swedish Medical Board. And so what we're talking about here, again, we'll go back to this, is these Dutch studies. This laid the medical foundation for the puberty suppression. There was one in 2011, puberty suppression and adolescence with gender identity disorder, and then a follow-up in 2014. And what a lot of people looking at this in the medical community objectively are really describing here, they're calling it runaway diffusion. And this is a term, it's a new term to me when I heard it. It's basically a phenomenon where the medical community mistakes a small experiment or one or two studies as a proven practice, and then these potentially non-beneficially even harmful practice spread rapidly into the general clinical setting.

So there's a study or a kind of a commentary that looked at these Dutch studies, and and basically pick them apart and showed all of the flaws with this. They never should have been the cornerstone of this gender affirming care, but they turned out to be. So you can read that here. It's called the myth of reliable research in pediatric gender medicine, a critical evaluation of the Dutch studies and the research that is followed. But in there, they speak about more of the, they take a step back and talk about the entire space in general. And they say this, what makes this arena exceptional is the radical irreversible nature of gender affirming medical and surgical interventions desired by the exponentially

growing number of youth in the Western world. Another unique aspect of the gender medicine field is that a number of clinicians tasked with caring for gender distress have taken on the role of political campaigners and in doing so have traded wisdom and nuance for blunt activism. And they close with this. And they say, when clinician activists misuse the eminence of their institutions and medical societies to deny or obfuscate important facts about pediatric gender transition, that puberty blockers are prescribed to peripubal children as young as 8 to 9, that masectomies are commonly provided to teens, that the wave of detransition is rising and already far exceeded

what's been historically recorded, and that no other pediatric intervention of similar drastic nature has ever been delivered at scale based on such low quality of evidence. They may succeed in scoring a political or legal victory in the short term, but they also contribute to the longer term erosion of public trust in the medical profession. They also inadvertently contribute to the medical harm. That's an interesting closing statement there. And let's look at puberty blockers as a whole.

They're looking at puberty blocker claims. This is your insurance company claims by year for ages six through 17 years old. And you can see starting in 2017 up through 2021, that's the latest data, see a 120% increase. There's obviously a trend going on here. So what happened in 2017? Where did this conversation come from? Well, we don't have to look far.

We go right back into this article here. California, LGBT inclusive textbooks to be implemented in California classrooms. And as California goes, so does the rest of the country. And that's what history shows. And even in this space, I mean, it's like I was saying at the top of this segment, there's really no space you can talk about here that's not polarizing. polarizing. Even in this space, you have polarization, you have division. So let's look at United States map now where we're at currently from that 2017 decision. We have in the dark green, those are

there's six states. Those are states that have laws explicitly requiring LGBTQ inclusion in state curricular standards, that dark orange. Those are about seven states. Those are those are states that have state laws explicitly censoring the discussion of LGBT people in school. And then the lightest tan color, they're basically like Switzerland in this conversation. They have no preference. They just want to stay out of it. But you can see it's there's just a checkerboard across the United States. But this isn't just about gender. Schools are deeming themselves, as we saw from that opening clip, the sexual educators of our children. And it feels like it showed up in our schools out of nowhere. Where did it come from and who's doing it? Well, it doesn't take that far to go back to the WHO on this

conversation. And under their watch, how have they proposed to educate our kids? Remember, the WHO is planning their international pandemic treaty, international health regulations. And this is under the sustainable development goals, SDGs under Agenda 2030. So everyone will be taught the same throughout the world. So let's look at some of their international sexual education guidance. So this is their kind of their book, their pamphlet, international technical guidance on sexuality education. It's by UNESCO and the WHO, hundreds of pages long, and you go in there and you look under, just for example, five to eight-year-olds. This is what they're proposing.

For five, as young as five, you're going to state that people show love and care for other people in different ways, including kissing, hugging, touching, and sometimes through sexual behaviors. So you'll say to a five-year-old that if you like somebody, you can show them, you know, love through sexual behaviors. Okay. Well, we go into Europe, and this is direct. published out of WHO's regional office in Europe.

And the title of this new document here is Standards for Sexuality Education in Europe. And this goes even further. So now we have that same breakdown of age groups, but a little younger, a lot younger. Zero to four. Enjoyment, this is we're going to be teaching, enjoyment and pleasure when touching one's own body,

early childhood masturbation, zero to four. Then you go into nine to 12 ages, acquire modern media, competence, mobile phone, internet, dealing with pornography. So you can look at that and say, well, they're going to teach them maybe how to stay away from that, that that's bad. But, you know, at age nine, do we really want a classroom of teachers that you're breaching the conversation about online pornography with kids? And how about the child and his family is doing a really good job of just keeping pornography off the internet out of their phones and suddenly you introduce,

don't go look at this. If that's even what's being. done the power of suggestion is we're seeing this increase in gender affirming care as soon as you introduce transgender discussions in school so these things really do seem to you know set the precedent yeah and you know what does that look like well here's a video out of europe to just show a window into possibly what this may be happening take a look sex is not only functional when you only kidses make we have also Also a little bit said that it's also it's also a good to do.

He got to discover how works your and how works my life? And you, you have you once on your pimble? Go you once on your pimble sit? And how do that? Oh yeah. And when do you that then? Do you that then as we're at eating?

No, no. Or in the class? No, not. No, why do you that? Why do you that not in the class? When can you now on your Pimel sit? It's your Paiskraine.

But that is not only youngers that can come, also maysies can come, but they have no seed-loat, because we have no zadges. But it is a pretty feel. And you have,

you have your vaguen't always bekeke, you have your scamlipper and your bina's the shamlip and there are two gauges, one on the plasses and one where the baby

out comes. But over the gaugies there's also a sort of a have you that at all has seen or not? No, I've never ever been so bestudied, but that's, that's, you know, your clitoris,

but as you there on sit, can that a very fine feel that it's a very fine feeling that it that it's pretty if you on that that you sit. And if you there,

then, that can you be able to have with your finger, you know, when we watch that, I mean, you can see that many different ways, personally, I think, most people would say I think parents should be handling a conversation that appears to be how

teachers in the Netherlands are being taught to potentially teach children. I want to talk about that video just for a second because I want to talk about some of the research that we do here. We weren't sure exactly where that was sourced. At first, the video said it was from the WHO. We couldn't prove that. We did track it to Rutgers. And Rutgers has since taken that video down saying it was misunderstood. One of the comments that they have online referencing Rutgers Foundation. We all want children to experience healthy and safe development appropriate to their age environment and the questions they have. This helps them to make responsible choices at a later age when they become sexually active.

I also want to say that I reached out to a friend of mine that lives in Holland to say, is this being accurately transcribed? They said that the word dick should have really been penis, but you know it is essentially exactly what's being said. there and they asked me, you know, what is this video about? It's like, well, we're going to talk about these discussions. Is it appropriate for young children? And my friend said, oh, yeah, that's a huge issue here in the Netherlands. We have this thing that's now called Purple Fridays in which they're bringing education

to our young children discussing gender and all sorts of curriculums that have had a lot of people in an outrage here. So clearly, this isn't just an issue in America. And we kind of think of that sort of liberal, some of the sort of some of the thing, Sometimes people call it forward-thinking the Netherlands, whatever you may think, they are finding themselves in the controversy around this. So that's just a little bit of a background that video. It has since been pulled.

Rutgers threatens anybody that decides to play it. I guess that means they're threatening us, but it was out there. It was thought to be an educational material at some time. Do with that, those are watching what you will. And there is a surge against the background of all of this. There is a surge all-time high of people homeschooling their children. I mean, obviously that's because of what happened during COVID with the mandates, but it's not separate. This isn't all in a vacuum.

So you can see a lot of people watching that video. You can see why they would maybe want to homeschool their kids. Or you can see these headlines or these guidelines by the WHO and UNESCO and what's coming into the school. So again, a completely polarizing and divisive conversation and topic. And the public really is, there's only really two sides. We're trying to bring some sense to a lot. of this conversation and even the medical community is starting to side with the fact that we really don't have the evidence for this. We kind of jump the gun is what they're really looking

like they're saying and we need to step back a little bit and really do the real research long term especially. Jeffrey one thank you this is a difficult topic but you've obviously brought the science and the evidence look through it. It's been very thorough and very enlightening and I really appreciate how you've handled. Thank you very much. Thanks for joining us today. Absolutely, you're welcome. I'll see you next week. You know, I want to remind you that many of the parents that stood up at school board meetings pushing back against some of these curriculums were, you know, listed as domestic terrorists or the thought was maybe Homeland Security should investigate these parents as domestic terrorists.

That's how polarized this conversation is. And it's amazing to me that the suggesting a teacher should be allowed to have some of these conversations with your child, but God forbid you have a conversation as an adult with those teachers on whether this is appropriate or not. That's not allowed, but the other thing is. Now, this conversation can be very one-sided. I mean, they can say, well, Del, you're a married man. You're obviously, you know, heterosexual.

What place do you have in this conversation? And I will admit, I think that we need to have a well-rounded perspective. And one of the questions I have is when we look at, you know, this entire, you know, beautiful blanket of the differentiations of humanity, in America and all the approaches to gender that are out there, whether you're gay or by or straight or lesbian or plus, whatever the other letters, I'm probably not getting this right. It's not a direct focus of mind. The question is, are the people that are in those communities agreeing with this education

of our children? At what age should that start? Well, I was a bit surprised to find out that there's actually a group that is speaking out about exactly that. It's called Gaze Against Groomers and the founder, Jamie Michelle, well, you may be seen her in news. Take a look at this. The controversial, Gays Against Groomers. The group Gays Against Groomers.

Gays Against Groomers. I love what they're doing. They're called Gaze Against Groomers. Says it all, doesn't it? These are gay people who do not like the trans agenda that seems to be taking over our culture. Jamie Mitchell is the founder of Gays Against Groomers. We are a group comprised solely. of gay people. We are part of the LGBT community. Our mission is twofold. It's to protect the children,

obviously, first and foremost, but also to reclaim our name. There's many more of us that are not on board with what's being done than those that are, but they are just the loudest because they're backed by every powerful institution in the country. We see ourselves in these kids. Stop trans and gay youth. Stop gay eraser. Save the tomboys. Stop the sexism. Stop. Stop using the LGBT community as a scapegoat for hurting children. Protect our kids. One thing that I love about it is we've got people from all walks of life, all sorts of different professions. We've got former military members and things like that who are chapter leaders.

And so we're definitely a very varied group. I want to be very clear that being anti-groomer and anti-child sexualization and mutilation is not anti-gay. It's not anti-LGB. LGBTQ. What is anti-LGBQ, though? Right. I mean, it shouldn't have to be set. We're trying to bring things back to just a place of sanity. And, you know, the red line has always been just leave kids alone. Whatever adults want to do fine, but, you know, they're children. They're innocent for such a short amount of time. And it's just devastating to see. And it's awful to see it happening in our name. It's my honor and pleasure to be joined now by the founder of Gay

Against Groomers, Jamie Michelle. Jamie, thank you for joining us today. Do we have, we can't hear you. Hold on a second. Did you meet yourself? Oh, I'm so sorry. There we go. I'm so sorry.

Happy to be here. Thank you for having me. It's good to have you. So you founded Gaze Against Groomers. Why? What is it? So I founded the organization back in June of 2020 to fight back against what's being done in our name to children.

You know, like this has kind of just become the overarching narrative that people assume all gays and lesbians and even trans people are on board with. And I had to, you know, I had many friends that felt the same. Every single gay person and trans people that I knew in my life, like in my personal life, we were all very much against this, but there was no unified, cohesive message being put out from us. So I saw the need for that and I felt like our voices from inside the community could have a very significant effect on the discourse and the direction that things are heading in because, you know, God bless all of you for speaking out against it, but straight people are instantly written off as hateful bigots, you know, transphobes, homophobes, all the fobs,

when they try and speak out against this, and obviously that's not true, but they have a harder time doing that to us, even though they do try. You know, you go to our Wikipedia page and it says we're an anti-LGB organization, even though everybody in the organization is LGBT or T themselves. So I don't think those attacks stick quite as well as they do with you guys, even though I think the majority of people do see that that's just a lie to try and silence people who are against what's being done to children, which it's shocking to me that I even had to create this organization. If you would have told me that this is where we'd be 10 years, less than 10 years after we got the right to marry, I would have thought you were absolutely insane.

You know, we never intended for this to happen. We couldn't foresee it coming. And maybe that's naivety on our part. But, yeah, we're in the arena now fighting back against it, and they don't like it too much, they being the people pushing this on kids. I mean, and those are, you know, people that I'm sure, you know, are you standing with that maybe you've been in marches with or, you know,

that so when you knew you were probably going to get pushed back for speaking out. There must have been a defining moment for you that sort of catalyzed, I need to do this, because it's a pretty bold step. What was it that really sort of, you know, pushed you over the edge into making this decision to start this group? Yeah, well, you know, myself like everyone else, that uses social media, was seeing the onslaught of videos and images just coming out of schools in the all-age drag shows and seeing children being transitioned. But I remember specifically the one turning point moment for me, which was like a day or two before I officially launched the social media accounts for Gays Against Broomers, was there was a drag show in Texas.

I want to say Dallas, I could be wrong, where there were these young children, like they couldn't have been more than five, six years old sitting in these chairs at a show, at a drag show with a bright neon sign behind them that said, it's not going to lick itself. And, you know, they were, the drag queen there was having these kids strut up and down the little runway they had, the little catwalk, whatever you want to call it. And I saw that, and my blood just started boiling. I'm being told we have the video, so let's take a look and see if it boils anyone else's blood. Here we go. If you can do it like we do it, I want you to come up here real quick.

If you think you can do it, if you think you can walk the runway with the girl, who wants to be a divo for the way? One, two, three. Let's go. That sign is quite, if it wasn't over the top, it's not gonna lick itself on the wall. It's hard to imagine a parent being there in that situation and not asking themselves, is this actually appropriate? And I think that that's part of the controversy here,

is that there appears to be parents that are going along with this and psychologists that are going along with this and thinking that this is a conversation that needs to be happening with all children. What are your thoughts on that? Oh yeah, it's incredibly disturbing that any parent would think that this is okay. Not just this, but, you know, the pornographic material in schools. And worst of all, in my opinion, the permanent sterilization and mutilation of their children's developing bodies. I cannot understand it. I think that, you know, I really think that these woke progressive moms think that this is how they're being inclusive and accepting of like our community. But it's really not. It's really,

really not. And I want them to hear that from us, from gay people and trans people as well that we have in gays against groomers. Like, we're good. We have. We have a lot. all the rights we ever wanted. You know, there is this radical sect within our community that wants supremacy over equality and wants to dominate and just destroy every aspect of society, as we've known it forever. But the majority of us really are not okay with what's happening, and we don't want to be represented this way. We don't want this. This isn't the way to show that you're accepting of LGBT people. It's really not. We believe that it's child abuse, putting children in these situations and doing these things to their bodies.

And, you know, child abuse is already illegal in the country. And I really think it's time that what's being done to kids in the name of this LGBTQIA plus agenda needs to be viewed in the same regard. There's, I want to play a video for you. This is a very famous one. I think one of the youngest publicly transitioned children jazz in a reality show that was on. Take a look at this. This needs to advance more because we're off-center.

This has to come down here. I mean, this is off-center. See, this is tilted. So that, in order to get this midline, we need to bring that down more, and that will centralize this. I think we're saying the same thing. I'm happy. I have a good sense of what we need to do. Let me just take a picture too.

Poor thing, you could be a porn star for all the photos are taken. John, I'm so sorry. I did not say that. I mean, there's so much. I mean, there's so much that's disturbing about that. First of all, this is a child who's having their penis removed and working towards getting a working or functioning vagina. And you have the doctor there joking about,

we're taking so many pictures of your privates. That's Marcy Bowers that, you know, you could be a porn star. She's trans herself, Marcy Bowers. And I just, you know, first of all, to be joking like that. And to me, the question is, you know, I guess is this sexuality, what is the difference between sex and gender? Could you help me with that because I'm confused about this in these situations? Do you have thoughts on that? Well, yeah, I mean, first, I just want to say Dr. Marcy Bowers belongs in prison for the rest of his life, for what he has done to countless, countless youth.

But yeah, the difference between sex and gender in reality is there is not a difference. The gender cult likes to say that sexuality is your sex. I mean, sex is like your basic chromosomes, right? Like X, Y, or X, X, X, X, X. And gender is somewhere in your head and your heart and completely not related. Reality is that they are the same thing. And you can't change your sex. you can't change your gender.

You know, adults that want to go through with the transition process, that's totally, we have no problem with what adults do as long as it's, you know, consensual and consenting and, you know, whatever. They don't push anything on anyone else. But the reality is that they can never become, like a man can never become a woman and vice versa. It's just, you know, medically and scientifically impossible. And gender ideology loves to play make-believe and for society to play along with it that somehow you can change your sex and you can't. So the whole basis of gender ideology is rooted in delusion and fantasy.

And I think it's really scary and dangerous that they are implanting these ideas, which are not based in reality, into young children's minds. As early as two years old, some of these books now are targeted towards literal babies. So yeah, it's just, it's scary stuff what's happening out there. I want to sort of just delve into what's even more sensitive space to get into, which is this, you know, if we're educating children, the argument is obviously, and we have to admit there's been abusive people that are not like us, that we don't understand, that are maybe you're gay or by, you know, throughout life and, you know, we all want everyone to feel safe living in this country. We also recognize that our children, they're going through, you know, really asking questions.

To me, a lot of this goes to this conversation, which is that, you know, they were born this way. And so that there's no, like, no matter what we teach your children, it's not going to change who they are or how they see it. If you're gay, then you know that as a child. If you're trans, you know there's a child, but the question ends up being when you look at these stats like California, where we start introducing conversations of transgender, and then we see this rise in transgender, it seems that there seems to be some idea that there's a socialization that can happen, at least around this gender conversation. I think it's safer for you to help me understand where is that line drawn? Does, is there any socialization that can affect how, you?

a child, you know, sees themselves either sexually or in their gender orientation? I think it's completely disingenuous to try and pretend like there isn't some sort of social contagion going on with the massive uprise in numbers of trans and non-binary and just gay identifying youth, the whole thing. Right now, Gen Z, I believe the number is somewhere around 28% of Gen Z identifies as somewhere within the rainbow. And that's completely unheard of. You know, if it weren't a social contagion, you would see this rising across all age demographics.

But really, it's, you know, it's really only the younger generation. And gen alpha, I guess that's the one that comes after Gen Z, the younger kids. You know, it's really targeting or being, they're being most affected in these results. And so, yeah, I think definitely it's a social contagion. Anyone saying that is not a thing is lying to themselves and everybody else. You know, you talked about the fact that giving gender blockers, which is a really, I think is the heart of this

is a couple of things. Introducing drugs that keep you go for, I mean, puberty blockers that keep you going through puberty, and then also the idea of allowing sex change operations in children. I mean, essentially, you know, the part of it that I question is no matter what your gender, or sexuality ends up being, you know, do you want to remove your ability to be stimulated or have,

you know, sexual experience because you were really getting in the way of that, potentially castrating these children, you described it as, you know, child abuse. In your thoughts, you know, is this something that government should get involved in? I mean, because here we are, the question, is we should all be free. And the work that I do discusses medical freedoms, a huge part of the work that I do, which is I think you should be allowed to decide whether you get injected with a vaccine or not. I'm not going to tell you what to do, but it should be your choice. In this, you know, idea, how is it that we say to parents, well, we want you to be free enough to make medical decisions for your child? Does the government come in here, you think and say, no,

we're not going to allow you to give these puberty blockers? Do you? You think that would be going too far for the government or not? I'm a small government person. You know, I believe in the government should have as little to do in people's lives as possible. We're lying there. Yeah. Yeah. Well, as I referenced earlier, child abuse, you know, there are laws against child abuse for a reason.

I mean, these children cannot take care of or look out for themselves. And so I don't think it's out of blind to restrict or ban these perceptions. procedures and drugs from being given to children because they are, I mean, it is child abuse. I truly believe it's child abuse. It's like the most egregious form of it, chemically castrating somebody, a child or amputating healthy body parts. I think it's one thing if it's like a life-saving procedure, like a medical issue. You know, obviously the government, you know, the parents should be able to provide that to their children and not have the government involved. But when it's something elective like this, that

you know, a child's life is not depending on. I think that that, you know, states do need to step up. And we would like to see federally, like federally ban these puberty blockers, which is a really nice way of saying chemical sterilization drugs. By the way, Lupron is like the most popular puberty blocker. And it's been commonly given to pedophiles, adult pedophiles, obviously, to chemically castrate them.

And, you know, the ACLU even came out and said that it was a barbaric practice to give pedophiles a Lupron because of the effects, the effects that it has on them. And these are being given to children, pre-teens. I mean, this is to block puberty, which is also not a thing. I mean, you can't just, it's not a pause button, really. Like, it doesn't work like that. There are lifelong medical side effects that come along with that, and one of them is chemical castration.

So no, I mean, gays against groomers, we have had a hand in getting 20 states to outlaw this gender affirming care. I use a lot of quotations because this is how they say it. I don't like using their language because it's not rooted in reality. I say child sterilization and mutilation. That's what we do at gays against groomers. We use that language. But we've had a hand in getting 20 states to outlaw it. So there's, I think, 22 now that have placed, that have either banned it or placed restrictions on it.

We have had a hand in all of them, but yeah, 20, with Ohio being most recent just yesterday, officially, that have banned it. So I think that's what needs to happen, 100%. I know, I really appreciate your time, and I know that we've got you, you know, needing to run out. I want to play one more video for you about bathrooms, this idea of bathrooms having, you know, was discussed earlier, the WHO, one of the problems is there's no safe space for women. Are we not going to protect it any longer? This is an altercation that happens over that issue. Take a look at this.

My daughter goes into those bathroom and no man needs to be in there. You understand me? You are a man. You are a man. You are a man. Start acting like a man. Act like a man. You're a man. You're a man.

You're a man. You're a man. What happened? What happened? Why? Why are you acting this way? I'm a man, so are you. No, I'm not.

Then what are you? I was born intersex, dude. I was born with both. Sir, you're going to have a problem if you keep going into women's bathrooms. Somebody's going to do something to you. I'm just telling you the truth. I mean this for years. You want to do something?

This is an ongoing conversation. More and more restaurants and places that I go, have these sort of gender neutral bathrooms. There's all sorts of things going on. I'll just say for me, you know, I have a young daughter. When you think just sending your child off to a bathroom, there used to be some sense that it would be safe. Is it safe? Do you feel like it's safe to have these bathrooms where, you know, all you have to do is say you're a woman and you get to go in there and be with everybody else?

Do you have a thought on that? No, of course. No, I think it's a huge problem and I think it's very dangerous, especially when it comes to locker rooms, you know, in gyms. men, full-grown men, that can just say, oh, I'm a woman. You know, they can look completely like a man. They can just say they're a woman and get right in. No, that's incredibly dangerous. And I don't understand why society is placing the feelings of men

over the well-being of women and children when it comes to this. You know, I think there are a lot of trans people that have no intention of harming anybody that just have to go to the bathroom. And I think in that scenario, you know, if there is a gender neutral space, that is what should, that is where they should go. But, yeah, I think it's very dangerous and very wrong for men to just use the women's room. I don't understand why people think it's okay and I certainly don't. Let me ask you one more question, because obviously, you know, you grew up, you went through school.

at what is there an age at which, you know, if we're going to, you know, you want everyone to feel okay about who they are. You don't want depression. I get where this confusion comes. And I get that the desire is to make sure that people feel accepted, even if their feelings and ideas may be different than someone else. Does your group, or do you think about at what point, is it in junior high or high school, should a child be allowed to express them? or have somewhere to go or have an understanding so that they can feel like they have a place in society when they start realizing I'm not like everyone else around me. I mean, how do we as a society protect and take care of that journey for those individuals?

No, I really appreciate that question. You know, I think there's a big difference between making, you know, teaching children, that you respect everybody the same, no matter who they are, what they like, what their family looks like. I think the extent of that kind of teaching should be that. And yeah, I mean, when kids start getting to the age

where they have boyfriends and girlfriends and are growing up and developing, I think that, yeah, it's, I think that it's important for kids to feel welcome and have a space. I just don't think that what we're seeing now in our education system resembles anything remotely appropriate. You know, right now in schools all across America and in libraries in schools all across America, there is straight up porn being given to these kids. And they're doing so. These books, you know, they say that they're LGBTQ plus books when, you know, we take great offense to that.

We don't want to be represented in this way. I've always said that they're using our community as, and as one of our members said in that testimony that we are being used as scapegoats to push this agenda onto kids. So, you know, I think we need to focus on getting that problem out of schools and getting things back to an appropriate, age-appropriate level. But no, I don't think the solution is to shun or make any child feel uncomfortable. It's just a matter of age-appropriateness and not pushing any of. ideas onto them that they're not ready for. Well, and what you're talking about, a child predator can be straight, they can be gay, they can be anything, that prays on children. Do you feel like, as you said, this scapegoat or this, that it's really giving cover to dangerous people for children

being allowed to get into teachers of teaching and being close to children? It used to be, I mean, there's websites to tell you if there's a child predator in your neighborhood or whatever, but if someone has that instinct, it seems to me it'd be a lot easier to now to get yourself close to children in this world because nobody's allowed to ask the right questions. Do you have a similar concern about that? Oh, a thousand percent. That is like our biggest concern. You know, it's these people, these disgusting people have opened the door wide open for petaf-actual pedophiles and child predators to walk right through. There's no safeguarding anymore of the most innocent and vulnerable people in society. It's terrifying. And yeah, that's a huge concern that we've, that I've had since day one.

You know, it really is opening the door for them and they must be incredibly happy right now to see what's happening. And, you know, that anybody that is against that and wants to protect children are being written off as the bad guys and being labeled terrorists and whatnot, which we have had our fair share of as well. I just want to give you an opportunity. I'm sure there's people watching now that would like to be involved to see the work that you're doing that would like to get involved. Do you have a resources page?

How do we follow the work that you're doing? You're involved in these important cases across the country. So just tell me a little bit about your resources and how we can track that. I really appreciate that. Well, if you would like to help our mission, we are completely independent. Like we have zero big donors. Everybody thinks that we're this, you know, because we are so loud and grew so quickly, they think that we're this multimillion dollar organization, we're not.

If you would like to help us in our mission and to learn more about what we do, you could just go to gaze against groomers.com. You can find helpful resources there as well. Everywhere you can follow us on social media, sign up for our newsletter to stay connected because we have been banned from 14 companies so far. That's probably, you know, going to keep growing. that list is going to keep growing. There you go.

Wow. Look at that. That's a fancy little graphic. I want that graphic, actually. We'll get it to you. No, but I appreciate that so much. And thank you for having me. But, yeah, I just encourage people to go to our site and keep up with what we're doing

and help us if you can because we have a long road ahead of us. You know, we're winning. I really am hopeful for the future. I think that we will eventually win this. I just hope it's sooner than later. Jamie, you're courageous. We love having people on our show that are not afraid to speak out and do something about the issues that they're concerned about. So keep up the good work and keep us posted.

If there's any changes or something that you're working on that you'd like to talk about in the future. Definitely. I'd love to come back. Thank you again for having me. All right. Take care. Well, what happens? I mean, how far does this go?

Where is, you know, too far? That's the question that we're, I think many people are grappling with it. As I said before, we want to make sure that people feel safe, that they feel protected. But, you know, is it possible that a convicted sex offender should be a protected class? I saw this video, and it blew my mind. Watch this. Can I say something? We have a code of ethics on this board, and Thomas Whitaker, Raven, Propha, is a sex offender, a repeat sex offender. and I have had bad experience with him. So I don't touch you up because we can't disclose people's personal business here, right?

And although that's public disclosure, like, we have no right to out anybody in this space. Okay, okay. I thought thinking of what you did. Like, that's just not okay at all. And I won't stand for that as a co-chair. We're not here to discover people's backgrounds. And actually, I'm glad that if that is the case that he's here, because sex offenders are another population that is most vulnerable that don't have housing.

Okay. People do change and people. She has touched me. He has touched me. So there's a meeting where he's at. You need to take this to the police then. Christina. I have.

This is not the forum. Christy, stop. As the co-chair, I'm telling you that you cannot talk like that in this meeting. I will not have that here. If anyone wants to talk like that, you will be muted and be removed from this meeting. Board member or public or not. This is about equity. And everyone, everyone deserves housing.

I don't care if they're a sex offender. I don't care if they're black. I don't care if they're a criminal. I don't care if they're coming out of jail. Desards housing. Okay. Okay, Sheney. We got you.

No, it's not okay. That's the point. And so when we talk about a code of ethics here at the CLC board, we will be respectful of all people. All inclusivity. Our code of excess is that this is an inclusive space and we are equitable to all. Now, you know, that conversation, let's be clear. This is a conversation on should this be a board member of what I gather is a group that runs homeless housing, right? It's not to decide whether this person should be allowed to have a house as being, you know, stated there.

It's, is this person appropriate to run the board and decide how this housing works for? I'm guessing there may be children and families and involved. And one of the people that is a part of this nominating committee is saying that this person has been, you know, has been arrested and convicted multiple times and has even assaulted me. And then she starts getting screamed at for bringing that up. apparently that is not allowed to be spoken about. We are not allowed to talk about the fact that this person has assaulted you. That is, that is a guess hate speech. I mean, that is not allowed to be a criteria of this board of directors. I'm, you know, I think that it speaks for itself. I don't want to go too far here. I just want to say if you like me sometimes feel like you were on

the crazy trade, I just want you to know you're not alone. I think we have work to do. I think that there is what's reasonable. I think that we all want to, you know, see a free country and see people allowed to express themselves. But what we're seeing now is what could very potentially be dangerous for our children, dangerous for their future, dangerous for the future of our species, our education system. And if we start seeing sex offenders being treated as a protected class, I think we're going to be in real, real trouble. We are on a slippery slope here. and how we get out, we're going to have to do it very carefully. We're going to have to do it kindly in a loving way.

But for those of you that are watching, I think we've proved today that we're not afraid to talk about these topics, especially what it has to do with our kids. And as I've said through this entire show, whether you disagree with me or do you think I should be harsher about it or whatever your perspective is, it should be on the table. It should be on the table in front of us. we should all be a part of these conversations. And if we feel like we can no longer express ourselves that we have to keep it quiet, we've got to whisper in restaurants, or we've got to whisper to our friends,

where we can't bring it up in school board meetings, or we're worried that we're going to be labeled as domestic terrorists, all of those thoughts, all of those notions are a sign that the freest country in the world is collapsing, that the dream of our forefathers is falling apart, that the idea of free speech, though that speech may hurt some people's feelings, it must always be free or you are not free. And we have seen through history, even Jewish people that have stood up for the rights of anti-Semitic people to speak their truth.

We've watched time and time again blacks and whites in this conversation. But here's the point. We've got to be able to have the conversation. We can't be afraid of the conversation. because we cannot find the balance if we're not all allowed onto the balance B. So please, let's start working towards having these conversations. Start in safe places with people it's easy to talk to and then work your way out so that we can start getting to a place where we can get to be leaders once again in the idea of communication, of inclusiveness, of reasonability, of standards, of laws,

of rules and how we all move amongst each other without hurting anybody. I believe children are being hurt. We need to do something about that. And for that reason, we're going to keep having these conversations. I want to thank you for joining us this week. It's been interesting. I'm sure next week will be too, and I'll see you there on the high wire.