The Highwire with Del Bigtree - EPISODE 362: THE BUSINESS OF SCIENCE

Episode Date: March 8, 2024

Anthony Fauci is Tackling Misinformation?!; Jefferey Jaxen Reports ON CDC Now Saying Treat COVID Like The Flu, Nine COVID Shots to Bring you Up-To-Date, the Failing Electric Vehicle Market, new Draconian Laws Carry Severe Penalties For ‘Hate’; Kentucky Senator Rand Paul Exposes the COVID Deception and the Business of Science in Stellar Interview with Del; ICAN Legal Update Exposes FDA Circus; Make Sure to Attend the Spring MAPS ConferenceBecome 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 I Can Decide.org and donate now. All right, everyone, we ready?

Yeah. Let's do this. Action. Good morning, good afternoon, good evening, wherever you are out there in the world. How about we all step out into the high wire? I was just thumbing through Webster's dictionary early this morning. And right there, we're, you know, underneath the definition, of the pot calling the kettle black, I found this video.

One of the things that to me is really troubling, and it relates to that question, is that we are living in an arena or an era of what I call the normalization of untruths. And the misinformation and disinformation that spreads around is stunning. I mean, to the point, Where if you normalize it and accept it, then truth has no value. And when truth has no value, science falls apart.

Because science is a process for getting to evidence, data, and truth. And if you take that away, then skepticism abounds. Who are you going to believe? You're going to believe a health official? No, because they said that this was going to happen. and that happened. So, you know, I hate to be giving lessons to audiences, but spare

me here. Is that if there's anything that you can really do to help your country and society is push back on this normalization of untruth, don't accept it as, well, that's the way things are. Because once we accept

that that's the way things are, the democracy is going to fall apart. This reminds me of those stories of people that kidnapped children and then return to help police officers try to find the culprit or an arson that watches the building burn that they just lit on fire, giving witness to the police officers on who they think actually did it. I mean, what an incredible statement he's making. Of course, we would all agree with every word coming from his mouth, except that what you're talking about is you, the misinformation king, the law. The law.

of all liars, Anthony Fauci. I mean, just look at what we now know. It's all over the press. Everyone in the world knows that you are full of it the whole time. We now know that social distancing, which was used as a scientific ploy supposedly to lock us down and destroy our economy. Now Fauci admits COVID social distancing was not based in science. Sort of just appeared. But you said you were the science, that questioning your decisions was questioning science, yet there was.

no science to be had. Pure and total misinformation. What about masks? The Cochrane Collaboration study shows that looking at all the studies worldwide, as they say, wearing masks the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of influenza-like illnesses compared to not wearing masks. Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of a laboratory confirmed influenza SARS-Govieti to compared to not wearing masks. That's true. We now know and have always known. that the gaps in the mask themselves are far bigger than the virus to spread through. And the list goes on and on.

How about the efficacy of the vaccine you said was perfectly safe and was going to stop it in its tracks? Vaccines never prevented the transmission of COVID. If you've been watching our show the whole time, you knew that. If you were listening to Tony Fauci, you believed you were protecting your neighbor. This is an incredible moment in history where one of the great liars talks about himself and I suppose those that are asleep in the audience thought, oh, he means all those other people that said Fauci was lying.

Well, hopefully you are sharing the truth with everyone you know. It's critical, as he said, that we all do our part to stop the misinformation. I have a huge show about this, And I have a bucket list moment coming up with an interview with Rand Paul, who's just written the book Deception about all the lies that came from Tony Fauci's mouth under oath on the stand. I'm really looking forward to this interview. But first, one of the great talents at uncovering the lies, it's time for the Jackson Report. It's really unbelievable.

I mean, it makes your skin crawl when you live. to that guy saying what he's saying, you know, unbelievable. Del, don't let anybody in this world tell you that we can't come together as a nation and find common ground. I didn't think I'd ever live to see the moment. There's Tony Fauci perfectly aligning with one of the key missions of the high wire to find untruths and to dig and go where the facts lead you. And he's saying, you need to call this out, you need to do this, call this out. Wait until he finds out that a lot of those untruths, really the big, damaging ones, We're coming from corporate media, the government agencies and his own mouth.

Yes. As we know how this works, they'll tell you something and they omit a lot of facts around that when they tell it to you. Then they move the goalposts, and then the gas light you and say, we never told you that. So something like that is happening right now. Go post move alert. This is the CDC. It just changed the isolation guidance for people that test positive for COVID. So the headline here out of the hill, CDC ending five day COVID isolation guidance. And then when you look in here, it says the new guidance aligns COVID recommendation with other respiratory viral illnesses, such as flu and RSV.

Well, you read between the lines there, and they are saying COVID is now the same as the flu. I didn't see the other headline that said the genetics of COVID change. It's now a completely different virus, and it's not as infectious or anything like that. Still the same virus. So I'm not sure what's going on there, but, you know, that used to be a conspiracy theory. That used to be something that was worthy of getting people banned. And here's you in 2020, four years ago now, talking about In case anybody didn't hear it then, here it is now.

All right. Multiple studies now across the world. Early antibody testing suggests COVID-19 infections in LA County greatly exceed documented cases. It goes on. USC and the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health on Monday released preliminary results from a collaborative scientific study that suggests infections from the new coronavirus

are far more widespread and the fatality of rates and the fatality rate much lower in LA County than previously thought. They're saying, look, we have done a study, a randomized study, and when we study the population, it looks like, yes, we're seeing those we've tested, but that looks like it's somewhere between, what was it, 28, what was the number there,

28 to 55 times more, that we're missing the number, and as that number, I've told you for weeks goes up, the death rate goes down, but they're not alone. Stanford has done a similar study, This is Stanford. L.A. County antibody tests suggest that coronavirus infections vastly exceed official counts. Study estimates a more than 50-fold increase in coronavirus infections compared to official cases, but experts have raised concerns about the reliability of antibody kits.

I mean, this is part of the conversation. And then here is the actual... We conclude that based on zero-prevalence sampling of a large regional population, the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in Santa Clara County was between 2.49% and 4.16% by early April. While this prevalence may be far smaller than the theoretical final size of the epidemic, it suggests that the number of infections

is 50 to 85-fold larger than the number of cases currently detected in Santa Clara County. We estimate about 100 deaths in the county. 100 deaths out of 48,000 to 81,000 infections corresponds to an infectious infection fatality rate of 0.12 to 0.2 percent. Very, very similar to great universities with different scientific bodies doing different testing

coming to the same conclusion. And then outside of the university system, we have a private group that decided to do some studies. This study shows that the number of confirmed cases under states actual infections during the rapid growth phase growth phase of a COVID-19 epidemic by a factor of as much as 50 to 100 times. Three totally different entities now approaching this, using computer models, real data, sampling sizes, all coming into this very, very similar result. Let's be honest, this really

does look like another average flu season, maybe a bad flu season. but destroying the economy of the world and certainly the nation we live in here, United States of America, but for those of you in Australia and Poland and the UK and all around the world that are coming to the same conclusion, let's wake up. It's really wild, you know. I know we were there. We were the ones reporting that. We were doing our due diligence, Jeffrey.

But when you look at what we're sitting in right now, when we get to reflect on statements that we made on camera, they'll never go away. You and I have got to live with the statements that we've made and to think all the way back in April of 2020, everyone in our audience knew that the death rate at that point, as those articles was saying, was about 0.2%. Remember, all the modeling was saying 3.5% death rate.

This is a killer. It's sweeping the earth. We were bold enough to point out that the science was actually showing about 0.2%. And the truth is, is when it was all said and done, Jeffrey, based on Johnny and Edie's and Martin Koldorf, they've all come to the conclusion that worldwide, even the places the hardest hit like Italy and Spain included, that the death rate ended up being about 0.3% overall. And this is how that breaks down by age group. 0 to 19 at a 0.0027% death rate, 2029.014. It goes on. Of course, the elderly over the age of 55 were driving the large part of this. But when we look back now, we had it dead on.

We were looking at the science. The science was true. And, of course, we lost our YouTube channel and Facebook channel, because after reading stats like that, I said, If you're healthy, if you're not in that high-risk group, we need to all go out and catch this cold. And they said, how could you say something so reckless? And the truth is, here we are full circle. And by the way, we were unable to eradicate this virus with natural immunity because too many people got a vaccine that cannot stop transmission,

if therefore made this virus endemic around the world. And when I talked to Rand Paul about his book, he's done an incredible job, really just investigating the pathology of that virus and what is actually going on with it. But amazing, Jeffrey. We had it right. And the misinformation, we were like labeled, you know, the misinformation machine. We had it right, Jeffrey. I want to thank you for all the incredible work you did back during those times. It's incredible.

Absolutely. And, yeah, these were before a lot of the influencers that we know today were jumping into the mix. But this is fact-based science, not just from one, you know, fringe journal. This was a lot of different data points. Think about how different the world would be if this conversation was allowed to breathe because it had facts, it had scientific evidence. We would have known that, well, let's give out vitamin D. Let's get people exercising.

Let's not lock people down. It would have been a whole, let's work on all these early treatments and not just wait around for the shot. Let me just let me just for just very quickly because I realize this people have just joined us, the flu at that moment when we were reporting on it was always said to have a death rate between 0.1 and as high as 0.5 percent, that that was a flu season and a bad flu season with 0.5. So to have a 0.3 percent be the total when we were saying this was just like a bad flu season, it fits right in the numbers, always did, always will. And so let's look at who was saying that because this was, again, a censorable offense.

if you did that around that time or for the last three years. Well, here's another headline in 2020 from Reuters. Like the flu, Trump's coronavirus messaging confuses public pandemic researchers say. Here's AARP, 12 things you can't post about the coronavirus on Facebook. You go into this article, this was early, 2021. Number six, COVID-19 is no more dangerous than the flu. There it is right there. And then interesting enough, check out number seven. The coronavirus is actually a bioweapon. Well, trust us. We tried to report that. And you can't say that on Facebook. because we lost her channel for that. That's true.

They're very accurate when they say that. You cannot say that on Facebook. Johns Hopkins University, a respectable organization. They're respectable university. No, COVID-19 is not the flu. Another ones, people are getting hammered by this with these headlines, basically beat down, trying not to talk about it. Do not bring this up.

But, you know, at least it was just in the headlines. It's not like Department of Homeland Security's Cyber Defense units were telling people not to report this, right? like SISA? Well, here's a video that we share. Check this out. All right. Everybody knows COVID is no worse than the flu. Statements like these often commit the fallacy of mob appeal by appealing to the emotions of a crowd for an idea to be accepted or rejected. Comparing a pandemic virus to a seasonal virus also commits the fallacy of weak analogy because the two viruses have telling differences.

Steve fails to share those differences, committing the fallacy of suppressed evidence. Finally, unless Steve is an infectious disease expert, he is also committing the fallacy of appeal to authority. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention website should be favored because they are a trustworthy source. Due to large government funding, Susan eventually tracks down a fact-based source that compares flu and COVID deaths during the same period. Meanwhile, Susan's uncle has been doing his own research.

He's encountered many so-called sources that contain disinformation. Take this fake news story, for example. It claims to cite an official source, the CDC, but it misrepresents the data. This video also uses emotional and sensational elements instead of a fact-based argument. Susan's uncle has made a common mistake. He's picking sources that confirm his opinions instead of presenting facts. Susan, however, has done fact-based research and replies to her uncle. It doesn't change his opinion.

You can't win every argument online, but But you can't protect yourself from disinformation. You can stop it from spreading too. Man, people, I really hope people do your job, man. Wake everybody up, you kids, so we never have to sit through baloney like that ever again. I can't take it. Like the condescending tone on anyone actually telling people

the truth, it's amazing. Notice at the end there, report, go ahead and report your family member. There's no historical precedent that that's a bad idea. Don't forget deep down, you are a Nazi. So, you know, we lived through a lot of unnecessary fear. And again, the media and the government promoted that knowing full well that they didn't need to before this vaccine came along. And so where are we at now? Well, along the lines of this ending the five-day isolation, CDC also made

another kind of announcement here. And it went unnoticed by a lot of people. Here it is, out of Reuters, U.S. CDC recommends older Americans should get another COVID shot this spring. okay, get you updated COVID shot, 65 and older, but it didn't pass the independent media. So this is what the independent journalists were reporting on. Here is a headline more accurate. Dose number nine, CDC panel green lights yet another COVID-MR&A shot. So now if you're 65 and older, you have to have nine shots to be up to date. And that is fact by CDC.

The CDC says they'll be recommending another one come fall. So that's going to be 10 for anybody counting, but they won't tell you it's 10. but that's 10. So that's where we're at with the COVID vaccine. You know, we've been reporting on people that have, you know, the mandates, obviously, and the people that have been injured by the vaccine, there's not much of a safety net for them. And there's finally some legislation that's in the mix. It's just starting now. These are just posted, but this is Congressman Chip Roy out of Texas. He just put forward HR 7551. And we look at this bill here, and it prohibits any federal law from making the manufacture of a COVID-19 vaccine immune from suit or liability.

Wow. Or limiting the liability of such a manufacturer with the respects to claims or loss caused by rising out of relating to or resulting from administration to the use of an individual COVID-19 vaccine for other purposes. So they're basically saying that you can sue them. People can sue the manufacturer directly, something for the COVID-19 vaccine. Something a lot of people are saying, why can't we just do this? This is shocking news still is to this day for a lot of people.

They don't know they can't do that. And so the Blaze Media actually reported on this, had a great article. This title of the Liability Act would end Pfizer-Moderno's free pass. And it has this really great sentence in there. It says anyone with a modicum of common sense would understand that the more product is favored with regulatory shortcuts and other benefits only government can provide. The more the products makers should be on the hook for liability if it causes damages. Seems like common sense, but now we have a bill that's maybe to those ends. Same in South Carolina.

It's taking a little bit of a different approach. There's a bill that's H4907. And this is, you look in the bill here and you read it. It says a bill to amend South Carolina code of laws by enacting consumer protection from indemnified products act. And what that's going to do is prohibit mandating indemnified products to consumers, which would result in certain losses. And as we know, indemnified products are all vaccines, COVID vaccines, all the vaccines

on the CDC schedule. Those are indemnified. you cannot personally sue. So this is a good move for people that. I love that move. I mean, that's actually, you know, really quite brilliant. Fine, give them liability to protection, but the moment you do, you erase the ability to mandate that product on anybody. You can't mandate a product that has no responsibility to it. The manufacturers aren't responsible. You can't give them this free market. You can't force everybody into their market and then say, sorry, after you've been injured, you're on your own because we've also protected that market and those individuals

and manufacturers from liability. That's really quite clever and smart. Be interested to see how that goes. Absolutely. That's very good politics, in my opinion. So what we've learned also through the last now four years of this pandemic response is that governments are using this, the things that were done to people, mandates,

forcing people to do things, keeping people inferior. They're learning, they've learned to do that, and they're using it with other areas of the world. We know the W.E.F. Klaus Schwab said, this is a great opportunity to usher in the fourth industrial revolution. And so that's, we're talking agenda 2030. We're talking net zero transition. You see a lot of the things like mandating electric cars, for example,

some of the points here to get to this net zero transition. And this is one of the headlines we reported on just a while back now, just in 2023, the EPA wants two-thirds of U.S. car sales to be a electric by 2032. So this is a ridiculous goal. And we reported on it as such because first of all, we have the rare earth minerals. China owns most of those. We have the technology is not there for these cars at this point. So to mandate an entire over a century of gasoline cars out of existence to make this switch just seems ridiculous. And a lot of people are saying, well, it's because they don't want people driving cars. They want you on public transportation and bikes. And so this is just

headlines over the past couple weeks. It seems like the electric car vehicles are really getting the idea here, and the EPA may be as well. Here's Mercedes. Mercedes-Benz delays electrification goal, beefs up combustion engine lineup. Then we go to Toyota. Toyota says it's not anti-EV, it's just being real. What that's going to do, they're keeping their diesels around in their global markets, and they're going to work on their EVs, but they're going to really focus on diesel and other approaches instead of just going all in on the EVs. And then Apple, a lot of people don't know this, but Apple was working on an electric vehicle for the last 10 years. That's over. Here's the headline. Apple cancels work on electric car report says they abandoned it, 10-year effort. They're taking all the

people that were working on that, moving them to artificial intelligence because they think that's going to be the future. Even Ford, Ford scales back electric truck production as EV demand slows. And so what is this forced the EPA to do? The EPA is now back down from that 2032 goal, that hard goal. And here's the headline right out of Reuters just recently. U.S. to soften tailpipe rules, slow EV transition through 2030. So they're going back to the drawing board on this draft, and it's currently in a draft mode. They're not really sure what they're going to do. But this is, you know, for everybody watching this and seeing how, you know, how ridiculous that aggressive shift must be, it's going to try to be. This is a good thing.

And why are they doing that? Besides all of the auto manufacturers, or most of them really slowing this transition down on their end and the manufacturing end, we see headlines like this. EV costs twice as much to ensure as fuel burning cars in the UK. You're seeing similar things in the U.S. as well. And then Consumer Reports, it says electric vehicles have almost 80% more problems than gas-powered ones, Consumer Report says. But overall, you know, this switch to electric vehicles is not going away.

This is going to probably be the future as gas-powered cars. I mean, at every point in the government regulations, they're trying to get these out aggressively. But we have China here. China owns most of the rights for the rare earth minerals. And so as the U.S. and other car companies are slumping with their production, China looks like is making a power move here. This is the headline, China to halt export of rare earth tech imperiling EV materials. So they're ramping up their electric vehicle production in China. They have the rare earth minerals and the technology to kind of synthesize these materials.

So they're halting export to all the manufacturers. So this is something to really pay attention to because if this transition does happen, is it going to be mostly imported vehicles from China because they're trying to just monopolize this entire industry. It's a very important power move going on. Wow. I mean, here's where we're, you know, looking at market forces, right? I mean, that's what we have to do.

I'm all about advancement. I've said it before. I don't have anything against the electric. car. In some circumstances, if you have solar panels on your house and things, I could see how this could make some sense. And as we try to figure out new ways forward in cleaning up air, water, you know, food supplies, all of these things should be in play. But it's when the government gets behind it and then forces this unnatural pressure upon something. Now all of a sudden you've got to start asking yourself, well, what about all the mining of all of these rare earth minerals? Because we're

basically turning lithium into a diamond mine or cobalt or whatever these things that they need for the batteries are. We just, you know, the government keeps throwing things out of balance. I think that you're seeing the people that are getting electric cars are getting them because the fuel efficiency makes sense on some level. But it's just, you know, really, when we just see this massive force, it just throws everything out of balance. And now, you know, you're affecting everybody, everything. So obviously, you know, in many ways we vote with our dollars and that's what we're seeing here. The dollars just are not lining up to vote for electric cars right now. And we're following this theme through all these stories of mandates, government mandates,

government trying to come in and control something that really shouldn't have this heavy-handed government response. And so this next segment is going to be about something we do just about every time here on this show is talk and express emotions. So this is something in Canada that's happening, but it's not just Canada, but we'll start with Canada. Draft Canada law would force social media companies to quickly remove harmful content is the headline. Then another one out of Canadian journalists, CBC, long-awaited online-in-harm's bill proposes higher sentences for spreading hate online. It says legislation would establish a five-member digital safety commission to enforce new rules.

So here we go. Great. More government bureaucracy, as if we didn't have enough. through COVID so especially up in Canada very interesting so let's just go to the bill and forget about the headlines now and let's see what the bill says so this is bill c63 it's in the canadian house of commons and it enacts what's called an online harms act it also amends the criminal code and the canadian humans right act so it's really making some big moves in Canada and you can go in there and actually defines hatred so you have a human emotion now that's trying to be legislated

and controlled by the government says hatred means the emotion that involves detestation or vilification and that is stronger than disdain or dislike. So, you know, instead of just trying to work. Got it. Got it. Understood. I know exactly where to bowl that one. Right. And, you know, instead of trying to just work through this with, with conversation, with open dialogue, the government's going to step in and say, we're going to tell you how to deal with that emotion. And so let's go further into this bill here. So it says an offense, motivated by hatred. So if someone does something and they find it's motivated by hatred, this is what it says. Everyone who commits an offense under this act or any other act of

parliament, if the commission of the offense is motivated by hatred based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, color, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression is guilty of an indictable offense and liable to imprisonment for life. The only other thing you get imprisonment for pretty much in Canada is murder, manslaughter. So they're gonna put that up there. If you say something, you know, you commit a hateful offense to somebody.

Imagine saying you're angry that you just found out your kindergartner was just shown images of transgender sex change operations. I mean, these are things we've seen in the Netherlands in England. I mean, imagine you say, wait a minute, I'm totally against that. Oh, you're being hateful?

Because if you are, guess who's going to jail? I mean, that's just one example that pops of my has like a million ways this could go south. Right. Well, it can go south a lot more, and we're going to get into that right now. So in that, it's an offense. So someone could say, well, yeah, if someone's committing a criminal act, an offense, then if, you know, if they're doing it in a hateful way, I don't know if anybody does a joyous offense,

but they're going to tack this on for possible life imprisonment. But then it has pre-crime in there, written in there. So this is the actual language. It says fear of hate propaganda offense or hate crime. And it says a person may, with the attorney general's consent, lay an information before a provincial court judge if the person fears on reasonable grounds that any person will commit and that goes on to say these hateful offenses. So if a person believes that someone may do something but hasn't done it yet, they can start a case. And then it goes on from there. And this is just a couple more things.

It allows someone to make a complaint of a discrimination anonymously. So you don't get to know who's accusing you. And if found legit, if that hateful complaint is found legit, a maximum of $20,000 goes to that person, you can imagine how that's going to be abused. And then $50,000 to go to the snitch, the snitch gets $20,000 for turning somebody in for potentially being hateful. Absolutely. And the Canadian government up to $50K.

So there's $70,000 that is on the line there for an anonymous, you know, whistleblower or snitch or whatever you want to call them. But, you know, more importantly, so we have. the individuals that will abuse the system on this. It's written right into their bill. You can see how this can happen. But you have a government there, namely a leader there, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who seems to throw around these words in situations that they do not apply. Namely, when the truckers were protesting, the vaccine mandates, the vaccine passports, you know, the ones that didn't stop transmission. This was the headline. Trudeau accuses Canada truckers of hate, abuse, and racism as he test positive for COVID after evacuation.

You go in this article, it says Canadian Prime Minister blasted a convoy of truckers protesting vaccine mandates as showing disrespect to science and championing hate, abuse, and racism hours after announcing he had tested positive for COVID-19. I mean, so much wrong with that right there, but you can see the lining up, I mean, it's already happening. So imagine if this C63 bill was already implemented and being used. If those wheels were greased, you have to wonder. Assembly and saying, I don't want that vaccine that just failed you, Prime Minister.

I don't believe it works. Well, that's now a hate crime because the Prime Minister that's now sick has decided that you're full of hate in being against the vaccine. It sure looked hateful, all those people dancing in the streets. I mean, it's really, you don't even have to use your imagination. This is really totally out of control. It's so dangerous. And I was just up in Canada speaking people up there. They're really terrified of the way that they were treated during that.

they shut down bank accounts, as we all now know. And now you have a bill coming out of that saying, not only do we feel like we're justified in the future, we want to throw you in jail for life if you ever attempt to speak out against the government again and anything we want, any product we want to force on you. And Trudeau used one of the most aggressive tools he had at the time of the Emergencies Act, which a court found he had no reasonable justification to do that. So imagine again if this, and this bill, this legislation is not a law yet.

people can fight this and a lot of people are fighting this out even outside of canada they're standing behind canadians in trying to fight this so that's good news one of the other issues we're seeing though is that there seems like a coordinated push across multiple nations with similar language when it comes to these bills that are coming across to fight online hate these nebulous words and so this is the hill reporting on what's going on in ireland so this says proposed irish hate speech regulations could have a chilling effect on freedom In this article, I mean, similar bill, it says, as per the tentative legislation, so it's not law yet, people with protected characteristics, which include intra-aliah, race, color, nationality,

are afforded new legal protections against physical and mentally inflicted harms in which offenders are motivated by hatred. Even more worrying, it says, is the bill's criminalizing of possession of ill-defined hateful material with a view to the material being communicated to the public or a section of the public. Despite Ireland's common law tradition of innocent until proven guilty, the legislation places the onus on the accused to prove he or she did not intend to distribute the hateful material in public. And then finally, this is the one that'll blow your mind. It finally goes on to say this. As such, Ireland's police force, Angarda Shahana, will have the authority under the

bill to raid the home of the possessor of such material, demand their password and seize their devices, failure to comply could resolve in a year-long prison sentence. I mean, these are, these are society destroying bills. We just reported just a couple of weeks ago, France is working on the bill to make it, you know, illegal to speak out against science, products, MRI technologies. We went through all of that. And folks, what you really have to look at here is, you know, this isn't just happening, you know, in some sort of like in the middle of Russia or North Korea. This is happening in essentially democratic nations or at least socialist nations, but all of these nations are going to the world economic form. They're going to these international

symposiums where these ideas are spoken about freely. And you've got to look at how many of the politicians that are in our government right now have been seen in Davos, celebrating these idea is that you'll own nothing and be happy. A new, you know, a great reset, a new world order that they'll slip up with when they talk about it. And then when you see the darlings, Macron, you know, and Trudeau now bringing laws that essentially are going to throw you in jail for speaking your mind. You know, you have to realize how close we must be here in the United States of America. that if our president, and Joe Biden is one of them that has been seen celebrating WEF and, you know, Obama, of course, was there.

And, you know, we've got to look at these politicians that were electing and ask ourselves, do they believe in this idea of governance at all? Have they made any statements? And clearly, clearly we have the president of the United States did lock us down, did say, you know, that you should have to get this vaccine or have your job taken away. did go to Facebook and YouTube and social media companies with our government and say, censor anything that's misinformation, which we now know is just information that the government doesn't want you to hear. So, and all that happened, all that, like, we lost our YouTube channel, Jeffrey, we lost our Facebook channel in the middle of this. We were censored, and as you pointed out, you know, all the way through your report here, we were right.

They were wrong. The liars were rewriting the history, right? So it's very, very scary stuff you're reporting on here. It's truly shocking and it is pounding on our door as we speak. Hopefully enough of us are going to wake up to make sure that these individuals never, ever get control of our government. Jeffrey, amazing reporting. Thank you. Absolutely. Thank you so much. you know it's uh it's it's really incredible and then all those people that are dreaming about laws to censor you will go like fouchy at the top of this you know program and say hey everybody you know what the big problem is it's misinformation being normalized boy you are absolutely right normalize normalize the point where people be arrested if they actually tell you the truth uh we don't stop telling you the truth and one of the

ways we do that is that we use the full force of the law. For those of you that may be new to what the high wire does, nearly half of all the proceeds that come in through donation go to funding all of our legal work. And we are suing the government all the time. Sometimes we're just filling out Freedom of Information Act requests, trying to figure out what's going on, or we're holding their feet to the fire saying, you're actually breaking your own laws and your own rules. And your own rules. How about false advertising? Aren't you going to stop that, especially when it comes to a product

that you said yourself wasn't properly tested? Well, that's exactly what this week's legal update is all about. Take a look at this. When the FDA authorized COVID-19 vaccines, part of the authorization provided that anybody who advertised or promoted the COVID-19 vaccine at that time had to say that it was, only emergency youth authorized. So when a product is only emergency youths authorized, you're not

allowed to say that it's safe and effective because it hasn't yet been shown as such. Nonetheless, state health departments around the country and various other actors violated that condition saying that the product was safe and effective in violation of the authorization by the FDA. These are safe and effective products. The vaccines are safe. I promise you, they are safe. They are safe and effective. On behalf of ICAM, we sent numerous letters to all of these actors, including the New York State Department of Health, other State Department of Health, when they violated that condition. And in fact, they did take down the improper advertisements that they were doing about the COVID-19 vaccine.

Problem was, everybody was doing it. In fact, even the CDC itself and the FDA started doing it. So we started writing letters to the FDA saying, hey, FDA, don't you think you should comport? with federal law and your own authorization and ensure that nobody's improperly advertising this product? Well, the FDA didn't act. So we separately filed a petition with the FDA saying, you know what, why don't you just repeal that provision that says you can't say it? Because you're not enforcing it anyway. And the FDA chose to not do either of those.

The FDA wants to have its cake and eat it too. It doesn't feel the need to enforce the provisions, but it also wants to give the appearance of caring about safety by keeping them in place. Its response to ICANN's two petitions reveal this for exactly what it is. Theater. Rest assured that ICANN will continue to expose this kind of hypocrisy and has no intention of letting this go. I didn't know whether you've recognized or not, but we're building a case against the regulatory agencies of America, especially those individuals in charge like Tony Fauci, like Peter Marks. And imagine should we ever get an attorney general

in the head of this nation and our nation's judicial system to begin pressing charges, guess who has a stack of things that the government has admitted to, that has a stack that will prove and they will never be able to say, well, we just didn't know better. Actually, you did. You were informed by the informed consent action network, and you responded or didn't respond, but certainly showed that you'd receive the documents.

All of this, I assure you, is going to be used one, day in what will probably be one of the most important cases in American history. We are continuing to sort of build that background because we can never allow this level of deceit to take place here in the United States of America. And for those that are watching internationally, you know as America goes, so goes the world. This is the fight of our lifetime. And it needs to be completed. And so for all of you that donate to ICANN know that you are a part of this historic mission, it will go down in history because we're going to make sure that we are the victors. And as we know, the victors do write the history. So I just want to say for all of you out

there right now, we have so many cases going on. There's so much work that we have going on that we need help. We need your funds because we've got them on the ropes. We now. We now. We now. have people waking up. We have more people than ever that are skeptical of the system. And we have more and more, you know, people in government that are starting to ask the right questions in front of Congress and the right questions in Senate. This is moving our direction. And we want them to have all the power of precedence that we are setting in courtrooms. Right now, multiple states are looking at different ways of restoring their religious exemptions. Some of them were directly involved with. But all of them are looking at.

looking at the legal win we had in Mississippi, where we won back the religious exemption for the first time in over three decades since the 1970s, I guess what was that, 50 years. They haven't had the religious exemption. And so these are the types of things that we can actually achieve, while your mainstream media that you're funding every day by paying your cable bill is trying to demoralize you, make you believe you have no power. Just forget about it. You're right. The elections are rigged, so don't even bother trying.

While they try to insult you and put you down and make you believe there's no hope, here on the highway we're proving otherwise. So if you are watching and funding your cable bill, but not funding those of us that are telling you the truth, that are actually fighting for you and your kids and setting precedents that could actually change the course of history, I want you to ask yourself right now, what are you actually doing? Don't you want to be a part of change? Don't you want to say that, hey, I actually supported that group because I saw that they were doing things nobody else was doing. That's what we'd love for you

to do today. For all of you that are sponsoring us, you have made all of this change possible. For those that you're watching right now, why do you make this your day? Just go to the top of the page on our website, click on Donate to I Can. That's our nonprofit, the informed consent action network. We're asking you to become a recurring donor because that way we know how much we can invest in future cases in FOIA requests and petitions. $24 a month would be awesome. But honestly, $1 month, seriously, all I'm asking is for you to take the trouble right now. I know you can afford the dollar. So are you really saying, oh, I'm just really too lazy, Dell, to get involved? week. I'll take a rain check on that. Good luck with everything you're doing. And if you don't end up

having enough money to fight for my rights, you know, that's just going to be what it's going to be. I mean, this is the types of attitude that I think that we're shifting. And if you want to believe there's hope in the world, doesn't that belief start with you? Don't you have to believe in yourself? Don't you have to prove to yourself that, hey, I signed up. I finally did it. So I bet you other people will. We're going to make it easy. Right now, just hold up that. cell phone, that's that square thing that you're staring at about 19 hours a day, type in the number 72022 and write in the word donate. And we will send you a link that will make this very easy for you. I want to thank all of you, honestly, that you really are making a difference in this world

that are donating right now. And for all of us joining today, welcome to the informed consent action network. I also want to say for those of you that have done very well in life, maybe you actually want to say, I'd like to hear about some of your bigger cases, and maybe you want to fund one yourself so that you can say to your grandchildren or leave a legacy behind and say, look, at this is what our family did. We actually funded this entire lawsuit. We can make that possible for you. All you have to do is if you want to make a large donation, a tax deductible donation, just go to info at Icandecide.org and give us your information, and we'll reach you. out and talk to you specifically about some of the great initiatives we're involved in right now.

All right. You know, we can really get upset. There's a lot of that's happened in the government. A lot of people seem to be asleep at the wheel. Many of them seem to be owned by globalist mentality that really don't care what's happening inside of our border. They're asleep at the wheel. but there have been some amazing heroes. And one of them, we have celebrated on this show all through COVID, that actually held that liar at the top of this show accountable and had him under oath and really put the pressure on him. Much of what we know to be true here on the high wire,

much of what we reported, much of the science was because this one politician stood alone, took it all on the chin literally being attacked by news agencies mercilessly for daring to ask about the origin of the coronavirus. Who is that guy? I know you remember him. This is what he looked like in the news. Joining us now is the sworn enemy of the bully bunch. The man himself is also a medical doctor, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul.

Here with Kentucky Senator Rand Paul. Thanks for coming out to Dr. Fauci's retirement party. Anthony Fauci came before my committee. He said absolutely he funded no gain of function research in China. He believes that it's okay to take animal viruses, make them into super viruses to infect humans, even if a pandemic should occur. He says, oh, the research is worth it. Viruses that in nature only infect animals were manipulated in the Wuhan lab to gain.

the function of infecting humans. This research matches indeed epitomizes the definition of gain of function research done entirely in Wuhan. This gain of function research has been funded by the NIH. The NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain of function research in the Wuhan Institute. I don't think inserting a bad virus spike protein that he got from the Wuhan Institute into the SARS virus is gain of function. That is not a minority because at least 200 scientists have signed a statement from the Cambridge Working Group saying that it is gain of function.

If the point that you are making is that the grant that was funded as a sub-award from EcoHealth to Wuhan created SARS-CoV-2, that's where you are getting. Let me finish. We don't know. Wait a minute. It did come to the lab, but all the evidence is pointing that it came from the lab, and there will be responsibility for those who funded the lab, including yourself. Did Dr. Fauci lie before your committee? Absolutely. I think probably the largest area

of misinformation is actually coming from the government regarding natural immunity. After hearing that millions of people in a study prove, show without a doubt that there's a great deal of immunity from getting it naturally, do you want to apologize to the 100 million Americans who suffered through COVID, survived, have immunity, and yet you want to hold them down and vaccinate them? Do you want to apologize for calling those people flat-earthers? This is an arrogance coupled with an authoritarianism that is unseemly and un-American. You should be ashamed of yourself and apologize to the American people for being dishonest about naturally acquired immunity. The question I ask is how many kids are dying and how many kids are going to the hospital

who have already had COVID? The answer, maybe zero, but you're not even giving us the data because you have so much wanted to protect everybody from all the data because we're not smart enough to look at the data. We need to quit the fear-moggering. We need to let people go back to school. Look, Europe's been in school for over a year. We still have schools in California in place where they're still not teaching the kids in person. It's a crime against these children. More children are dying from suicide than are dying from COVID. It isn't just a matter of taking something. that's ineffective, it's mandating a vaccine that threatens the health and well-being of these kids.

There's a study in Israel of thousands of patients, and yet you sit here and act as if you've never heard of myocarditis and you don't think it's an increased risk for young adolescent males, when all of the studies who isolate out people by age have found that, yes, there's an increased risk after taking your vaccine. You are the one responsible. You are the architect. You are the lead architect for the response from the government and now 800,000 people have died. Right. Do you think it's a winning success, what you've advocated for government? This is a desire by the majority party to control your life, to control your medical decision

making because they know better. Try persuasion instead of government cudgels. Try humility instead of arrogance. Try freedom instead of coercion. Most of all, try understanding that there's no more basic medical right than deciding what we inject into our bodies. No bureaucrat should be above the law. No bureaucrat should be allowed to deny information to Congress and no bureaucrat should be allowed to lie to Congress. All right. Well, the book is deception by Senator Rand Paul.

We've all watched these incredible interactions and it is my honor and pleasure. In fact, bucket list moment to be joined now. by Senator Rand Paul. Senator, thank you for taking the time to join us today. Well, great to be with you, Del. Thanks for happening. Absolutely. This book really is, it's terrifying in two different ways. I think that, first of all, it's a forensic investigation into this virus, what it actually was in a way that I haven't seen it described in any other place, but it's also a forensic investigation with what seems be absolutely, totally dysfunctional with the U.S. government and how we get to the bottom of a

problem and how bad this divide seems to be between two parties that cannot even come together to ask really reasonable questions during a very intense and tragic moment for all of us. So just getting into the details of it, at what point did you sort of start question? questioning the origin of the COVID virus. You know, I start almost any examination of government or government's response to something with a healthy degree of skepticism. But in the midst of this, so much was going on.

You know, I got COVID in March of 2020 at the very beginning. I didn't really get sick, but, you know, they accused me of trying to kill everyone, and I was to blame for the whole thing. And then they started spending money like there was no tomorrow. Then they started shutting the schools down. And so my initial sort of response was to recoil from what I thought wasn't a scientific approach to all the lockdowns. But I didn't really question the origin of where the virus came from at first.

In fact, I guess I was guilty of just sort of accepting their word. You know, there was an article in Lancet. Twenty-two scientists signed it. And I just read almost like reading the headline in the newspaper, and it said 22 scientists say it came from nature. And I remembered SARS from 2003. and that one they found that it was in civets, and then it came from bats, and the handlers had antibodies,

and the proof, and the chain was pretty strong for that coming from animals. And I just sort of accepted it for almost a year. And then I came across an article by Nicholas Wade. Nicholas Wade was a science writer for the New York Times. He was a card-carrying member of the establishment community, and yet he wrote this amazing article linking this to the lab, and nobody would publish it.

He ended up publishing it on Medium.com, It's about a 25, 30-page article, and this got me intrigued. And then I started seeing the emails. And this is probably the first time we've ever had government people covering something up and lying where we have them dead to rights in their own words once we discover the emails. There was about a year lag time. U.S. Right to Know was really good on this. And so were other groups going after these, you know, so was Michael Schellenberger and Tavy and all these others.

But as it came out, I had about a year delay. But then by 2021, I was fascinated with it, fascinated with the science pointing towards the lab. But then also I became fascinated with the idea that there was an enormous cover-up in our government because they knew if they had funded this, they would bear some responsibility for the pandemic. Now, some of your arguments very early on or some of, I think, your confusion, which we were having, was this attack on natural immunity. You were one of the first to get in fact. you didn't really even know it was only because your wife sort of prompts you into, you know, when you go back to D.C., you did have the sniffles, sniffles over the weekend, maybe you should

get a COVID test. That COVID test ends up taking, I think you say, like 10 days to come back in perfect sort of government official working order. But then all the media jumps all over you. How could you be walking around? How could you, you know, all of these things? But we were watching you constantly in front of the news say, you know, they're like, why aren't you wearing a mask or why aren't you, you know, being more carefully? Like, I've already caught it. You had this belief in natural immunity that we were really celebrating on our show. And what was crazy for us and must have been even more difficult for you, it was like all of science, as we've known it, disappeared as though there was never such a thing as immunity had ever existed

before and you were the first one pioneering your way out in this idea that maybe somehow you had immunity. What was that like as a doctor especially? Well, one, it was insulting because most of these 25-year-old reporters wearing three masks, goggles and earmuffs to protect themselves had never taken a science course. I mean, most of these people had never had even a science course in high school. So these were the people who are now the new experts. And Martin Koldorf, who's a Harvard professor of epidemiology. He had one of my favorite quotes on natural immunity. He says, well, we knew about it

since the time of the plague in Athens in 436 BC. We knew about it until 2020, at which time we forgot completely about natural immunity for three years, but the good news is we've rediscovered it again in 2023, and it's like the bizarre notion of, even look, vaccines are based on immunology. They're based on trying to emulate,

the natural response to a virus. All of the evidence showed immunity, even to 2002, 2003, those people have immunity 17 years later. Right. In the book, I recount a 103-year-old woman who had the Spanish flu in 1918 was still live in like 2020, she still had antibodies to the Spanish flu. And so it was this ignorance and these people saying, well, you don't know, you don't know how long it'll last.

And then the coup de gras, though, is when we discovered or something. somebody on the internet discovered Anthony Fauci from 2004 answering the woman who says, well, my daughter just had the flu and she was very sick, but should she get the flu vaccine? And he was like, absolutely not. She's been inoculated, you know, the natural inoculation and immunity is stronger than any vaccine. She's had the flu for 14 days. Should she get a flu shot? Well, no. If she got the flu for 14 days, she's as protected as anybody can be because the best vaccination is to get infected yourself. And she should not get it? If she really has the flu, if she really has the flu, she definitely doesn't need a flu vaccine.

If she really has the flu. She should not get it again. She doesn't need it because it's the best, it's the most potent vaccination is getting infected yourself. And that's when there used to be a semblance of truth telling until these people just became shills for big pharma. It's so dishonest, so blatantly dishonest. And I think they've lost there used to be at least some people in the middle of thought, Well, maybe these people are truth tellers. Now we completely distrust everything they tell us.

You say shills for pharma, why would they, you know, why would they not want to agree with natural immunity? Do you think was it all just so they could sell every single American a vaccine, whether they'd caught COVID or not, or is there some, there has to be an agenda when you watch this many people override common sense and like simple known science. principles. You know, I think there is an agenda, and I think a lot of them really were enthralled with MRNA technology, and they thought this is going to be the new thing. And they

really kind of in some way secretly loved the idea that they could experiment because so many people, you know, were there and so many people were frightened. But, you know, as far as, I think it was also about submission, I guess. I mean, this is something I learned. I was last week in California, and I didn't realize this. A guy came up to me and said, mom died 83 from COVID. He thinks from remdesivir. But anyway, she goes to the hospital with COVID and she's very, very sick and her oxygen levels low, but they wouldn't admit her to the hospital until she was vaccinated.

And it's like, that's what kind of moron thinks that you vaccinate somebody with the disease they have already while they're sick? In fact, the CDC used to say when they were a little more honest, and this is when they were recommending the vaccine, they said, if you've been sick, you shouldn't get the vaccine for three months until your immune system has normalized from having the naturally immune response. And this is a craziness because if you think that the myocarditis or the inflammation of the heart comes from too aggressive of a response to the vaccine, if you're sick and you get the vaccine, your incidence of an inflammatory syndrome like the myocarditis is much greater. In fact, I really

think it's malpractice at that point. I think it's malpractice to require this on anybody, but particularly to push it on children, but also then to do it without even taking into account whether someone's either had the disease or actively with the disease. I think it just beggars beliefs that these people are doing it. You do start to wonder, do they have an agenda? Why are they doing this? But the vaccine community for so long has been about submission. They discount anybody who challenges them and they believe that they're on the side of righteousness and anybody else should just be quiet. You know, they don't even accept that there should be a debate. And when there is no debate, there really is no freedom.

And so, you know, you can have a variety of opinions and we don't have to agree on everything, on every vaccine, but we should agree on the freedom to make our own decisions. I agree here, here, Senator Paul. And how do you, you know, you said, you know, it should be malpractice. On one hand, a lot of this book is really about just a real difficulty of communicating decent, simple ideas in politics. But as a doctor, how do you explain the amount of doctors that, for instance, are telling this person, we're not even going to let you in to treat you unless you get a vaccine while you're sick? How do we look at medicine?

I mean, it's one thing to complain about the kid with the earmuffs on that never took a science class, but your peers in medicine have been just as oblivious to known science and going ahead with, I guess, mandates coming down from heads of hospitals or CDC or FDA, but without questioning it at all. And as soon as you question it, you really come into some problems around how we're treating people. You know it's not about the science is when there's a girl who needs a kidney transplant or a heart transplant to survive. I think this was at Duke at my alma mater. They wouldn't take her, but they also wouldn't administer a test to see if she'd had COVID. Because the thing is, they don't care about the immunity. They don't care about this kid. They care about

submission. There's a rule and there's a law. My golly, you don't do it. You're going to die. You're the unwashed. You're the deplorable. You're going to die if you will not do what we tell you. But the thing is, if they were concerned about the science and they were concerned that this little girl is going to have a depressed immune system, we're worried about her getting COVID, why wouldn't you let her take a test to see if she's already had COVID, in which case, all of the studies now, every one of them show that the immunity you develop from the natural infection is two to three to four to five times better than the limited, not very long-lived immunity that you might get from the MRI vaccine. Which is proven true on every virus so far ever

dealt with by a vaccine. We've always known the natural immunity, whether or not you want to go through that process of that infection has incurred a longer lasting, more robust immunity. So this fell in line like every other situation we deal with. But let's get now to the to this forensic investigation that you've now done probably more thoroughly than anyone alive, and you certainly stared right into the eyes of one of the biggest liars we've ever seen longer than any of us. When we look at this virus, the biggest question we have to ask ourselves, and then you ask in the book, really about two-thirds the way for the book, is when you really ask the

question, and I think it's actually a scientist that does, how does that you ask you. did this virus learn to infect human beings? At the heart of this question is every other virus we've ever studied and we've gotten really good at this, we see the lineage, we see it jumping, we see it making attempts, we see half-hearted attempts by the virus infect and then it fails and then eventually gains its ability, gains its function in nature. As you point out, this thing comes out of the gate, perfectly able and designed to infect. human beings, and no one seems to question that. And isn't that the biggest question there is?

How's that possible? So the one thing that's universally true about animal viruses that break into the human kingdom, from the animal kingdom to the human kingdom, is they're clunky. They don't infect humans very well because they've evolved and adapted. Natural selection has selected for ones that infect that animal well. And so when they infect humans, they try it many times until they get lucky, and then they get a mutation where it can infect other humans. The best example of this is 2002, 2003.

When the first SARS virus came out, it had a 10% mortality rate, which is, you know, that's like 30 times worse than this, the current COVID-19 we had, but it only infected 8,000 people. Why? It just didn't infect humans very well. And when they went back into testing, they found that it infected civets well and also bats. So one of the cool things that I've discovered about COVID-19

is they borrowed Oracle's supercomputer, a scientist from Australia, and they wanted to see which animal that the virus would attach best to. So they tested it with humans and like dozens of other animals, and lo and behold, it didn't attach to any animals very well. It attached perfectly to humans.

This does not happen. It's almost proof positive that this was manipulated in the lab. And what you do in the lab is you actually speed up evolution and you direct evolution because you keep infecting mice, that have human lung markers. So it thinks it's infecting a human lung, and you do it over and over again.

You get the sickest mouse, and the one with the highest viral load, you take that out and you infect the mice again. And each time you pass it through the virus, you get the sickest and the most infected mouse, and you do it again, you're selecting for the worst, the most deadly, the most efficiently. And this is what the scientists found. Alina Chan from MIT, she said it looked pre-adapted,

and this was what convinced her. What really was sort of the smoking gun, though, is we discovered that the way the virus is genetically constructed is virtually identical to a research project from 2018 that had Dr. Barrett from UNC, Dr. She from Wuhan, and Dr. Peter Dezac from New York, they actually applied for money to create something that looks very suspiciously like COVID-19. They didn't get the money for it, But almost everybody believes now that Dr. Xi in China went ahead and did that project, created that virus, probably to create a vaccine, and probably it was an accident that it leaked out. But we have all of this evidence now, and yet it has been like pulling teeth to get a Democrat

anywhere in Congress to sign even a records release. And I tell these people all the time, look, I'm a Republican, but if a Democrat comes to me ever and ask me if I'm the chairman of a committee to sign a records release, I will never turn them down. I can't imagine ever turning down a records release from our government. And yet, I have had to use blocking nominations, blocking legislation, tying things up in order to get them to finally sign letters. And lo and behold, even when I finally got a Democrat to sign letters to get COVID records, the Biden administration won't give it to me.

It's not even classified, but they won't give us the records. It's really, it's shocking, and your book describes it so well. I really hope everyone in our audience reads it, because it has you screaming at the walls because it's something so serious. This is so serious. What we're talking about is a man-made virus. And as you point out, one of those attributes is very specific to the Barrick study that DASAC had submitted for and wanted to do was inserting this barren cleavage site, right? is not naturally appearing in any other coronavirus, I think, as we know it, right? This is something that's sort of added in, and it's done. We know it's done in labs. It was a part of what this study would have done, and it makes this virus really good at going at human beings. And so the question, and what is so shocking, that Washington Post, New York Times,

all of these newspapers that have been attacking you this entire time, where the same one's fear mongering everybody that this is the worst virus we've ever seen in warrants destroying our economy, destroying our right to assemble, destroying jobs without due process or being able to fight to say, I think I'm an essential human being and my business should stay open. All these newspapers attacking you. But now when we look at this, we see a virus that is circulating the planet, probably responsible for millions and millions of deaths. and it's advanced by hundreds, if not thousands of years evolutionally in a lab funded by Tony Fauci

to add this thing that may never be in nature. I mean, we now have a circulating coronavirus that wasn't here before this happened. And one of the things I learned about this is that the debate over gain of function didn't begin with this. This is at least a 10 to 15 year long debate. There are scientists on both sides. One of the most vocal scientists is Richard Ebright from Rutgers. He has 175 peer-reviewed papers. He's been the editor of the journal, I think, of molecular pathology.

He's esteemed in his field, but he's been fighting with Anthony Fauci for 15 years. Because when they discovered that they could create the Spanish flu again, when they discovered they could take the avian flu, which normally doesn't attack humans very well, but it's deadly when it does, and they made it more transmissible to mammals, there was this huge debate over, should we keep doing this? And one of the most alarming quotes, which really tells you who Anthony Fauci is, is in 2010, 2012, he was asked about this, and he says, well, you know, there are some risks. We could get a pandemic, could occur from these experiments, but the knowledge is worth the risk.

And, you know, that to me is just, it turns out to be one of the worst judgments probably of any public official ever, at least in my lifetime. And he still doesn't regret it. He still hasn't gotten it. And the media still cover for him. I mean, some foundation gave him a million-dollar prize. He still lauded and feated by the liberal left as if he were some great savior. But he funded the research that I think led to maybe as many as 15 million people dying worldwide.

It's really incredible. And beyond funding that research and beyond lying about it, when we look at the scientists, you know, that we're looking at, looking at Anderson, these guys that originally, the very beginning, we've seen their emails now, say, hey, man, I don't know how you explain this inside of nature, really, saying things like, I'm 90, 10, I'm 70, 30, depending on which one of these scientists, all the best in their field. Tony Fauci gets a hold, and then we see him reach out, and then suddenly they all fall in lockstep and change their tune and say, definitely natural, and beyond that, beyond lying about it,

then basically say anyone that says otherwise is a conspiracy theorist. They label you and reporters like me. And basically now we're under attack for pointing out all the obvious issues. But here's the point. Tony Fauci made all these statements on the stand. He's under oath. Is he not? Number one, he created it.

That should be a crime unto itself, especially if it was illegal. We still are not quite sure what the legalities of that gain of function are. but then you cover it up, and then you go even a step further to basically get people to lie about it. We send a fake group of people to go and do the investigation that we're all involved with EcoHealth Alliance, so they were a part of their own cover-up. You know, I don't know a lot about how the government works, but how is it not treasonous that an American diplomat, a politician, went out of the way to cover up a problem inside of a Chinese laboratory

that, as you pointed out, is responsible for more deaths than just about, I think, than any bio weapon that we've ever imagined being released on the world. Without question, it's a felony to lie to Congress. And I reminded him that he was under oath and that it was a felony to lie to Congress. And he wagged his finger at me and the American people and said, we never, ever funded gain of function research. But we now have an email from February 1st, 2020, where he says, the virus looks manipulated, we're very suspicious. We know they do gain of function research there. He lists a research topic that was going on in that lab,

which just turns out to be one that he had been funding. So he's essentially admitted that gain of function research was going on that we had funded it. That's what he's saying in private. But in publicly saying the opposite, all of the other scientists, Christian Anderson and the others, are saying in private, like you say, 90% chance it came from the lab or 50-50,

or 6040. They're still saying this privately for weeks on into February and March while they're publishing articles saying the opposite. Coincidentally, Christian Anderson gets an eight or a nine million dollar grant that's signed by Anthony Fauci in April that year. So there is money. And the money changing hands here, you know, they like to say that they're defending science and science would be damaged if people thought it came from the lab. They're defending the business of science. These are not high-minded people who just want to cure cancer or, you know, controlled disease. These are people getting paid billions of dollars. And I think, you know, Robert Kennedy has probably recounted this better than anybody else,

the connection to bioweapons trade and the fact that after 9-11, we put so much money into this. The military industrial complex became consumed with this, and a lot of the money gravitated to Anthony Fauci. I've actually compared him to her, Jay, or Hoover, because there are ten years. is about the same and their abuse of power is very similar. And it's the abuse of power, I think, that can go to anybody that has a fiefdom or an area where they completely control with absolute control. At one point in time, there's a committee that wants to control gain of function. I think it's a background 2010, 2012.

Anthony Fauci fires them all. They call it the Saturday Night Massacre. He takes a full-fledged scientific committee. You know, they're all about the science. He fires them all because they've wanted to put them all. because they've wanted to put controls in place on gain and function research. This is the kind of dictatorial power that he's had and has been so damaging. But it's also an argument for controlling power,

not letting too much power gravitate centrally to anyone individual, make sure they're not in that position very long. So one of the legislation that I put forward is to divide Anthony Fauci's position into three different positions, have them approved by the Senate, and have all three positions term limited. Are you seeing people wake up inside of our government? I mean, from our vantage point throughout COVID, it looked like you were all alone. Senator Ron Johnson, obviously, he's done some good work. Now we're seeing Massey, Jim Jordan, starting to ask what appear to be the right questions.

Is this a sign that, I mean, is at least a Republican Party waking up to some really terrifying shenanigans? And by the way, we still have universities bragging that they've just made a, a virus that, you know, I think a COVID virus that kills every mouse it touches. So this type of gain of function is still going on. And we're, you know, the world is hanging in the balance. Can we look to the American government to work this out? I think that we need to be aware and see some of the glass half full here. So for example, the one thing we did do is the first time we've ever removed a vaccine mandate, we removed the vaccine mandate on the military. And I I still have soldiers come up to me all over the country who come up and say, look, I was in 16 years or I was 19 years, and I just felt so strongly I was going to lose my pension and lose my 20-year career by leaving.

And they were able to stay, many of them, because they were still appealing their removal when we finally got the law change. So that has changed. There is more skepticism. There are more voices on the Internet. All these voices have come alive. And as much as we want to complain about censorship from big tech and everything, there's. There's still more voices. Look, your voice, and you wouldn't have this show in the 1970s.

So there is more, there are more voices out there. We shouldn't give up and say, oh, we've got to have some kind of government body, you know, censor to make sure we get our opinion heard. We are being heard. And now it's about persuasion and winning the debate. But I think there's more skepticism right now, particularly because they've overreached. And I'm actually one who's willing to debate whether or not if you're 70-year-old, you should either get it or get a booster.

I'm sort of in between on that. But I think it's malpractice to give it to a six-month-old. It's malpractice to give it to a 25-year-old healthy. And if you've already had COVID once or twice, the honest truth is you don't need it. It's probably not going to work very well. But the debate is really about choice. It's about whether or not you get to make this choice versus a government.

And the great irony or hypocrisy is that the people who are all enamored of my body, my choice, don't seem to give a crap about whether you have a choice on a vaccine. They think it's a completely different issue. And this is really kind of disappointing that those people can't at least be consistently for choice if they are for choice. Is this over? Is Fauci off the hook or do you still believe there's a chance that at some point he'll be indicted for all these lies and essentially at least perjury that he's committed, if not really have to be held responsible for the lives that were lost because of this? But how much, how many lives were lost because of the cover up? Or how about the amount of lives that were destroyed and education destroyed, forcing people to socially distance and lock themselves at home?

And now he says, oh, actually that just popped up was never based on science. I mean, I think many of us, I know there's got to be a weight of the world on your shoulders because we're like, come on, Rand, you got to get this guy. Are you going to get this guy? The one thing we know that's not over is you're still paying him. A limo picks him up every day and he has a security detail 24-7, which is completely ridiculous and he gets up in front of the committee

and whines about death threats. And then he blames it on me. He says somehow I'm responsible for the death threats. The week he blamed that on me, I had 34 death threats and you don't hear me whining about it. I don't like it. But the thing is,

is they want to make it about, oh, it's only people from the left that are getting death threats. No, I get my share of them. I've had people who have actually gone to prison for threatening me. And the disappointing thing is he's still on the take, basically.

A limo driver picks him up every day at his at his home, takes him wherever he wants to go. Will he get justice? You know, this, this department of justice won't. Would the next one maybe? The main reason I wanna pursue it is, you know, I think he deserves to be in prison,

but more than that, I don't want this to happen again. I'm with several of these scientists who believe that the next time is going to be worse. Yeah. And that it may be sooner than we think. And that instead of, you know, COVID as bad as it was, was 0.3% deadly. That was about a million people in America.

What if we get one that's 20% deadly? What if we get one that's 50% deadly? This is what happened when you had the bubonic plague and the black death of the 14th century. Europe was put back several centuries, and you had marauding bands of people just killing each other and taking their food. Nobody was growing any food.

It was just it descended into utter chaos. Think what happens in our country when you don't have chlorinated water, when you don't have sewage, when the accidents don't get removed from the road, when there is no government left, when half the police die, when half the firefighters die, we will descend into chaos, and this is going to happen again if we don't do something about it. So my biggest project right now is a gain of function reform bill. I'm talking actively with the Democrat chairman of my committee.

I'm very hopeful we can get it done. We're talking to all these scientists. And basically it'll be a committee. And you know, you have somebody has to appoint it. So it's probably going to be presidentially appointed. They'll have a term of office. They'll be approved by the Senate. But then their mandate will be not to wait for research to be sent to them, but to look at all research.

And each person asking for money is going to have to also volunteer whether they think there's a possibility there'll be gain of function. But we're going to actively look at all of this research. And it won't be me because I think people don't want politicians deciding what is and what isn't science. These will be scientists that will look at it, but we hope we can get scientists who are skeptical and worried enough about it. You know, one of the scientists from MIT says this is like nuclear weapons. You know, this should be treated with the same degree of respect that we look at arms control, that we should be worried about this enough that people are looking at these different viruses and saying this is an atomic weapon that could get loose.

Should we really do this experiment? Should we try to make Ebola spread through the air just to see if we can? But that's the kind of lunacy they're doing now, and I'm not going to rest until we actually get some oversight on that. Senator Paul, I want to thank you for all the incredible work. Thank you for putting your effort in this amazing book. You are a true hero in America. I just wish there's more politicians like you that will stand in the heat, stand for what's right, and really we owe you a debt of gratitude as humanity for continuing this work to stop the gain of function work.

that is truly one of the terrifying developments in the modern age. So best of luck to you. We're going to push this book as hard as we can, and I look forward to speaking to some days soon. Take care. Thanks, Al. All right. You know, folks, when you have somebody that goes out of their way

while fighting for you in America, fighting for the truth when everyone in media is against them, can you do them a favor and make this the biggest book on the New York Times' bestseller list, so New York Time can have to chew on that a little bit after having lied to us. Really, this is a book you should own. It spent late hours preparing for the show because it is incredibly riveting, things that I didn't even really realize about this virus

and what was going on inside of Washington, D.C. Again, a shout out to Senator Paul for that great work that we watched them do for years. Much work that we all have to do to try and stop this insanity from ever happening. happening again. Here on the high wire, if you've noticed, we do keep getting to have our bucket list. I get to meet some of the greatest minds and talent around the world. Doctors, politicians right here, and we were covering it when nobody else would. They were right here on the high wire, and that's why so many great leaders, people, scientists are reaching out to us now. Good morning, good afternoon, good evening, wherever you are out there in this beautiful,

It's time to step out onto the high wire. It's time to step out on the highway. It's time to step out onto the high wire. It is time to step out on the high wire. The Highwire, an award-winning weekly health news and talk show dedicated to delivering you the truth on the hottest topics vital to your health. I appreciate your segment for digging deep, looking at the data, what is real. Emmy Award-winning host, Del Bigtree brings you the latest science and evidence, putting the power of factual information in your. Here's the evidence, here's the science.

Dell, thank you for your bravery and your team's bravery. Thank you for all you've done. It's brave, bold, trusted news. The Highwire with Del Bigtree. The scientific method died here, and this is the point I want to make. It died a death here, and I need you to help me save it. Thursdays at 1 p.m. at the highwire.com. We're fighting for those who cannot fight for themselves.

That is what the truth is all about. That is what being alive is all about. And that's what the Highwire is about. what the high wire is about. I'll see you next week. Get it all at the highwire.com. So I just want to be clear you can get deception at the highwire.com. Just go to our store and we have copies available immediately. I really can't recommend it enough. It's actually a page turner. It was really hard to put down as he laid out all the details, a lot of which we've covered, but some things I even learned while reading the book. But one of the

things that strikes me as I really think about this story is, you know, you see the emails of world-renowned scientists that are saying to Tony Fauci and Francis Collins, look, there is a fern cleavid site that has clearly been added. There's just, there's no way to logically imagine that this happens in nature, especially not without seeing the pattern of as, as as Rand Paul so clearly put out, you see the attempts of these viruses through time trying to make an adjustment. It doesn't exist. These scientists were saying things like, I'm 90-10 that this was really of lab origin. I'm 60-40. And then all of those scientists that were saying exactly that, saying it's just hard to imagine any other way than lab origin, especially since it comes from,

you know, as John Stewart said, like literally from the factory named after the virus itself. And here's what I want to say. Those scientists, those scientists then made a decision to write a fake paper, a fake study, a fake rebuke of any scientists that was questioning natural origin. They all turned on science itself and wrote a lie to the world that ended up not just being a lie, not going against everything they knew to be true as they stared at this Ferran-Cleavage site insert, but also became the paper by which all of media and reporters would lambased and attack any scientists pointing out the truth. These are the worst types of humans we have ever read about in history. We know our history books.

We know what type of person does this. Goes against what they know to be true to lie to the world and then allow that world to attack the people that know the truth. I want to make sure we never forget who these people are that were involved in this incredible deceit because whether or not they go to jail, their names really should live in infamy. So here they are, Jeremy Farrar, Christian Anderson,

Tony Fauci, Peter Dazzak, Francis Collins, Andrew Rimbaud, Edward Holmes, Robert Gary, and Ian Lipkin. You went out of your way to disheaval. destroy the idea of science. You are heretics in your own right as you call yourself scientists. You use the word science and then lied to the world about what you knew. And then that lie was used to attack and destroy the careers of those who were honest, who were true, who believed in science and knew the science.

may you never be forgotten for what you did to science. I mean it. It's really, really distasteful. And I could go off on all the reporters, the New York Times and the Washington Post, and all those newspapers that pushed this malarkey and attack people like me and others and scientists and Pierre Corrie's and Robert Malones and everyone bringing the truth. You now know who you are. you never ever get to stand on some moral high ground and talk down to people like me and talk about misinformation.

Because as it was stated at the top of this show, what Tony Fauci said is true. We all need to do our due diligence to make sure that misinformation is not normalized, not normalized by all the leaders of news that were involved in it. Every one of you, every single one of your networks lied to us. Every one of your papers lied to us. You never, ever, ever get to claim a moral high ground again. We have not forgotten and we will never forget. And Senator Rand Paul, thank you for your courage. It was not easy.

Some of those reporters even laughed at the fact that he was attacked in his front yard by a lunatic neighbor and broke his ribs and punctured a lung, which made him really worried about getting COVID. All that story is in here. You know, do what's right. Order this book for your friends. Make sure we never forget what happened here. All right. So look, I just want to give a quick call out to a really important conference that's going on. So many out of you that are now watching our scientists, our doctors, are recognizing that you've been lied to, and the deceit from the CDC and the FDA and everything you knew to be true was a lie. And now you're saying, I got to know how to help these people. I have to know how to help the people that are injured,

whether they're children or adults that were injured by the COVID vaccine. Well, that's what a MAPS doctor is, a medical academy of pediatric special needs. The MAPS is having its conference coming up. And here it is. Just go to www.medmaps.org to be a part of this conference. It's March 14th through 16th, 2024. Folks, this is the future of medicine. They have injured so many people that you know the business is there. They need your help. This is where you want to meet all of those brilliant scientists that not only are dealing with COVID, but have been dealing with all of the injuries from vaccines for many, many years. So if you are a medical practitioner, check out that Maps conference. It's going to be really fantastic and very important for so many people that are now lined up

in a court system that won't hear them, that listen to their government, did what was right, and now they're paying the price. We are on the side of science here. I am proud of the work that my team, this incredible team that's dedicated to making this show happen, my team of scientists around the world, Jeffrey Jackson, of course, that have made sure that what we said on this show could stand up in the test of time. I don't think there's another show out there in the world that was as accurate as we were, as early as we were, giving you percentages that are microns away from what it ended up being in the end all the way back in April. I hope you will fund this work that we're doing because it's incredible and it involves so many people you don't

even see here. I can't take all the credit, but the credit goes to the informed consent action network. And for all of you that are donating to our work, you are a part of our network. you are making sure that the truth always prevails. So please, becoming a recurring donor if you aren't already. And continue to watch this incredible work. We get it right because we work hard at being right. Every moment, all the way to the last minute of every one of these show, we have a team across the world that is vetting our stories

and making sure that somehow we haven't seen this the wrong way. And we're really proud of it. the work we are doing. I'm really proud of all of you that have shared this show and made it the hit that it is. I look forward to celebrating more people like Senator Rand Paul next week on the highwire.