The Highwire with Del Bigtree - EPISODE 366: REALITY BITES

Episode Date: April 5, 2024

Bill Maher Goes Scorched Earth on COVID Apologists; Jefferey Jaxen Reports on The Florida Ban on Social Media for Minors 14 and younger, Was The Key Bridge Collision and Collapse a Cyber Attack?, and is ‘Harry Potter’ Author J.K. Rowling Headed to Jail For Hate Speech?; Is Canada Going to Make Natural Products and Supplements Illegal?Become 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?

Action. Good morning, good afternoon, good evening. Wherever you are out there in the world, it's time to step out onto the high wire. You know, I was just sitting backstage thinking how I say that at the top of every show, but I really, really think about what that means. We're an international show, millions of people watching around the world. Right now, someone's crawled out of bed at about 4 a.m. in Australia to watch the high wire. They do this every single Thursday.

Someone in Isir, by John, is staying up. It's about 10 p.m. hanging on for those last words to get their fix with a high wire. Why? I mean, why are they doing it? Why are we becoming this sensation around the world? Maybe because we have such an amazing track record of getting the story right when everyone else got it wrong. Well, we like to say every once in a while I told you so. It doesn't make us happy because a lot of lives have been lost and destroyed because of what we got right.

But this week and I told you so came from a unique place, from a very liberal space known as Bill Maher. On the Bill Maher Real Time with Bill Maher show, take a look at what he said just this week. I get it that we didn't know exactly what was happening at the beginning of COVID. and some mistakes were inevitable. But four years on, I'm tired of hearing, well, we didn't know. No, we didn't. But some people guessed better than others. And the people who got it wrong don't seem to want to acknowledge that now.

Some people said closing schools for so long was pointless and would cause much worse collateral damage to the kids, and they were right. Well, we're going to break down some of what he said. Of course, right there he's talking about closing down the schools. It's now March of 2024, and finally, Bill Maher is coming out and telling everyone that watch this show, we've got to admit it, okay? We were wrong on a few things like shutting down schools. So we thought it'd be fun to look back at when was the first time we said we thought it was a really bad idea to shut down schools? Take a look at this.

It's absolutely crazy. I try to imagine what it would be like if I was a kid back when I was in school, everybody. got the cold, right? I mean, this is essentially what's happening. This is a widespread cold. It's really problematic for 0.26% that die around the world, but we know it's not really problematic at all for children. Can you imagine if we had been quarantining all these years every time someone had a cold in school, you would never be in school, you would never be back to school. And to think we've been lending kids walk through the school that are HIV positive or have all We passed laws to make sure that we didn't act too crazy around people that had, you know,

life-threatening illnesses like that that were in school. And now what is really, and you can honestly say this for children, less than the flu, much more like the common cold. We are shutting down entire schools. It's, you know, it's a world run by hypochondriacs. And to think that what are we going to, we're going to have to eliminate the common cold from the world we live in. order to get back to work or go back to school?

Right. To begin with, that was August of 2020, you know, some, you know, almost four years ago that we were making that statement in the middle of COVID. Now, one of the things that Bill Marr said is that, well, I mean, we were just guessing. I guess guessing you get it once, maybe twice, but when you started hitting it out of the park three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve times. At a certain point, maybe someone should check in with what we're talking about. I was attacked. The headlines said that we were calling it a common cold. There was no worse than a common cold. That's insane. But let's look at the stats. This is what anti-vaccine figure dealt biggers using Facebook and YouTube to encourage people intentionally

contract the coronavirus. That was one of the headlines because I said for everybody under the age of say 60 or 70, if you're healthy, if you have no comorbidities, those other issues that are putting you at risk, you should go out and catch this cold so we can get to herd immunity. Well, let's look at what we now know. Was I wrong? I was definitely saying about the kids. Zero to 19 years old, we now know across the world the fatality rate was 0.0003%. We're reporting back in 2020 that the death rate worldwide seemed to be about somewhere around 0.27%. It ended up at 0.35%. We were right in the ballpark of a common cold or maybe a bad flu season for many. So we had it right, not because we were guessing, because we were looking at the science coming out of China, coming out of Italy, and of course the cruise ship that made all of this famous. But let's move on to the next statement made by Bill Maher on what we got right and the rest of the world got wrong.

Four years ago, the Daily Beast ran a story with the headline, Bill Maher pushes Steve Bennett-Wohan lab conspiracy theory, which was typical of the mainstream media at the time. of course it wasn't a conspiracy theory and it wasn't owned by Steve Bannon. And now everyone, including the Biden administration, admits there's at least a 50-50 chance that the virus could have begun in the lab in Wuhan that was doing gain of function research on that virus. Now, long before we had FOIA and got the Fauci emails that show that he was talking to all of his top scientists that were saying, it sure looks like there's an insert in this virus that would mean it had to come from a lab. Like we're 80% sure it's from a lab. Now, of course, he paid people off and manipulated them, and they wrote a paper saying, no way this came from a lab is definitely natural origin.

It's now proven to be one of the greatest frauds in science. But we weren't just pushing a lab theory. We were bringing on scientists, as we do. And I've said from the beginning, you were a part of an investigation that is ongoing here in the high wire. We brought in people with all sorts of different perspectives that were talking about things that looked odd and strange about this virus. Let's go back to Dr. James Lyonsweiler that came in to talk about his own perspective of an insert that appeared to be in this virus. Take a look at this. If you're looking at this particular coronavirus, this coronavirus belongs to a family of viruses that are most closely related to the back coronaviruses.

However, phylogenetics has a hard time placing it with only 75% support. All of the other nodes you'll see on that tree, this is a phylogenetic tree of coronaviruses, actually have 100% support. So what's disrupting the phylogenetic signal of placing this into a unique monophyletic group, as it's called in phylogenetics, is, I believe, this inserted element. I found that it actually did match a vector technology. This vector technology is a mechanism by which molecular biologists insert new genes into viruses and bacteria. This vector technology is called a P-shuttle, SN vector.

Now, it's really unusual to find a vector technology sequence in a virus that's circulating in humans. And so naturally, one thing that we can save, I think, for certain, is this particular virus has a laboratory origin. That was January, what, 30th of 2020. I mean, we weren't even locked down yet. And here on the high wire, we were talking to a scientist saying it looks like there's an insert that would, you know, make us believe that it's manmade. We don't see it in nature. He talks about the phylogenetics, meaning we still, to this day, they cannot find an animal, not a pangolin, not a rat, not a mouse, not a bat that has SARS-CoV-2. We would see something really close, nowhere near, as James Lyons-Wiler so accurately put, only about 75% of it adds up to what we see in nature.

This is one of the major strikes against anyone that said this was of natural origin. And of course, now the Farron-Cleavage site insert is what all the world is looking at. And was it a P-Shuttle, as James Lyons-Wiler said? Well, that would be a way to insert a Ferran's cleavent site, but I spoke with him recently. He said, we can't guarantee that for sure. But what we were talking about was inserts that made this virus look like something happened. Man-made was put in there. Could not have happened in nature or would be so extremely rare, especially since we saw nothing like it

and still don't in nature. January of 2020, here on the high wire. And then we got this for saying it. Media matters. Facebook and YouTube are letting anti-vaccine figure Del Binktree push deadly coronavirus misinformation. This is another headline.

January 30th, Baintree baselessly floated a theory that the coronavirus outbreak started with a vaccine development accident at a lab. He also suggested it is a bioweapon. Oh my God. Now we know that these bioweapons, labs are all over the world. There's always the potential for a lab leak, and we were even discussing it then.

The Wuhan lab had had a previous lab leak that we told you about on the high wire. So the whole world has come around, and Bill Maher, we weren't guessing. We weren't guessing. We had scientists who were actually reading the genetic code of the virus and pointing out anomalies all the way back in January of 2020. But go ahead. Keep tuning into CNN. Keep tuning into MSNBC.

Keep paying that cable bill so that Foxx. can lie to you about what's on there or be totally dead to the actual conversations that involve science. But if you want science, stick with a high wire. Let's look at what else he said. When COVID hit, we did a lot of stupid things because America never reacts. It only overreacts. Uber's look like those Orthodox Jews who wrap themselves and saran rob in case their plane flies over a grave. We washed the mail. We played baseball in front of cardboard cutouts and ate in parking lots

or with inflatable dolls? They closed the ocean. We were told to wash our hands every five minutes and don't ever touch your face and if you absolutely must go to the beach for the sake of all that's wholly wear a mask. So funny if it wasn't so absolutely destructive to our constitutional rightsism.

Americans, to our economy, to our jobs, to our children's education. But let's talk about it. There's a couple of elements here. First of all, masks. What were we saying about masks? Was it just a hunch? Well, here's how we were reporting on it. Are you starting to see these images around the world?

Children with masks and shelters in their schools being socially distant, stuck in square boxes more than six feet away from each other? this article by the world-renowned scientist, Dr. Russell Blaylock. Here's a couple of quotes from a brilliant article. Face masks pose serious risk to the healthy. Listen to this. As for the scientific support for the use of face masks, a recent careful examination of the literature,

in which 17 of the best studies were analyzed, concluded that none of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask, respirator use, and protection against influenza infection. Several studies have indeed found significant problems, however, with wearing such a mask. This can vary from headaches to increased airway resistance, carbon dioxide accumulation, to hypoxia,

all the way to serious life-threatening complications. That was May of 2020. Now the Cochran collaboration is backed up in modern science, even having been through COVID, physical interventions interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses, basically finding wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of influenza-like illness,

like illness compared to not wearing mass. wearing masks and the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of a laboratory confirmed influenza SARS-CoV-2 compared to not wearing masks. It went on to say social distancing and none of those things made sense. But let's talk about the health implications. So we were right. We were showing you that all the science that existed at the moment showed that masks were never designed to stop a particle as small as a virus. COVID being one of the smallest.

So that was a charade we were all taking place with. But what about the dangers? I had my own son on the show. And for those of you that maybe weren't around with a high wire, then, this was maybe one of the most viral videos we ever put out. It was taken down three or four, maybe even five times. Our website was shut down because of it. Take a look at this. This is my son, Ever.

Ever is 11 years old. And here in Texas, the mandate right now is that 10 and over have got to wear a mask. Ever has to wear a mask wherever we go. And so we bought this thing this week. This is, this measures the amount of CO2 that's in the air. Can we just look at the ocean numbers? Carbon dioxide levels and potential health problems are indicated below. From 250, 350 is the background, normal outdoor level,

350 to 1,000 ppm, typical level found in occupied spaces with good air exchange. 1,000 to 2,000 level associated with complaints of drowsiness and poor air. Obviously, I don't want ever to have drowsiness or poor air. 2,000 and 5,000 levels associated with headaches, sleepiness, and stagnant, stale, stuffy air, poor concentration, loss of attention, increased heart rate, and slight nausea may also be present, and then 5,000 ppm or more. This indicates unusual air conditions where high levels of the other gases also could be present. Toxicity or oxygen deprivation could occur, meaning do not hit 5,000. All right, here we go. Right now, we're at 848. So I'm going to go ahead and just insert this right,

like as he did, right, underneath and try to keep it. That feels pretty tight right there, right? Okay, so you can just breathe naturally. Let's just see what happens. Okay. All right, so we're at 1,367. We've already just passed two. So now we're in the place where he can be having headaches. Oh, we're at 3,786.

Look at this. We've just passed 5,000. Now we're in the toxic level, right? Now we can be doing this. 7,000 inside this mask of the CO2, 7,000, 8,000 parts per million. And now this thing's gone off the Richter scale, folks. It can't even register how high the CO2 levels are inside. And look how many seconds that was.

All right. Can I just... Yeah, you want to take that off? You know, I still, it blows my mind the hours we had our children sucking their own CO2 all day, every day in schools. While many of us were on our offices taking it off, It's really an outrage that parents allowed that to happen to their kids at all. I wouldn't have done it.

I pulled my kids out of school. We built our own school just so that wouldn't happen. That's how I handle things like that. But I want to sort of also let you know we reached out to some professionals from OSHA that said that we did that study. Right. Of course, I got attacked. It was taken down. It was misinformation.

Now all of that's proven to be true. We are seeing the health outcomes and issues that came from that all the respiratory illnesses that were caused. a lot of fungal infections in lungs because of the masks. And I'll tell you, I was never able to get a mask on ever again. It didn't matter if we were going to Whole Foods, which was sort of like Nazi Germany here in Austin, Texas. If you really wanted to get the full, like, San Francisco's experience, you go to Whole Foods, and they were, like, masked up,

and Ever would just walk in. And he said, come on, Ever, like, we got. And he was like, no way, Dad. He's like, I got PTSD from doing that thing on your show, man. I'm never putting one on again. So, you know, that's what happens when you get. your family involved in what you're doing, but that's what we do here. Now, beyond masks, we have the issue of social distancing, which we are now told by Tony Fauci in front of a Congress,

it just sort of popped up out of nowhere. It had no basis in science. Do you realize that if we had known that it had no basis in real science, we would have never locked down. We would have never distanced ourselves. We wouldn't have had cardboard cutouts in baseball stadiums or had restaurants where sitting with, you know, blow-up dolls. All of that, the destruction. of our economy was on, if we could keep everybody separated like six feet apart or not going outside, you know, wearing masks on beaches, we could stop this thing. Of course, all of that's proved to be baloney, but we were on top of it. And in many ways, we may have even had the source of the science behind social distancing. Look at this report. We've been hearing scientists say

over and over again, there's really no science behind social distancing. Well, where did it come from? Guess where it came from? A 14-year-old girl came up with social distancing as a part of a science project. This is an article that came out recently, the 2006 origins of the lockdown idea. But what is this mention of the high school daughter of 14? Her name is Laura M. Glass. Laura, with some guidance from her dad, devised a computer simulation that showed how people, family members, co-workers, students in schools, people in social situations interact. Her program showed it in a hypothetical town of 10,000 people, 5,000 would be infected during a pandemic if no measures were taken, but only 500 would be infected if the schools were closed. Well, you know, great science

experiment, and by the way, Laura, congratulations for you of doing something and writing an idea that the entire world followed. But was it a good idea? Most scientists say no. Here's a recent article by a scientist. Two-meter social distancing rule was conjured out of nowhere. Professor claims, he goes on to say there's never been a scientific basis for two meters. It's kind of a rule of thumb, but it's not like there's a whole kind of rigorous scientific literature that is founded upon. But hey, let's go ahead and make the entire world do it anyway. It's not like saying that if you challenge Tony Fauci, you're challenging the science

that doesn't exist. All way back in May 2020, that was taking place. You can imagine if we were on, imagine if this show was on primetime television. Seriously, right now, imagine what the world would have looked like if our reporting was what you saw on CNN, MSNBC, Fox, NBC, ABC, what do you think would have happened? I mean, seriously, when you think that you're funding those news agencies, what would have happened if they had told the truth? Do you think they would have gotten away with it? Do you think our country would have locked out?

No way. So when people are like, what is the biggest problem right now in the world today? I say the news. The news is your biggest problem because it doesn't matter if your politicians even had it right. It doesn't matter if scientists had it right. If the news is brainwashing you every day and telling you a lie, you're going to believe it, and you're going to let them rob you of your constitutional rights. Lastly, probably one of the biggest lies ever told around all of this.

One that I can't claim alone because Rand Paul was ranting and raving about this same issue the entire time he was in the government, and nobody seemed to listen to him. He's been on my show. We talked a lot about it. If you haven't seen that show, go back and check it out. But what am I talking about? How about this? And if you do get COVID, remember, natural immunity is always the worst kind.

So even if you've had the disease, you need a shot. Yes, some very bad ideas were embraced as the conventional wisdom, ideas that haven't aged well. And a lot of dissenting opinions that were suppressed and ridiculed at the time have proven to be correct. Was even a dissenting opinion. It was the majority of all science, as we know. know it always knew what we said on the show. When we talk about herd immunity so often, we hear that based on vaccination. But the true point, the true term herd immunity comes from natural immunity because once

you get a virus or a bacteria, you know, a live virus or a live bacteria and you have the illness, you have lifelong immunity, something that has just never been achieved by a vaccine. It's an inferior immunity that vaccines provide, which is why we see second, third, fourth, fifth doses of vaccines, why everyone has to get a flu shot every single year because they've never been able to achieve a lifelong or, you know, universal flu shot, as they describe it. Well, of course, that still remains true. And though we could get no acceptance of the power of natural immunity, as Bill Maher said, we said even after getting natural immunity, you should vaccinate yourself. One of the most insane ideas ever stated in science. And let me say

unequivocally to this date. And now that we're through the COVID vaccine and COVID vaccine included, because I think we're on what shot number nine, I believe is the headline. Dose number nine, CDC panel, green lights, yet another COVID-MRNA shot. So nine doses now to protect yourself from SARS-CoV-2. So I underestimated it saying like four or five in that review. So I didn't quite nail it. I didn't realize how bad this vaccine would actually be.

But officially, unequivocally, there is not a single vaccine ever made. that has had a longer endurance and stronger immunity than natural immunity itself. The COVID proved to be no different. In fact, was just a little bit worse than all the rest. So there you have it, folks. We nailed it to the wall. No, it wasn't guessing. It was based on world-renowned, known science, peer-reviewed science,

and that's what you can always expect here on the high wire. All right, I have a great show coming up. We're going to talk about how science is being controlled up and Canada and is ultimately going to control your lives. What is the pharmaceutical takeover look like up there? Can you imagine if you couldn't get vitamin C? Well, maybe that's part of the plan. I'm going to be talking to a constitutional attorney who's been fighting for the rights of Canadian citizens his entire career. His name's Sean Buckley is coming up later in the show. And if you think it's just Canada, you better think twice. But first, it's time for the Jackson Report.

I have to say, Jeffrey, I'm always a little giddy when I get to start a show out with just, you know, showing how accurate we've been the whole time. I've said it many, many times. I still will be called by some news reporter next week saying, you know, you spread misinformation and, you know, how is your funding going that you're a misinformation purveyor? I was like, honestly, New York Times, Washington Post, Time Magazine, show me where you got it right. Because we had it right the whole time.

What misinformation exactly? Because they haven't found anything. There's nothing we said that you can't put the science behind it. moment and then see that the science is held up all the way to now, and I assume we'll hold up into the future. It's been interesting to see people rush this space now that it's safe to talk about it and we've been really upfront on. But, you know, over the last couple of years, especially, it seems like a lot of people, a lot of the public has really noticed that governments are noticing and really taking inventory of their online activity and conversations and using legislation to

solve some of the issues with this. Recently in Florida, that's the latest state, to try to to solve what a lot of people have concerns about minors accessing social media, kids under 14 years old. And this is what it looked like in the news. Check it out. Okay. Social media showdown in Florida. It is being called one of the most restrictive social media bans in the country. Governor Ron DeSantis has signed House Bill 3 into law, banning children under 14 from having social media accounts on platforms considered to have addictive qualities. It also mandates that social media platforms search for and remove the profiles of kids who don't meet the age requirement. Being buried in those devices all day is not the best way to grow up.

And you know there's dangers out there. Unfortunately, we've got predators who prey on young kids. They know how to get and manipulate these different platforms. It's created huge problems. This law does not ban specific websites. Instead, it zeroes in on features that are considered addictive, like infinite scrolling and auto play videos. What is still unclear though is just where this law stands.

The trade group, Net Choice, which represents several major social media giants, slam the move as unconstitutional, saying it violates the First Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and federal law. It's completely stripping away parental choice for anybody who has a child under 14. Proponents have argued that access to social media is harmful to children's mental health. There's no bill powerful enough to keep these kids from social media. It's not possible. This is another one of those, Jeffrey.

We were just talking about TikTok last week, right? Like the sort of Chinese influence, a law being written to, you know, take TikTok away. But this is different. This isn't, you know, Ronda Santis in Florida doesn't seem to care who's behind making the app. This is just straight up about the danger to youth. and we have sort of, you know, shall I say the mommy state? I mean, I find this interesting because so often conservatives call where the government steps into take care of like household issues as, you know, being the nanny or mommy state.

But in this one, it's a, it's, it bowls it right down the middle, but it's about the kids' health. So tell me what this is about. Yeah, so certainly an interesting conversation. So Utah was the first state to really step into this space in 2023. This was the headline here when they did that. Utah governor signs law. curbing social media use for minors. You go into that. And basically the laws required all users to submit age verification before opening an account. And for those laws, it was minors under age

18. They need to seek parental permission for this. So right now we have Arkansas, Ohio, Utah, and now Florida. They've banned minors from accessing these accounts on social media. But you saw their net choice, the trade organization in that clip there that represents organizations like meta. They're part of that. Google, Yahoo. They've They have sued and won injunctions in Arkansas and Ohio, so it stayed those laws. Okay. They're expecting, Florida is expecting a legal fight really fast on this one. But it doesn't go into effect until January 20, 25 in Florida.

That's HB3. So it's got ways to go yet. But as it said in the clip there, the news reporting, all kids under 14, these social media companies have to immediately eliminate their accounts. So they don't even get a choice there. 14 and 15-year-olds, they need parental consent for that. And if anybody asked for that to be taken down, if the parents or the kids ask for these accounts to be shut down, if the companies don't act, they can actually be sued personally by these kids. Wow.

And talking about some pretty hefty fines. So I think what's interesting in this conversation, because Del you and I, we cover a lot of medical choice conversations. One of them is the minor consent to vaccination, often without parental choice. We've seen a rush of legislators over the last several years, gleefully trying to push. these bills saying this would help public health. But when you start reading into this conversation about minors in social media, we see something like this. This is an associated post reporting on DeSantis's law here. And you go into the post and it says, quote, this bill goes too far in taking away parents' rights. Democratic rep Anna Eskamani said in a news release. So you have this,

you have this dichotomy of a little bit. It's almost hypocrisy, if you want to call it. Yeah. A shot with no side effects, no liability, all the things we've covered on the show before. That's fine. But, you know, a TikTok video streaming account, we, whoa, pump the brakes. We really need to give these kids and the parents the power here. Yeah, I mean, it's really, but, you know, I think you're making the argument that I suppose that we, you know, I'm trying to think where I actually land on this, but you're right. Does a child have the ability to decide for themselves what's good for them? You know, and I think about, you know, sure, we want strong parenting in homes.

Parents should be making decisions, but how many families where both parents or maybe single family homes are, you know, out at work or coming home late and the child, you know, is with a babysitter or a child is maybe even at home or, you know, how many times? And I guess here's the question, right? If I want, if I'm with them and I'm having a conversation with an adult, which we all do, you know, at a restaurant, I just want to hand the iPad over and say, check out some social. media, do I not, I guess in this case, in some of these cases, I don't even have that right to hand it off to my kid and say, here, go ahead and do this. So this is where, like, again, it's these slippery slopes when we look at our rights. Right. And, you know, as I say, the camel's nose under the tent, do we really want government involved in these conversations here? And it's an open question at this point. It seems like it's going forward. So we're reporting on it.

But this conversation really started to unravel during COVID. And a lot of people, it in the headlines. But there was some whistleblowers, there were some internal documents from Meta, formerly known as Facebook, that were released to the Wall Street Journal. And they actually did an expose several articles on this. Here's one of them in 2021. Facebook knows Instagram is toxic for teen girls company documents show. And you go in here and it talks about this. Meta actually commissioned several studies and presented these results internally to the company. It says 32% of teen girls said that when they felt bad about their bodies, Instagram made them feel The researchers said in a March 2020 slide presentation posted a Facebook's internal message board.

We make body image issues worse for one in three girls, said one slide in 2019, summarizing research about teen girls who experienced the issues. It goes on to say this, teens blame Instagram for increases in the rate of anxiety and depression, said another slide. This reaction was unprompted and consistent across all groups. That's a big problem for them, but here's an even bigger problem. Among teens who reported suicidal thoughts, 13% of British users and 6% of people, of American users trace the desire to kill themselves to Instagram one

presentation showed and so in summary this is where they this is the issue they deal with because they had a lot the reason they're doing this is because they're losing a lot of people signing up for Facebook they're calling aging out they're not this so they're going after the younger crowd and they're saying well can we really do this and it says social social comparison is worse on Instagram this is the problem they had states Facebook's deep dive into teen girl body issues in 2020, noting that TikTok, a short video app, is grounded in performance while users on Snapchat, arrival photo and video sharing app are sheltered by jokey filters that keep the focus

on the face. In contrast, Instagram focuses heavily on the body and lifestyle. So that's where you're getting what they're saying is a lot of these mental health issues and these comparison issues. So these were internal memos where they all sat around, said, I don't know, what do you think? We're driving one and three girls into anxiety and depression and roughly 6% of Americans and 13% of girls in England are blaming their suicidal thoughts on our programs. So we go forward with it? Should we continue to push forward and promote it to these children? All in favor, aye, aye, aye, aye, aye, aye, aye, aye, let's do it.

And it goes out. That's what we're to understand. Yeah, yeah, these are all internal studies that were shown to members of Facebook and this was this was not given to the public until now obviously right until 2021 so what that kicked off was the lawsuits big ones now because the attorneys general had all of this information so you started seeing headlines like this just recently meta sued by 42 attorneys general alleging facebook instagram features are addictive and target kids and this is where you get obviously all the governors involved as well but it says according to the federal complaint meta did this via the

design of its algorithms copious alerts notifications and so-called infinite scrolling through platform feeds. That's that dopamine hit that a lot of people talk about. You're getting this dopamine hit with this continuous scrolling, these videos that automatically play. It says the company also includes features that the attorneys general alleged negatively impact teens mental health through social comparison

or promoting body dysmorphia such as likes or photo filters. One of the part of that suit as well is the data collection, the personal data collection on children under 13, which violates a whole other child online privacy protection act. So that's in part there. Be interesting to get discovery on that to see how they collect three people's data, how far they go. But that suit was sealed. So we saw the headline and we knew, okay, they're suing them. We have some quotes here, but that suit have become unsealed. And now we start getting really granular information what was in that suit. We'd go to the

guardian here and it talks about that. It says in this article, the complaint said that in 2021, Mehta received over 4002,000 reports of under 13 users on Instagram, but that 164,000, far fewer than half of the reported accounts were, quote, disabled for potentially being under the age of 13 that year. The complaint noted that at times, Meta had a backlog of up to 2.5 million accounts of younger children awaiting action. So, you know, they can use that excuse in saying, well, we just, you know, we have all these users and we just, we have a little bit of a backlog.

So we're just going to keep them on for now. So it's obviously works in their favor according to the lawsuit. But the challenge they have, and this goes on in this article to kind of explain this, just to give voice to the other side, it says with respect to barring younger users from the service, Meta argued age verification is a, quote, complex industrial challenge. Instead, meta said it favor shifting the burden of policing underage usage to app stores and parents like Google and Apple, specifically by supporting federal legislation that would require app stores to obtain parental. approval whenever you use under 16 download the app. So they're saying it's a complex industry challenge age verification. However, you know, looking at this this conversation has a lot of tails on it. So just putting it this other angle on this here, there's another conversation going on here. It's represented in this headline. Kansas moves to join Texas and other states and requiring

porn sites to verify people's ages. So this is go age verification is going on. Right. And so Louisiana was the prime mover in this space with this law-taking effect. at the start of this year. But we have about eight other states that are going this direction as well for age verification. And of those states, I mean, most of them, seven of the eight are Republican states. And there's 20 other states that are looking into introducing legislation here. But a lot of the big companies are just cutting access completely off in these states because they don't even want to try to comply with the law because of the penalties here of trying to get age

verification. Because if any kid is signed on to that and is found out, they're talking every day. day they're fine tens of thousands of dollars. So a lot of these companies are just going. We're done in Texas. We're done in Kansas. You know, this is such an interesting topic. And as we were discussing it earlier before the show, it's one of those that I'd be really curious where people, especially in our audience land, but we put up a Twitter poll just a couple of hours ago this morning. And we asked this, in your opinion, does the First Amendment protect a minor's right to all content, content on the internet, yes or no. Right now, 85% of those, I guess we have almost 1,400 votes,

85% are saying that the First Amendment does not protect minors' rights. I would love it if everyone in the audience would weigh in right now on Twitter at Highwire Talk, and please share it. I mean, I'm curious. What does it look like when just our audience is weighing in over the next hour or so? But then what does it look like if you share it with all your friends? Does it change? Does, you know, are we all in this together? Do we believe that a parent really is in a position to be deciding what is right for their children? If so, does that mean that that child doesn't have their own First Amendment rights?

Certainly a very important question as we move forward in this modern world. So if you want to get involved, go to Twitter right now at Highwire Talk. I'd love to see your perspective on that. We're going to do a lot more of this. I want to start interacting with you out there in the audience to see what is our audience actually think. about some of these conversations that we're having. Super interesting, Jeffrey. Another one is that, you know, sort of bowls down the middle.

It fights both spaces, right? Do we want the government getting involved in our lives and protecting us inside of our houses or not? Is it black and white? It seems more and more on finding myself in a gray area, which isn't very comfortable for me. All right, what else we got? Right.

We're going to cover one of the biggest stories, really in the world, in this space in a moment. But first, I want to talk about something that happened last week, It's really, from what I've seen, one of the biggest events on American soil in several years, the single event. This was the tragedy of the Francis Scott Key Bridge, was hit by a container ship. And, you know, if you haven't seen it by this point, well, here's some news to check it out. All right. This morning, a stunning bridge collapse at the Port of Baltimore.

This nearly 1,000-foot-long cargo ship called the Dolly hit a main structure of the Francis Scott Key Bridge. The bridge collapsing right into the harbor waters. The governor of Maryland has declared a state of emergency. In the moments before it hits this structure, the ship looks dark. It looks like it's lost power. The ship had alerted harbor authorities to an emergency. They had lost power, police quickly blocking traffic at both ends. Shortly thereafter, we saw that massive shock from that explosion.

Concrete coming off of the pylon, water splashing off of the ship. And then now we know that the Francis Scott Key Bridge no longer exists. Authorities are trying to rescue at least seven people who were doing overnight work on the bridge. They're believed have been tossed into the waves. We're talking about one of the biggest ports in the country has been effectively crippled. As a major employer, more than 15,000 direct jobs, 139,000 jobs rely on this port here. And again, it's been effectively shut down. The economic impact of the port of Baltimore does not just impact the state of

Maryland. It's over 51 million tons of foreign cargo. It's the largest in the country. I have to say I'm really psyched you're going to that you've looked into this, Jeffrey, because I was really busy while all this was happening. I just kept, you know, it's like one of those ways you see walking by TVs and you see a discussion about something that doesn't make a lot of sense. And it seems like almost immediately you had one story, which is this is an accident. Then you had conspiracy theories, as they call them, right, saying, wait a minute, there's something else going on here. So I'm curious, you know, what is fact?

What is fiction? Where are we at right now on this story? Yeah, there's a lot of moving parts of this story. It's been fascinating researching this at this point over a week later. But we'll start out with some of the knowns. So this was this was owned by a Singapore-based firm. It was on charter to Marisks. This is the shipping giant.

And immediately, I mean, these are just the recent headlines immediately that Singapore-based company is looking to seek to limit their legal. liability. This is the headline here. Cargo ships owner and manager seeks to limit legal liability for deadly bridge disaster in Baltimore. Why are they doing that? Well, this is Morning Star. Baltimore Bridge collapse, likely to be largest marine insurance claim in history. I mean, we're talking billions and billions in disruption just in the container ships alone. I mean, not to talk, it's damage of the bridge and the ship. So let's go to some latest news here. This is the Army Corps of Engineers, and they took to their Facebook account to release some sonar images of the underwater bridge collapse.

And they said this. Just to give people an idea of how hard this is going to be this salvage, divers are forced to work in virtual darkness because when lit, their view is similar to driving through a heavy snowfall at night with high beam headlights on. So murky is the water, divers must be guided via detailed verbal directions from operators and vessels topside who are viewing real-time coda imagery. No usable underwater video exists of the wreckage, because as one Navy diver stated,

there's no need to take video of something that you can't even see. So we can look here, I mean, imagine that. You can look at some of these sonar images here that were released by the Army Corps of Engineers and you can see this bridge is, I mean, all the concrete, mangled concrete and steel there, but it's also embedded into the mud.

There's several feet of mud at the bottom of the river there. So it's embedded into the mud, which is gonna make the salvage and then trying to find out where to cut and remove this, much more difficult, especially with almost zero visibility at that point. Wow. So some of the positive notes that came out of this was they are, they have opened a new channel,

two new channels actually. And here's some video of the first barge going through this channel. And it's an alternative channel. It goes obviously around the wreckage. This is an 11 foot depth channel. The second channel they opened was 14 feet depth. Why is that important? Well, to get the large container ships out and in like the dolly,

this port is really designed for. You need about 35 to over 50 foot depth. So this is a temporary fix, nowhere near what's needed to really get this stuff going. But there is a little bit of movement now, which is a positive. Another positive really looking back across the whole thing is the police response to get people off that bridge. And now we know from the black box, here's the headline here. NTSB, that's one of the organization investigating, says police had 90 seconds to stop traffic and get people off key bridge before it collapsed. So they did an incredible job at that point to really save a lot of lives. And we have the black box, the ship's black box. And although the audio has not been released to the public at the time of that incident,

there has been the conversation about what was on that black box. And I'll read some of that at this point because this really starts to piece together some things that you don't get from the video. So it says here, Muse, that's the person that was relaying this information in the the article said several alarms were heard on the recording just before 1.25 a.m. followed about a minute later by steering commands and rudder orders. So on the ship, they knew there was an issue. They sounded the alarms. The captain was shouting steering commands and rudder orders at that point. At 126 and 39 seconds a.m., the pilot on duty made a radio call for assistance to tugboats in the area. Sometimes they can call these tugboats out and they can direct the ship who's lost power.

obviously this didn't happen and said and 45 seconds later ordered the port anchor dropped and giving additional steering commands at that point but that's another thing that that it with the ship going that fast the port anchor that was just kind of a last ditch effort it wouldn't stop that size of a ship but they obviously were trying to just do anything at that point says at 127 and 25 seconds a on the pilot said on a radio call that dolly had lost power and was nearing the bridge around that same time the officer on duty for the Maryland Transportation Authority told officers who are at both ends of the bridge for the road repairs to close traffic which likely save lives. So that is just an incredible feet there and thank God.

So there's two questions that remain. I mean, you know, we've all run businesses and companies and sometimes you give an order. It can really be like, well, can I ask some questions about it? You know, what do you say? I mean, clearly these were. people that took it very seriously, acted very quickly. So really hats off to everybody involved in, you know, clearing that bridge. I mean, look at those cars going there right there just before impact. So that's always impressive. And it's great to celebrate the human spirit and teamwork

when it really does work. Exactly. And so there's two big questions still floating around here what caused the power outage and we may not really know that and for a while now as this investigation is going on by several agencies and then also did the ship have steering command obviously the power went out did they have rudder control and why did it turn and so there's you know there's a lot of people have explanations one of them is a youtube channel that deals with all things shipping a very popular youtube channel when it comes to this topic way before this event ever happened and this was his explanation of possibly why the ship turned at the time we saw it. Take a listen.

Okay. You'll see the main channel, this big huge white channel right here. And you can see the red obstructions right here. Notice how close the bridge is to the main channel. There's not a lot of room there between it. But the key thing is this white channel going off here to the left. This is the channel to Curtis Bay. If you have water coming out at this time, if the tide is going down, remember it was a full

moon. If tides going out and you're having a tide movement here, and this is really close to when you're coming to a slack tide, but even if not, when you hit an area where water is coming in off your starboard side, it may push the dolly just enough to nudge her. And then you have effects called a bank suction where you may see the ship start pulling and the bow will kind of nudge to the right and the stern will want to suck in towards. the bank. And if you give it just enough a nudge, and this ship was just hugging, by the way, the left side of the bank there just a bit, that may be enough to cause the Dolly if they don't have rudder control to kind of go off skew. And I think that's one of the issues that's leading Dolly now

to do this. If you had rudder control, again, a little bit of left rudder and you coast under the bridge at this speed, you still have enough way on for the rudder to have control. But if power is not going to the rudder, rudder is locked in place, then this could be the main problem. Very interesting. So, yeah, it's just one explanation of several out there that are floating around, but I thought that was interesting because the video, there's a different perspective. On the video, it looks like the ship takes a really hard turn to go out of its way. When you actually look at that from a topography over overhead view like that on the map,

It's actually just about 10 degrees off, maybe 15 degrees off, it looks like. So there's still a lot of open questions. One of the things that's a concern is the military response, because there's a lot of ships, there's a naval base, there's a lot of ships that are sitting idle. This was one of the articles by Breitbart. Transportation Department will not say how many national defense ships stuck in harbor. It says according to another inventory list maintained by the Department of Transportation as of January 31st, 2024, there are 90 ships that are part of the national.

Defense Reserve Fleet with 53 of those part of the Ready Reserve Force. Our RF ships are maritime administration vessels assigned to support U.S. military surge sea lift requirements. So basically six of those RRF ships, they're called all roll-on, roll-off cargo ships are assigned to Baltimore, according to the list. So in that article, it says they quoted people from the military saying, look, if we don't have any military issues or conflicts, not a big problem, but if we do, a gigantic problem. So that's just a side note to this as also talking about the container ships, not being able to go through.

But really, there's a whole conversation about cybersecurity, hacking of the ships, electrical systems, and, you know, the vulnerability of American infrastructure here because this was a significant hit on American infrastructure. So we're going down that direction as well because we still don't have all the answers. So this has to be on the table. And in 2017, remember, this ship, the Dolly was chartered by Marisk. In 2017, Maris did have a cyber attack that affected their company for two weeks. And this was the headline here. It cost, a cyber attack cost Maris as much as 300 million and disrupted operations for two weeks. So what happened was 17 of Maris 76 terminals across the world were infected by this virus,

this computer virus. The computers on Maris ships were not infected. So that's a delineation we have to make. But the terminal software was. So they didn't have any records of the cargo ships, containers, what was going on, what was going off. So it just paralyzed them at that point. But we go even further back. This is an article from almost 10 years ago.

I mean, talking about the capability they had back then. Hacking ships, maritime shipping industry at risk. This was a warning sign. Almost 10 years ago. It says information technology has been playing a very important. role in the maritime shipping industry today our modern ships are completely computerized everything is connected to networks today's modern ships have complex cargo operations that are entirely connected through cyberspace then it goes on to say this it gets even more to the point cyber security

is a safety issue every ship built has software that manages its engines and that software is updated while the vessel is underway from the beach and master doesn't even know that the software is being updated said rear admiral paul thomas u.s coast guard hackers could interfere With the control of a ship, disabled navigation systems, cut off communications or steal confidential data according to Alliance Global Corporate and Specialty SEs, 2015 Safety and Shipping Review. Crews become smaller, ships become larger, and a growing resilience on automation all significantly exacerbate the risk from hackers disrupting key systems the report stated. But then it goes on to say this, security vulnerabilities and software used by the maritime industry could be exploited

to cause ships to malfunction or run aground according to research from global information assurance firm ncc group they have revealed security vulnerabilities in eCDIS that's electronic chart display and information technology product an information technology product used by the shipping industry these systems are usually installed on ships and used by navigation officers so clearly there's an open-ended question there there's a there's a flap for this this conversation to get into and a vulnerability there that people are, several organizations, including the Coast Guard, are saying, look, this is a problem nine years ago. Yeah, and it's one of those things I've seen several reporters saying, you know, it's been proven

there's no way this is a cyber attack or, you know, there's some of that going on. And I just, I'm always shocked how quickly people start making definitive statements. I mean, this just happened, sort of like the Wuhan Lab, when they started saying this is absolutely, natural. No way it's the Wuhan lab. That's where my spidey sense goes off and says, how would you know that? Like, you wouldn't know that by now. You haven't, you don't know barely anything about this. And I would prefer the reporters at the moment. And I want to make it clear what we're doing is just stating what is known, the facts, the history, where we're at. This is a story we should all be concerned about. Clearly, it's a, you know, if it's an attack,

it's an attack on infrastructure. If it's an accident, it's one, you know, one of a kind that we haven't seen before. But, you know, I think we should all be careful as reporters to say, look, there's a lot of theories. There's a lot going on here. There's a lot that's suspect. And we're going to continue to follow the different elements of this investigation as we get more information. All right. Absolutely. And this is, I think, one of the things we can do best here is we can really just take that center space and really take all of the information into account and look what's going on. Del, one of the biggest stories, I'd say, in the world when it comes to This free speech right now happened this week.

And it came out of Scotland. Check this out. All right. A controversial new law aimed at cracking down on hate speech is now in effect in Scotland. A Scotland's new hate crime and public order act comes into force today that criminalizes threatening behavior based on age, disability, sexual orientation, and transgender identity. The maximum penalty if you break this law is an unbelievable seven years in prison. One complaint has already been filed ahead of the law going into a

effect in two weeks. It was against J.K. Rowling, the author of Harry Potter, who has been vocal in her criticism of the transgender movement. I'm currently out of the country, but if what I've written here qualifies as an offense under the terms of the new act, I look forward to being arrested when I return to the birthplace of the Scottish Enlightenment. The very same day, the police say they're not going to arrest her, I think. 3,800 cases the police are now looking at in 24 hours under the this new hate crime law in Scotland, they're going to be completely overwhelmed. Protesters gathered outside Holyrood, voicing concern with the bill they say stifles free speech

and can be exploited by those looking to silence particular groups. Just know that we're stronger together. Let's stand together and take back democracy together. What are we going to do, everyone? Thank you very much. Let's stand together. Let's beat these people and let's make Scotland free together. I mean, it's amazing. What a really horrifying story this is. We've been reporting on it. It's getting scary. Now threats to people like J.K. Rowland. I imagine they're going to pass up the opportunity to arrest her since she can probably afford somewhere between 1,000 and a million of the world's best lawyers to turn any precinct coming after her into her own mansion. But they'll go after the little people, right? The ones that can't defend themselves. And that's what's so scary about this. the elites then, you know, walk around in this authoritarian world in a different way than the rest of us. Yeah, and so Scotland has done what Ireland and Canada and other countries have only been trying to do with proposed legislation. So they've greenlit this legislation.

And if we go right to the law, this is a hate crime and public order. You can see here a list of the protected characteristics. And you can see like age, disability, 50% of that has to a sex, transgender identity, sexual orientation. sexual characteristics. And a lot of people pointed out, there's no provision in this bill to protect women from hatred, just these characteristics. But it also goes further here. It goes into defense.

So it's up to the person. You're basically guilty until proven innocent. It's up to you to prove that your behavior would not fall into this law. And if you don't, you could be looking at a fine of imprisonment up to seven years. And then it goes on to say this, finally, that sheriffs and sheriffs can enter your home. If there is reason to believe, they can get a warrant. If there's a reason to believe that you are, quote, stirring up hatred through material behavior in your home.

So, I mean, this is overturning, you know, centuries of law in the UK by doing this. And as it said in that news clip, over 3,800 complaints in the first 24 hours, well, there's over 4,000 complaints in the first two years. days once this thing has activated. These are the complaints because this now falls under the Scotland police. They have to investigate this and they now have the powers to do this. And as you saw at J. K. Rawlings, she put out this tweet here among many others that people are saying were controversial. She said, in passing the Scottish Hate Crime Act, Scottish lawmakers seem to have placed higher value on the feelings of men performing their idea of femaleness, however,

misogynistically or opportunistically, than on the rights and freedoms of actual women and girls and along other tweets she was reported and a lot of people were looking at her to get arrested, but obviously she will not be under arrest. She has said that if anybody is challenged by this law, she will retweet those words. She will say those words on her account if people are persecuted by this law. So she has stood behind, you know, free speech in this conversation 100%. So really interesting space that's happening right now in Scotland. And the world should really pay attention to this.

Absolutely. And we've talked about it. So much of it is what you might do with information that's on your computer that you haven't put out yet. So you have pre-crime as a part of all this. You know, these were science fiction movies just maybe a decade ago. And now it's right upon us across the world. Incredible reporting, Jeffrey. So many interesting things to be looking at.

And really, as we sort of look at, you know, I mean, hope all the people, that are new to us recognize the difference of when we're making a statement of fact that we know about or when sometimes we have hypothesized as we were with the P-Sheddle insert but then proved to be one of the most important conversations years later and all of that we are always under attack imagine if you know here in America you know that the things that we have said on the show that would be considered I suppose a hate crime simply because we're pointing out different perspectives than the narrative that our government and our mainstream propagandists are sharing. So we've been under attack, we've been shut down, we've been censored, we're experiencing all of that, but still millions of people, and I think it's drawing even more attention.

And for everyone out there, look at the work that Jeffrey Jackson does. You should at least tell your friends, hey, even if you only watch 30 minutes of this show, check out what Jeffrey Jackson's talking about because it's the current news, but with reality and facts that we're not getting. It's not that bumper stickers, you know, sort of propaganda we're getting from mainstream agencies. Jeffrey, you're amazing what you do. It's really just an honor and pleasure to have you a part of our team here at the High Wire.

Thanks, Della. And this is what it's about. This is the new age of media. This is open debate. This is the truth as we find it. And we're using truth as the guide. And this is how some of these conversations that are a little touchy. This is how we get to the core of this.

This is how we settle disputes and conversations because they're boiling pots. And for the government to come in and put a lid on them using legislation, I feel like that's just going to create more conflict and division. So we really need to have more dialogue around some of these touchier subjects or these controversial subjects. So I appreciate being here every week. And I look forward to next week we're going to knock it out of the park. All right. Fantastic. Jeffrey. I look forward to that too. I'll see you next week. Well, look, you know, how do we do this? How do we do this show? It's, you know, we're not getting the Pfizer sponsorships that all of those stations that lied to you are getting. Of course, we know why they didn't tell you the truth. They would have lost their funding. We know why, you know, Exxon gets what they want. We're not funded by Exxon. We're not funded by Pampers. Like none of it. We don't want any of it. And in fact, you know, I've even turned, you know, large sponsors away that just want to, you know, get involved. here because they want to tell us what to say or what we should be investigating or what we can

investigate. I have never, I will never allow that to be a part of how we make our decisions here. We're following our muse. We're just like you. We're citizens asking really important questions. I'm surrounded with a team that are almost as voraciously curious as I am, a word that I wish permeated more of our society. What happened to your curiosity? Where is your skepticism? No red flags, really? No. red flags here that we now know that Bill Maher has to admit that the entire destruction of the civilization that we know and the Constitution that we were given and the Bill of Rights that was supposed to protect us thrown out the door, jobs shut down, told that we weren't important,

we weren't critical to moving America forward, no right to go and see a judge, no right to a jury. All of that disappeared in the blink of an eye and all the media that you were watching and I was watching that we're funding with our cable bill, they told us that's just okay. That's what it means to be a good American citizen and play with the team, is to just hand over all your rights right now. Don't worry, you'll get them back. 14 days to flatten the curve, 21 days, three months a year. You know, we all went through it.

But while we were going through it, yes, who wasn't getting funded by any of the people lying to us, guess who got none of the, you know, $100 million. that was put as part of the propaganda package by our own president, Joe Biden, to manipulate you and your minds. We didn't get any of that. Instead, you were here with us. We brought the truth when no one else did. And by the way, look at, as Jeffrey said, we showed everybody the water was warm.

In fact, we churned up the water enough to get it warm enough that other people like Tucker Carlson's and other reporters started jumping and saying, you know what? I think I'm going to start covering that too. We were here first. We were here when it was ice cold and all of you that jumped in that glacier water with us, the glacier water of truth that sometimes is inconvenient. Man, thank you so much for having been a part of this miracle that we call the high wire, an experiment in programming.

But we have more to do. And as you know, we've got a legal team that is fighting. So much of that information was backed in science that was uncovered by FOIA, Freedom of Information Act requests done by Aaron Siri and his team. There is nothing like this in the world where a legal team works for a media outlet and we actually bring lawsuits to get to the truth. We're actually bringing lawsuits to protect you when we find something that's inhumane or going against our Constitution.

We're fighting for you. There's no one like us yet here we are. We need your help. There's so much we need to do. You can't imagine what's about to take place in the middle of this election season. with all the propaganda that wants to go on, all the desires to control every parts of our life at stake, we need your help because behind the scenes,

though we're not getting political, we are fighting for your rights. We're standing for your right to free speech, to vote however you want, and to publicly talk about it. If we lose that right, the United States of America is over. So while all the other news anchors are making their millions and millions of dollars,

and those networks have billions of dollars to lie to you, How about you cough up, like, I don't know, $24 a month for the highwire? Go to the highwire.com. Hit that donate button because your life depends on it and say, you know what? I want to be a part of this massive, beautiful experiment in media, which has been telling us the truth and can prove it's been right all of these years. $24 a month would be awesome for $0.24. But, you know, $0.50, $0, wherever you're at, I get it. Some of us are going through hard times, but we want to take us out of those hard times.

We want the truth to prevail so that we can move into a space where the people with the right ideas and the right values and the right ethics can be heard and not silenced. The government is not as big a problem as the media, the media that we are fighting it up against right now. It's a tug of war. The high wire is winning on the truth level, but they want to shut us down. And if we don't get your help, they're going to shut us all down. So do me a favor.

Donate. Just hit donate. D-O-N-A-T-E. Put that in your text and text the number 72022. And we'll send you a link to make it super easy to be a world changer, a defender of democracy, or the Republic of the United States of America as it stands. All right. When we think about defending what the United States of America represents,

You know, you have to wonder, are we that beacon of light and hope? You know, is it really the best way to govern? People question that. So many of us saying this is still the greatest country in the world that allows for the freedom of expression, the freedom of choice in so many ways. We were robbed of it for a couple of years. But what happens if your borders start to get weak? What happens if right next door there's an epidemic, an epidemic brewing of authoritarianism? Is it contagious?

Could it come here? Could America end up looking like this? New regulations are on the way for natural supplements and vitamins in this country. The federal government is strengthening regulations around natural health products such as vitamins. Everything from supplements to apple cider vinegar and green tea could be threatened by new Health Canada regulations. Medical experts say the stricter regulations are necessary to protect people, but the natural health industry says these restrictions, they go too far. Health Canada now has the ability to immediately recall any natural health product and force producers to update their labeling.

But the most contentious change is still to come. Health Canada wants to charge producers the cost of monitoring and approvals, fees that range from hundreds to tens of thousands of dollars. The Health Canada has been targeting these products for decades, looking to regulate their use and restrict your access. The changes basically subject the natural health community to the same power, and regulatory penalties as chemical drug companies, otherwise known as the almighty and powerful Big Pharma.

And right now already the margins are extremely tight. So we're going to, that's going to drive the small and several median players out of business, which then will reduce products. It's also going to drive the prices up. More than 70% of brands say they would have to remove a product from the market. And one in five brands say they are considering leaving the Canadian market altogether. But frankly, 75% of Canadians use these products on regular business.

products on a regular basis to help maintain and optimize their health. And so anything that is going to further restrict the access to those products and potentially increase the cost of those products, I think should be something that Canadians should want to be concerned about. Actually, so many of you who have been commenting and even calling in and St. Dell, we're under attack up here in Canada. We're on the verge of losing our ability to get vitamin C and vitamins. They want to make it illegal. What happens to our health when all we're left with is sort of the farmer. chemical products that are out there. Well, at the center of this battle is a brilliant constitutional attorney that joins me now. Mr. Buckley, thank you so much.

Dale, very pleased to be here. What is this about? Like what's going on? Our vitamins illegal in Canada? Just give me the sort of straight scoop as we sort of just saw in the news. What's going on in Canada? Well, Dale, we're in the process of losing our vitamins. And if I use the term natural health product, that's what we call your dietary supplements. So we do it a little differently in Canada. We actually have to get government permission to sell a dietary supplement. So we have to jump through safety and efficacy hoops and get a license to do that.

But it's been a softer model. So for example, I'll use ginger tea as an example. We've used ginger tea for what, 2,000 years. Ginger tea? Ginger tea, got it. Dietary supplement. It helps with nausea and other digestive issues, and we've known this for thousands of years. Well, our regulations don't require us, our natural health product regulations, to do a clinical trial to show that you can use ginger tea for nausea.

So they've been softer that way. What's happening is, is Health Canada's come in with this new initiative called the self-care framework. So Health Canada, is that sort of like our FDA or CDC? Exactly. Exactly. So you have the FDA. We have Health Canada. which is a bit of an Orwellian term, but in any event.

Right. So Health Canada is imposing this new framework where basically they're moving us into full harmonization with the chemical over-the-counter drugs. Okay. And this is going to be an absolute train wreck, and we are going to lose our products. So one part of this, remember full harmonization, well, the big pharmaceutical companies, they pay huge fees for product licensing. Even each year they have to pay a renewal fee for a license, for site licenses to manufacture.

Well, Health Canada is imposing these fees on the dietary supplement companies. We had a meeting, a public meeting with Health Canada last week. And there were industry members saying, well, we're going to go out of business, or we're going to have to cut 40 to 90% of our products lines. The homeopathic doctors, they need thousands of products to have a full practice and the suppliers say we can't do it. If you're a traditional Chinese doctor, you need about 800 products,

different products to have a full scope of practice. Well, the suppliers have said, we can't do this. So we're going to lose those two healing traditions alone because the products they use to help us aren't going to be there. And that's just one aspect. So remember I told you, we can use traditional use evidence to show a product works. We're going to lose that.

right because full harmonization. Pharmaceutical company can't come out with a new drug and novel chemical and point to traditional use evidence, they have to run double-blind clinical trials. Well, we're now going to have to, you want to use ginger tea to treat nausea, you're going to run a double-blind clinical trial. It's not going to happen because there are no intellectual property rights. So, and they've also told us, well, under this licensing scheme, If it's for a condition for which you would seek the advice of a healthcare practitioner, so it's not truly over the counter, it's not truly self-care, we're not going to grant you a license.

You have to go through the full-blown chemical pharmaceutical model, which you can't. And that alone, we're going to lose all our professional products. So what are Canadians going to do when there's no naturopathic doctors? I mean, I don't know what pops into my mind is like, let's say, a urinary tract infection. I go to a doctor. They want to give me an antibiotic or something like that. so many people recognize like cranberry juice for pomegranate juice you're saying that that sort of would be you know have to like go through some sort of double blind study in order for that to be to make

something I've access to to make that claim and this is how part of how the game works is you're not allowed to say anything that is unapproved so right now is to a practitioner that recommends something like that that's unapproved is there any you know ramifications for those practitioners if they're selling the product and a lot of naturopathic doctors and homeopathic doctors. Traditional Chinese practitioners actually, a lot of them can at a still compound. Right. Where they will make a remedy for you based just on your needs. So we're going to be in a world of hurt. I mean, they're not going to take cranberry juice off the shelf because people use it just as a juice. But if you don't have a naturopathic doctor to tell you, wait, you have a urinary tract infection, take unsweetened cranberry juice, then you have no option but to go to the pharmaceutical industry doctor.

And the censorship is rife in the natural health community. What is the excuse they're giving? I mean, is it like a, like why? You obviously have to sell this to the population of Canada to say, we're doing this for you because, and there's enough Canadians going, oh, thank you very much. What are they offering?

Why is this necessary? In their pitch, what are they saying? Is it safety? It's always safety, isn't it? Safety is the most dangerous term to safety, or to freedom, rather, ever. Like as soon as, if you hear the government say that something's necessary for your safety, the first question you have to ask, because we just learned through the COVID experience, all this hype.

I mean, I was watching the earlier clip that, you know, you pointed out earlier, It was just like a bad flu season. Right. But they had us convinced that we were all going to die. So you always have to ask, well, relative risk. So they are sane in Canada. This is for our safety. And they create risk.

So they try in any possible case example they can give. They'll flout. But you always have to ask, okay, you're telling me I'm in danger. Well, compare that to some other dangers that I face each day. So I can make an educated decision, is this dangerous. I don't know what the figures are in the United States, but in Canada, every year, one out of four million of us get hit by lightning.

Okay. Okay, one out of four million. So on an average year, we'll then have 10 deaths because there's 40 million Canadians now. Well, have 10 of us killed by lightning each year. You cannot point to a single death caused by a dietary supplement on a yearly basis in Canada, which means that lightning is dramatically more dangerous.

Now, would you give up a single freedom to protect yourself from lightning? Of course not. It's a retorical. It's a stupid question. Well, when the FDA and other groups in the United States are saying you need stricter regulations on dietary supplements for your safety,

as soon as you hear that, you'll know it's a fraud because the risk profile is so, dramatic that lightning presents a bigger risk to you as an American than the entire dietary supplement industry. So why are we even talking risk? Why are we even talking government regulation? And we all agree, well, let's protect against fraud. Sure. We all agree, let's protect against adulteration. Let's, you know, let's not sell something that's deliberately dangerous. That's not what we're referring to. We're referring to regulation after regulation after regulation that's needless, being imposed so the costs go up so fewer people can access them.

And it becomes so onerous that most of the industry goes under and you're left with a few big boys left standing that then have a quasi-monopoly and surprise, surprise thrown by the pharmaceutical industry. So how do they do it? Are they basically, I mean, what makes something a pharmacy, are they calling it a pharmaceutical product? I mean, what was it before? What was it called before?

of food versus a, I mean, give me the definitions and how the shift has happened. I think we have to go into the drug model and then explain the difference between Canada and the United States. So what the drug model is, and I think we've got a graphics up here we go. So the drug model is, is there's basically three parts, and this is how they game you. So when I'm explaining the drug model, I want your audience to understand this is a fraud on you, meant to protect. intellectual property rights not for your health. So the first thing they do, the first part of this game is, is they define drugs so broadly that it includes anything used for therapeutic purpose. So Del, if I was to say to you know, it's a little warm in the studio. We're in Texas. Can you drink some water? I think you're dehydrated. I've now turned that water into a drug because I have suggested its use. I've advertised to both you and your audience the use of water for therapeutic purpose. So I've turned that into a drug. So just so you understand, anything used for therapeutic purpose is considered to be a drug.

That's the first part of this game. The second part of this game that they introduce is they make it illegal to basically manufacture or sell any drug unless you get government pre-approval in the form of a license. So now we've entered this legal philosophical environment in both the United States and Canada, except for dietary supplements. Okay. So in the United States and Canada, for anything but dietary supplements, it is illegal to use anything to treat any purpose.

And then the third thing you do, and this explains why we have such poor health outcomes in our hospital system and in our mainstream medical system, is the third thing you do is you make it so difficult for serious conditions. to get government pre-approval that only products with patents go through them, meaning only novel chemicals. The last time I had an expert on the stand in Canada, and I asked, well, how long does it,

how expensive is it to get through this drug approval process? Without blinking and I, the expert said, a billion dollars. Now, that'd be Canadian dollars, that'd be about 700 million U.S. dollars. And, you know, you can do it for a couple hundred, a million. I mean, easy. Yeah. But the point is, is it's so expensive that unless you have a patent, you will not go through the process. So, Dale, both you and I have grown up in an environment where the only approved treatments for serious health conditions in both the United States and Canada

are novel chemicals, and this is by design. Right. This is because our food and drug laws, and they're virtually identical between the two countries. They're virtually identical. and all the Western nations. The drug approval laws are designed not to get good health outcomes. The drug approval laws are designed to protect intellectual property rights. This isn't by accident. And where that gets dangerous is what we saw, I would say, during COVID, right? And it's something that was very curious.

There's multiple reasons when we look at a drug, let's say hydroxychloroquine that has been around for some time used by millions of people for all sorts of different issues, so it already had established a safety profile. But we heard Tony Fauci saying it has to go through randomized control trials and all that, which is sort of, I think, I mean, maybe I'm making the wrong comparison, but he's basically saying millions of dollars need to be poured into research in order for this thing to make any claim like that. What you're saying is because that's an off-patent, you know, drug at the moment, or maybe not ivermectin. I might be mixing up them, too. But let's just say,

drug that once we know work for something and we're seeing them say well no we've got a better drug now what they're saying is we have a new you know novel chemical that is patent in which we know will make millions hundreds of millions of dollars therefore we love the fact that it's really expensive to go through these trials we're not even going to look at a drug that we once owns because we don't own it anymore we'll just kick that out of the way so all of this repurposing of drugs hits the skids because no one will pay that to say that, you know, it can handle, as you're saying, this physical issue, this illness, if you're going to claim it does anything for this illness, it has to have all this money poured into research and studies. And so no one, no vitamin will go through it because no vitamins are on. I don't know if you can get a patent for a lot of these natural supplements. You can't. That's the difficulty. Right. So you can. So, I mean, I like to use Viagris an example just to explain how the process works. Because I don't know about in the United States, but when Viagra was first approved,

there were actual mainstream news articles on how expensive a single pill was because it was so popular. Pfizer had a patent. They got drug approval, so they could charge whatever they wanted, and they were just charging a fortune. But then when it goes off patent, anyone can manufacture the non-brand name is Sedentafel. Right. So the price just drops. Now, Sedenthal doesn't go away, just to kind of answer your analogy. But the only products that get approved in the first place are ones that have a patent when they go through the process. They remain on the market after. The pharmaceutical company tries to dissuade them. Now, getting back to the hydroxychloroquine or Ivermectin example, something else was going on there because doctors using off-label use, as it calls, so let's say

we have Ivermectin approved for use for parasites and humans. Well, that's drug approval, but that's separate than doctors having the right to off-label use and use it for whatever they, in the professional judgment, feel is important. But it's just interesting in the state I live, and we call them provinces, Alberta. Our college of physicians and surgeons made it clear to every doctor in the province that if you treat early COVID, so if you treat COVID before somebody shows up at the emergency department with blue lips that you are committing professional misconduct. If you treat them at all?

Yeah, until they're in crisis. And, you know, you would lose your license to practice if you used ibupmectin to treat COVID. Yeah. So, but that's a bit of a separate issue than we're dealing with. Well, but I mean, I think it's, you know, what, you know, part of what I'm pointing out is the off-label usage means it hasn't been proven

to, you know, treat the illness or disease we're talking about. As you're saying, as soon as you want to treat a disease or illness, Health Canada steps in and says you need a license to do that. Yes. And therefore there's a huge cost of that. So both, I would guess, natural products that were once deemed as food and off-label or off-patent products. It has no value to the manufacturers to get involved in that.

And so you can't get the license. It can't be used. And so then the opposite becomes true. If you try to use something that doesn't have the license to treat what you're talking about, you lose your license. And so this whole thing is wrapped up. And it's not. I mean, how far away are you looking at our politics and how we're handling sort of this conversation?

I mean, are we on a slippery slope? You guys are on a slippery slope. And just so that people understand, I mean, you cannot patent a dietary supplement. So if it's going to cost hundreds of millions of dollars to get through this process, you just won't do it. Right. Because as soon as you're through it, anyone can just piggyback on your application and sell the product. And you can't, you'll never recover the cost. It's never happened in my lifetime where one's gone through the process.

It's never happened in your lifetime, and it never will, because the whole purpose is to protect patents. Just so people really get that, why would I pay $100 million to do a vitamin C study stop sepsis, let's say, which is something that Dr. Paul Merrick has done great research on. But if I'm going to do that study at the level that a drug is at, as soon as I get done, there are myriad companies that could all just say, hey, we got vitamin C, you don't own the patent. So there's no way for me to, you know, to reimburse that cost, right? And that's the problem. The problem is no one really owns it, so therefore no one can make the money off of it.

And this is this entanglement that goes on. You know, it's actually really fascinating. And I could really get in the weeds over some of the FDA meetings I've gone to and CDC meetings, around drug patents and getting approval and the trials. Some of it I like. Look, I'm always screaming. We need double-blind placebo studies of vaccines before they should be given to people. They don't happen.

Yes, they're expensive, but these are products that are being forced on children and can be problematic. But let's stay focused here. So in the end, they're really just lowering the bar on what we call like a pharmaceutical product. You're saying anything that I say, hey, drink some water. because you look dehydrated, I just turned that into basically a drug and now I need licensing and I need all the rest. Is this coming from inside Canada or do you feel like this is more of a global pharma plan? This is clearly coming from outside Canada. This is clearly part of an international harmonization and it's why Americans need to be concerned.

So, and first thing is you have to avoid this drug model and you're not in it. for dietary supplements. So they were trying to put you into a pharmaceutical model, this drug model, and you guys rebelled in the early 90s, and you got this dietary supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 where you're classed as foods. And if the FDA wants to go after a specific product, the FDA has the onus to prove that it's not safe

or it's adulterated. It's really quite a freeing piece of legislation. That's good. But you're censored. You're not allowed to make truthful health claims. You're limited to small things like, you know, supports mental health or may support cardiovascular health, like these structure function claims. Okay. So you're heavily censored.

You're still in trouble. But in Canada, we got moved into this drug model that was soft or we could use traditional use evidence. And now we're moving into the full-blown self-care framework. So the slippery just like you are, you know. But the intention is, is to get rid of the products. The intention is to only have products on the market that have patent protection. Now, you guys are starting to move into the drug model. So you have a group called the Consumer Healthcare Products Association.

And I'm relying on Dr. Malone, who wrote a piece saying, he said literally the board of directors is a who's who in the pharmaceutical industry. And that they're basically pushing pharmaceutical interests. Well, they're wanting to, they're basically wanting to have, manufacturers to have to go through the first phase of a drug approval process. And so Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois in 2022 had introduced an act, the Dietary Supplements Listing Act, and he's going to reintroduce it in this organization as supporting that. We're basically to sell a dietary supplement

now you'll have to provide this long list of information, which reads exactly like the type of information you would have to provide for a drug license application short of the efficacy data. Now so you're classed as a food but now they want to start treating you as a drug. DEL the first thing that happens is you lose your small players as soon as you start introducing a regulatory burden. Yeah. And they're setting you up for having to prove safety and efficacy. So and it's called rent seeking. They just make it more and more expensive and then also we learned in Canada the industry starts to accept the drug

model. So you can't go there. Remember, the whole industry is safer than light. The industry can afford us. These giant corporate behemists that have hundreds, you know, billions of dollars. And you are just, you know, like it's like a mom and pop

shop against Amazon. You just can't compete. They can meet certain, they can meet certain milestones and credits and handle certain regulatory payments that a smaller company just can't afford to do and therefore just flushes all of the smaller players out and all we're left with

this big pharma products chemical products. It's really scary. And so what you're saying is then I would imagine then if Dick Durbin is bringing this bill and we know I've been to Washington, D.C., we know how this works. The pharmaceutical industry and these outside players are visiting with our politicians all the time saying what you need to do is pass a law because you got to protect the citizens. Everyone needs this, right? is all about protections, make sure that all of those, you know, vitamins on the right,

that they're not making claims and they've got proper licenses, let's move that into this sort of model, and then we're off to the races. And so they're doing it. They're trying, they're knocking on the door here in America. And so what is the, when does this all come into play? Are vitamins already getting more expensive, or is this a year or two down the road? What's happening? Well, in Canada, they're already more expensive. Okay. So as soon as is, like, we got pushed into the drug model back in 2004, and our prices just skyrocketed. I remember I was on a Twitter Spaces call

with a practitioner, Brett Hawes, and he gets consulted by Americans, he gets consulted by Canadians. And he was explaining the same treatment protocol for a Canadian that's gonna cost three to four times as much as an American. And a lot of Canadians, it's actually been good for the US dietary supplement industry,

because we try to buy from the US as much as we can, and hope it doesn't get stopped at the border. Like smuggling, smuggling, vitamin C across the border. And, you know, we have, we kind of have an access to justice issue here. If the prices of dietary supplements

rise, and they're not covered by health care plans by and large, they're not covered by the government, if they keep going up, then economically disadvantaged persons find themselves in the situation. They're more stuck in the drug model. They're totally struck in the drug,

the drug model. And a candidate's become a huge problem. Our dietary supplements are tremendously expensive. Wow. And there's whole segments of the population that are locked in this drug model. And if you don't have the right to choose how you're going to treat your body, either to prevent illness or when you're sick, you know, there's only one class of humans in history that have not had that right, and we call them slaves. Right. Like this truly is a fundamental freedom issue. The last thing, the one freedom you should fight for, above all freedoms is autonomy over your body. And if you allow your government to take away other options, then you've lost that autonomy. And their, trust me, their goal is, is to lock Americans into

this chemical drug model. And this whole, this whole system has to be replaced and rethought. It's just a fraud. I want to just jump into one other topic, and there's a bunch happening in Canada. I could probably do this, you know, all day. You were a big part of the trucker convoy, you know, just standing up for the freedom to have their jobs without being vaccinated. But more specifically, I want to talk about euthanasia because it's almost like in the same place where they're trying to say, you know, like you're saying, you want to hold on to your choices in body autonomy. In the other hand, Canada is handing this great choice over to you to just be able to euthanize yourself if you're sick, but it just from our perspective, like it looks like it's just the bar on what, you know, being sick means or being in that sort of critical space where we're just this right to die.

It seems like to take advantage. I just saw a headline about it was an autistic adult female who has autism. Here it is. Calgary judge rules women with autism can seek medical assistance in dying, just in common. and Fiesby said his decision will be stayed for 30 days to lawyers for the father of the woman can decide whether to file an appeal. So obviously this father is probably, I'm assuming, making an argument that this person is not really, you know, capable of making this decision.

Maybe they have depression for whatever, but it used to be you're dying of a critical illness. Now it's like you're, I mean, we're reading, is depression actually a reason to euthanize yourself in Canada? Is that enough? This is, I almost feel like I'm in Alice in Wonderland. Yeah. And I've fallen down the hole because, so first of all, you know, medically assisted suicide

was illegal until recently. Okay. And, you know, it had gone all the way to our Supreme Court and no, we can't cross that line. And then they waited until they had a very sympathetic fact pattern. Okay. And the court said in narrow circumstances, you can. And it's supposed to be, even if you look at our law, it looks reasonable.

I mean, you're supposed to be in, you know, have a serious health condition that is irreversible and, you know, basically be at that end of life situation. I mean, the person with MS that's totally losing control and is now going to start literally drowning on their own spit type thing where for compassionate reasons we would all feel compelled. That's the intention. So that's how the law is written. That's how the law is written and that's what the court intended. but it is just exploded and I can't prove it, but it's now urban myth. I mean, you go to the hospital in Canada

with even a moderate condition, and they're going to ask you if you want, we call it made, so medically assisted induced suicide. Okay. That spells made. So we refer to it as made. The last statistics we have are for 2022. In 2022, 4.1% of all deaths in Canada.

And now remember we've got all these COVID vaccine deaths happening. Yeah. But 4.1% of all deaths in Canada and 2022 were medically induced assisted suicide. That is an insane number. And it will have gotten worse since then because they're pushing it. I mean, one of my... Here we have this. I think this is coming from 2021.

Total made deaths in Canada was 10,064. So it looks like it was 2.2%. So you're saying it was up so the next year 2020 it was up to 4.1% and you see how it's just going up in a straight line there if you were to draw a line on those bars Wow it's just and there's just story after story you go to the hospital with as I say you know a moderate condition and they're offering it to you One of my you know family members used made Wow and you know without any explanation to the family as to the reason so it's touching it's touching a lot of us in Canada and it's clearly out of control. What I get really nervous about when you start seeing autism or any sort of, we saw some of

this during COVID, so many people were reporting and we've had stories on this show of say your, you know, your child had autism or down syndrome or something like that. They were being hit with a do not resuscitate order right away as soon as they walked in the hospital. Then they were, like, as you said, you know, waited through the lips are blue. They can't get any treatment. Then they're put on remdesivir and a ventilator, which we know killed about nine out of ten people. And then when they flatlined, nope, don't try to resuscitate them. Doesn't matter what age they are.

And so you just see this dystopian nightmare where we start ridding ourselves of our elderly, ridding ourselves of our handicapped, ridding, you know, which is, I mean, frankly, to make the comparison, Nazi Germany. is sort of where Nazi Germany starts, right? They started with the disabled. Get rid of the indigent, those that can't take care of themselves as a way of gentrifying your society to what you wanted to be. Is there a lot of conversations about that sort of, I mean, I would imagine you bring up Nazi Germany and Canada.

It must be like, ooh, you know, now you're making a false comparison, but are people making those comparisons? Not necessarily, but people are aware. And I mean, but we're split. You know, we've got, we're kind of split into, I don't even want to say left and right because, you know, those traditionally, those terms are getting blurred with all of this wokeness and soji

and the whole thing. Yeah. Our whole society is just dissolving. It's no longer cohesive at all. But I will answer your question, is depression, can you get basically killed by the state for being depressed? They did change the law, but it's not, they're now delaying that until 2027.

So, and that's matters. So if you're depressed, get in there and get yourself killed before you run out of time. You go to the hospital because you're depressed and suicidal. Well, you should be talked down. You should be, you know, watched over until you're not. And then, you know, here's a counselor. And off you go, no, they're going to be saying here. We'll sign here.

I'll take care of it. You feel like killing yourself? Actually, I do. Great. Sign here. It literally feels that way. Like, you know, you just get a feeling. for how things are and because people are sharing stories from families. Yeah. Like I say, my family's been touched by it. A whole bunch of families

been touched by it and people talk and the my feeling is is that people are being pressured by the state and so are there financial incentives? Like why would a doctor or nurse care about this and you would think they would be concerned about it. Right. You'd think they would want to avoid it at all costs but it appears to be pushed on us and you know after COVID I mean anything's seems to be acceptable now, like the world's upside down. I studied, I went to film school up in Canada and Vancouver. And I remember I was, you know, at the time I was young, also came from Boulder, Colorado.

I had a very liberal perspective of the world. And I remember looking around, look how happy these people are. We've talked about so much, their medical is paid for, they don't have to worry, but they don't have a care in the world. They're, you know, they're just these happy people. Everyone seems to get along. And then you cut to where we're at now when I remember. all the people that would say, you know, that's a socialist country. That's dangerous. That is, that is not freedom. One day that thing turns on you. I don't care how happy they are, they're

compliant, and someone's going to take advantage of that someday. It certainly feels like from this perspective, Trudeau was that, you know, perfect vessel to come in and say, you know, whether or not you've been enjoying what, you know, I guess you could call benevolent dictators, what happens when that dictator suddenly turns on you and starts working for the pharmaceutical, changing the models of how you get your health, all of it. And he really seems to have divided your country. I mean, I used to feel like Canada seemed like it was very cohesive. Was that just a facade?

Was there always sort of this level of divide? I mean, look, in America, I can say we used to, we've always had our arguments, but the divide, we feel like we're on the verge of a civil war here. So many people use those words. It's deliberate. So I think, first of all, Canada can be looked at as an example of how quickly it can turn. Because we were shocked. Like, Dale, I know that you guys had lockdowns.

I know you had, you know, these identity papers that they'd call vaccine passports. But that's a full-blown police state ritual when you have to show papers to get the state to grant you permission to do something. But the level of fear in Canada was just you could. taste it. We had the Prime Minister basically seen on TV, how long are we going to tolerate these people, meaning the unvaccinated? And all the while, we're building camps in Canada. The federal government was building detention camps in Canada during COVID. We have our Prime Minister calling us racists and misogynists. You know, I held two lectures in, it would have been in the fall in Alberta and combined audience of maybe 900 people.

And I asked the question, I said, you know, in the middle of the darkness during COVID, did you honestly believe that the army would be going door to door, dragging us out of our homes, the unvaccinated, and forcefully vaccinating us? Dale, almost every hand went up. Now, can you imagine, just imagine, you've just lived through an experience where you actually believed

the army would be going door to door and dragging people out of our homes. I mean, we are a country that has just been totally traumatized. We're in the denial stage of that grief cycle, but it's going to take us a lot of work to get out. And we're still hiding from the truth. We're still being lied to on a grand scale. And our government, you know,

is watching your piece on the Scottish government censorship law. Well, we have Bill C63 working its way through Parliament. that basically will make conversations like this illegal. Wow. So, you know, people like me were wondering, well, how long is it going to be until I'm put in jail? And when I go to use my credit card, are my bank accounts now seized? You see, because I'm a Canadian.

It wasn't just after the trucker movement that people's bank accounts have been seized. Other people's bank accounts, you cross the line and all of a sudden you can't use your bank accounts. Now, correct you, I wasn't involved in the trucker movement. movement. I got involved in the National Citizens Inquiry that stepped in immediately afterwards. Okay. All right. But my word, when those truckers started driving across Canada, I mean, I know they created hope and

optimism everywhere, including in the United States, but for us it was almost a religious experience. You couldn't believe that somebody was standing up and finally doing something. Wow. Wow. Well, you've been standing up. You know, there's a lot of work to be done. Obviously, you're on the front lines. I would imagine your media is as corrupt as ours not telling people your rights are you know rolling right out the door but for people to follow you. We have lots of people watching from Canada. How do they get involved? You know, how do they help? Where can we find the work we do?

Okay, so I'm on this, on the natural health product or dietary supplement front. So, and thank you for that. So any Canadians that want to get involved in this, and we do need to get involved in this. Like we cannot tolerate losing our right, choose how we're going to treat ourselves. So I'm part of an organization called the Natural Health Product Protection Association, and our website is nhpPA.org,

and I'd invite all Canadians to go to our site and sign up to our newsletter, because that's how we communicate with you. And please donate. We're a small little rag-tig fugitive fleet on a lonely quest, literally, trying to stand up to big farmer. But we're making waves.

I mean, we are making a difference. And, you know, we've been around since 2008. We're basically the thought leaders. And we've been the ones that have all along, it's kind of like the high wire where you can write every time. You know, you can go back to all our discussion papers. We've called it 100%. But this is that we're in the end game now.

And you guys are starting the end game. So the Americans need to be very concerned and need to be watching. and as soon as you hear any politician, any bureaucrat, talk that you're in danger in relation to dietary supplements, when, just understand, lightning is a bigger danger you're now being lied to. As soon as they're danger in dietary supplements, you are now being lied to. We'll stop.

There's no way around it. I mean, I don't even want to talk about peanut butter. It's so much more dangerous than the whole dietary supplement industry and more dangerous than lightning. Well, you wouldn't lose any rights over peanut butter. Right. So you've got to understand it's a complete lie, and it's all about big money. It's really scary.

It's sort of like, you know, the ghost of Christmas future for us. I was thinking of like Christmas Carol. You're right there, right across the board. We can see over the fence what happens when you don't have strong constitutional rights, certainly a right to, you know, we the people, government for, by the people. making our own decisions. Just you're a real hero. I know you put yourself in big risk in a place

where you can have your bank account shut down. So hopefully, I hope that the people watching today will help fill some of those bank accounts so you can get this very important work done. So hopefully you can stop that contagion before it rolls across our border here and sweeps the world. If the U.S. falls, we all fall.

You are the bastion of freedom. And I think Americans don't understand that you've got the best constitution in the world. If you follow it, we can all be free. You have a tradition of freedom that the rest of the world pines over. And we're watching them divide you, and you're not seeing that it's a game.

You're brothers and sisters. And yet you're becoming divided into left and right, Democrat, Republican. It doesn't matter where you are. You see things are off the rail. and yet you're not standing up. And the whole world's depending on you. It's a point I try to make every week on this show.

Thank you for making that so eloquently and brilliantly. And thank you for being so hero. Just an honor to be on your show. Thank you for what you do. All right. Sean Buckley. Hey, go ahead. Can we help this guy out? Can we help his work out? Definitely visit the websites. Even if you're not in Canada, I'm sure that he can spend American money there.

Sign the petition, natural health products, protection. Health Products Protection Association. This is the Twitter account at NHPPA. Just really important work, Sean. Thank you for sharing with us today. Thank you, Dale. Yeah. All right. Well, look, can you imagine if someone just took your job away because you wouldn't vaccinate? What if the owner of that company was even a friend of yours looked you in the eyes and said, I don't care? Would they still be your friend, would you still go back in? Would you go back in that Lions Den and jump up and down celebrate maybe even sing? Well, that's what our Dickie Barrett just did. He went on Jimmy Kimmel and man, people are freaking out. This is what it looked like. I'm proud to say that we premiered

the Defiant and their song Dead Language on the highwire before Jimmy Kimmel ever got to it. But Dickie Barrett, who worked on the Jimmy Kimmel show and, you know, sort of lost that job throughout COVID, went back. And a lot of people sort of that follow us were somewhat pissed off about this. Here's just a couple of the tweets that we saw the Defiant Make debut Network performance. Glad they're getting shows, but they should give the fingers of those who betrayed them. Performing on Jimmy Kimmel's show makes them look desperate and weak. All right, rough. Wait, what the F?

Why? And then, well, that makes no effing sense. So, you know, there was also some positives, but look, I wanted to get to the bottom of it. So I reached out just moments ago. So Dickie, we want to talk about this. And so it's my honor and pleasure to be to bring you Dickie Barrett, lead singer of the Defiant. All right, Dickie, are you where? Hey, man. I mean, so first of all, how did this happen? How did it happen? Did you reach out to Jimmy? Jimmy reach out to you. How's like something like this go down? I was in Los Angeles for the for a Robert Kennedy event and I was in his neighborhood. And I texted him and I said I'm in your neighborhood. He said come by the show. I had an entire day before the event that was at that night. And I went by and I said hello to a lot of old friends, people I had worked with for 20 years.

And Jimmy seemed happy to see me. spent some time talking and I ran out of things to say and I said at some point, hey, why don't you book our band on the show? And then he said, sure. We had already, our publicist asked if we could be on the show, not expecting to ever be on the show. And their people said no. And then he said, so I kind of went around them, which is sort of fun for me to do. And he said, yeah, and within an hour, everybody at the show was aware that we were going to be on the show. And then at that point I kind of had to decide do I want to be on the show? And then the guy, I told the guys and they said, sure. And the sentiment and the thought and the feeling was that, you know, a page from

Bobby's book that you're helping to write was that give us a platform and we'll get upon it. You know, our message is our message. What we're saying in our lyrics and what the defiant are all about is that's not going to change. And he has a forum and a platform. for him and he offered it to us. So we took it. You know, I, and that's Are you mad at me? No, I'm not mad at you, digging. In fact, you know, I definitely would say exactly that. In fact, let me, let me just be clear because if at any moment I appear on CNN or MSBC, let me tell you this, right, I want to be really clear with my audience. If Rachel Maddow called me right now, I would immediately stop this show, I would run to the nearest place that

that she wants to talk to me, and I would go on that show so that everyone in her audience could hear what I have to say. And that's something that I want to make clear. I have said it, you know, I've been attacked for being at events. I was in Washington, D.C. on a health stage on, you know, January 6th, and I have been spoken to by authorities, and I've had newspapers asked. I said, look, it was a giant audience, and I bring my, you know, my evidence. and my discussions about freedom and medical freedom and all that I know about vaccines everywhere I go. And I said, I would stand on a stage at the Democratic National Convention if they would have me as I would stand on the stage of Republican National Convention. So I'm with you.

I mean, we have to share our message everywhere. And by the way, this is a friend of yours. I mean, you know, you could make this argument. When I started seeing all, you know, some of these attacks, I just thought, how are we all just shutting down on our friends and family members? we're all going back and trying to get through to them. And I don't know what conversations you've had, but I did see, you know, the giant, you know, sort of Pfizer-like symbol, the defiant there. That's a defiant logo, gal. All right.

Well, I love it. And I love the fact that Jimmy Kimmel, whether he's clueless or not, brought on a band that came together because of the oppression, authoritarianism that he celebrated. So whether it's lost on him or not, there's a giant. audience that's been following Jimmy Kimmel that I know this week are going, what are the defiant all about? And guess what? Boom!

Wake up time. That's what we're here to do. I'm really proud of you actually. Because I think in some ways, you know, we all have to sort of suck it up a little bit, right? You got to suck up that a really good friend of yours sort of really didn't stand up for you,

but you went back and I think it's important lesson for all of us. Do you think there's any mean, I mean, how much duality did you have about it, though? Was it, was it, did you think, let me ask you this, did you think there would be some people getting angry with you? I thought on both sides, but I've now, as you well know, I've become very used to people being angry with me. But I sort of have to continue, you know, steady as the courses, what I think is the right thing to do. And I think that, you know, yelling our message in an echo chamber, where is that going to get us?

you know, preaching to the choir. And they offered us a stick. And so we just started swinging it. And I want, you know, I want their side to know that our side rocks way harder. Amen, brother. Thank you for jumping out of the last minute here. Thank you for, I mean, you've been such a great voice. And here's what I want to say. You know what? This is it, you were somebody that didn't, like people say, oh, is cowtowing to the system? cowtowing would have been getting that vaccine. You walked away from a great job, a life of celebrity, a lot of things that, you know, you made your life more difficult to stand in your truth.

You're amongst those heroes like, you know, Djokovic, the tennis players, and others that put it all on the line. You didn't acquiesce. You walked off. You stood in your truth. And you walked back into that establishment to say, I'm still here. I'm present and counted for. Guess what?

I didn't die. Still really healthy. and now I'm going to sing about it. Really proud of you, man, Dickie. You represent the best of sort of, you know, America and really the world, that inspiration inside of us when it comes to being artists. I just, it wasn't, it hasn't been an easy route, and I love that this whole thing is coming full circle.

Really cool. Del, thank you so much, man. Thank you. Absolutely. I don't know what to say. You've made my day. Thank you, pal. All right, brother.

All right, we'll see you soon. All right. Let that be a lesson to all of us, right? We are, you know, as Sean Buckley said, we are brothers and sisters. Here in America, we are brothers and sisters that somehow are playing a very dangerous game of tug-of-war with our Bill of Rights, with our Constitution, and we may tear it. And if we tear it in half, did we win? We've got to start reaching across.

We've got to start finding common ground. We've got to start moving into difficult places. If we keep saying I'm just a conservative and anyone that goes any other way or wants to talk about environment, then I'm never talking to you again or vice versa. I'm an environmentalist, but I believe in injecting myself in products. And if you don't join us and injecting, we got to cut all that out. We got to cut it out because guys like Dickie represent what art can do. Guys like Bill Maher at the top of this show can come around and point out.

Now, hey, folks, let's admit it. We got it wrong, all right. We got it wrong. Others got it right, whether they were guessing or not, their track record's pretty freaking amazing, and ours sucks. But we all have to overcome that. We have to overcome the things that we got wrong.

We've got to look into the eyes of the people we once had arguments with, and remember, that's my brother, that's my sister, and something far more important than our own egos right now and our own conflicts right now is the future of freedom, the future of our nation, the future of this world. We are an international show, but let me speak to those in America.

What Sean Buckley just said, we are the beacons of light and hope. We are holding on to the chalice of freedom, the last possible chance to make sure that we can represent to the world, and the world is watching us fight. each other right now. They're watching us squabble like children while our Constitution is about to be set aflame, which won't just be the end of hope for America. The world will lose all hope. They're watching us right now. Stop the petty bickering. Find common ground. Get to where you need to

talk. What are the things we can talk about so that we can settle in with each other? Say, I agree with you there. Yeah, mom's doing great. The weather's not. nice, whatever it takes so that we can start talking about what does it mean to be Americans again, to be a little less judgment of each other and a little bit more judging of the importance of our freedom, our liberty, our right to the pursuit of happiness. We won't be happy if we're just stuck in our division. We won't be happy if we continue to just fight for our singular rights and see everyone else as our enemy. We've got to bring everybody to the table.

This is our mission right now. It's critically important. Find a way. We'll give you the facts and how to talk about it. This is the high wire, and I'll see you next week.