The Highwire with Del Bigtree - EPISODE 367: ON THE VERGE OF WWIII?

Episode Date: April 12, 2024

With US Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s latest announcement that Ukraine will join NATO, a longtime redline has been crossed with unclear and potentially world-altering consequences. We breakdown the latest in the Russia-Ukraine conflict and what these events mean for the world.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 Icandecide.org and donate now. All right, everyone, we ready?

Yeah. Action. Good morning, good afternoon, good evening. Wherever you are out there in the world, it's time to step out onto the high wire. The question we're going to ask today is, what is the purpose of a military? What is a military here to do? Here in the United States of America, I guess, in many. ways you would say, well, they need to be ready to defend us against enemies, both foreign and

domestic. They should be fighting ready for whatever, you know, is happening. Now, there's a lot of reasons that people decide to join the military, and I would guess at the heart of it's not always so that they can rush into battle a war, but a lot of times they lack options. They lack options to potentially go to university. And in order to do that, to come from where they're at, they see there's an opportunity that if they join the military, then they will have the option to perhaps go to college and move on to other things with the rest of their lives. But what if you met someone that said, you know why I'm joining the military? I want to get a breast augmentation surgery. You'd be like, ah, don't think that's why you would join the military,

probably not a good idea, or like a facelift. And we could even say that, you know, I've had friends that like, I just want to get in better shape, I want to work out, and therefore I think the military would do. Well, I would certainly do that, but don't you think after a couple of years, now that you're all ripped, you'd be like, but what are all the other reasons we're here? What if you were going to join the military to get a sex change operation? The Department of Defense is estimated to be one of the country's biggest employers of trans people. Staff Sergeant William Allen Rolls is one of over 15,000 transgender people believed to be serving in the United States military. Our doctors will treat them men.

give them medically necessary treatment according to the protocols. They provide a path for those in service for medical treatment, gender, transition, and recognition in one's self-identified gender, and they seek to protect the privacy of all service members and to treat them with dignity and respect at all times. Outside of the military, we are doing every thing we can to try and get rid of all the barriers and gatekeeping that has occurred in trans health.

And I feel like in the military, it's, We still have those same barriers requiring a brigade commander to approve my medical treatment plan. Transitioning has allowed me to be better as a leader. I've gotten rid of the distraction of worrying about concealing who I really was. Gender reassignment surgery will hurt our medical readiness. I mean, you can't even deploy if you're not vaccinated properly or you don't have the proper dental records in place. So how are we supposed to deploy people and keep our war fighting stance? if somebody just had gender reassignment surgery.

And should taxpayers be paying for that? You know, really good questions. And at the heart of this story is one of our contributors for the High Wire great writer Tracy Beans. She's also the editor-in-chief of Uncovered D.C. She put out an article that has gone absolutely viral. Military doctor says transgender surgery uptick paid for with U.S. tax dollars. so let's not beat around the bush on this conversation.

It's my honor and pleasure to be joined by the one, the only Tracy Beans. Tracy, all right, what I want to say is just tell me that this isn't true. I want to be clear. I'm not against if transgender people or gay or buy or whatever, you know, sort of however you identify, if you're ready to serve in the military and you can perform all the functions that are necessary, I have no judgment there. But are we saying that while you're in the military,

that you can be set up and that we're going to pay for you to get a sex change operation? I mean, tell me that isn't true. I wish I could. Absolutely it is true, unfortunately. About a year ago, the DOD put out a new policy that explains all of the kind of working conditions you need to be able to apply and be granted one of these surgeries in the U.S. military. And you need to be serving for at least 180 days before you can go through this process. They've invested a lot of money into working group and health groups surrounding this

issue within the government. And basically what this policy says is you go in. They give you a waiver if you can't get the care you want right then and there on a military, on a military base or at a military facility. You get a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. And then you go through a process within the military of getting your medicines, being on hormones, living real-life experience, as they call it, as the opposite gender. And then you are eligible for a gender reassignment surgery, along with a whole host of other procedures that would always be considered elective for even active duty service members who are not transgender.

So you're looking at... Hold it back. What do you mean by that? So you're saying there's people that want surgeries that are not transgender, like what kind of surgeries would they not get if they're not transgender? Let's say a woman who wants a facelift or an eyebrow lift or a breast augmentation or liposuction or laser hair removal. Those procedures are covered underneath this policy for transgender people who are going through

transition while in the U.S. military. And as you started the show. But those would be denied to anyone that's just a woman that wants to get those things or a man that wants to get those. But as long as you say I'm transgender, suddenly this whole grocery list of the types of plastic surgeries and, you know, enhancements you want to get are now available to you.

Correct. That is correct. You know, the worst problem is the way you started the show was perfect because it's true. You know, if you were gay in the military, fine. More power to you. Serve your country with honor. However, a lot of people are, you're not deployable after this.

Dell. You cannot deploy. And as a matter of fact, you can't even deploy technically under the rules and regulations that are on the books now with a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. It's a mental health condition that requires counseling. You cannot deploy and be overseas in the middle of a desert somewhere and need therapy once every week or once every two weeks or once every month. The limit for therapy that the government provides is once per quarter max. And as you're going through this terrible, you know, period, in my opinion, where you're medically transitioning from one gender to the next, the counseling requirements for that are very, very intense. So you're not deployable then.

You have this surgery. You're not deployable after. And most of these folks, I venture to guess, will end up with a medical discharge. And then the U.S. taxpayer will then also be paying for their health care for the rest of their lives, which is intensive. It's not just, oh, I'm just going to go in for the. little surgery and come out and be fine. The rest of their lives, they're on hormones, the rest of their lives, they need surgical checkup. They need constant medical care. So it's a big issue in our

military. Let me take it back because I want to make sure that we're not misrepresenting this or just to clarify. When you say they have a mental disorder, obviously that's the big argument going on right now around this conversation. Is this sort of gender dysphoria a mental disorder or not? But how does the military determine that you should be eligible? Like, you know, is it? I mean, when you say it's a mental disorder, why are you saying that? How do they determine that? Because in their own words, that's what they call it. The U.S. military uses the DS5, which is the American psychiatric kind of rulebook for mental illness. And that's literally what it's called. So, you know, right on point with that comment, the conversation we're having greater in civilian world out here in culture is

that this is absolutely normal and there's no problem with it. But the U.S. military itself uses the book. They open up the manual. Let's just say the DS5 on mental disorders that go. Okay, definition of gender dysphoria. Tell me about yourself, yep, you fit that bill. You're right in here in the book on mental disorders. Therefore, you qualify.

Now we're putting you on hormones for, what do you say? They have to do hormones for six months to a year, something like that? A year, 12 months. A year. They've got to act like the other gender now. and you know, do they have like people monitoring that? And then once they've gone through all of that, now they're eligible to get a surgery and have body parts removed or added on and the rest of it.

Correct. And it's very important. You heard in that intro video, the use of the term medically necessary. That term is used and abused in my opinion by the U.S. military at will because I've had friends who have been in the military and needed heart surgeries, Dell, and were not granted those heart surgery is being told they were not medically necessary. They were basically telling my friend, go get another oblation. You can't have the special procedure that will save your life. It's not medically necessary. But when it comes to this, they have an entire division to expedite these claims, these

waivers, and they're granted the waivers by using the term medically necessary. And the definition is very vague, almost the same way as they say that vaccines are safe and effective. They use the term medically necessary when it suits them. Well, it's really, you know, and by the way, this is a very expensive set of surgeries. Usually it's more than one. Lots of revisions can be needed. And of course, all the drugs trying to handle it, trying to make sure that whatever, you know, you've added or taken away,

that your body sort of accepts that massive change. So all of that's incredibly expensive, which is a deterrent for a lot of people getting these surgeries. So it seems to me that if you're, you know, in this. community that wants a sex change operation and you don't have a way to pay for it, it seems like the military literally just opened up, you know, to say if you need, you know, a sex change operation, the best way to do that is come join the military. We're here for you. I mean, is that the goal?

I mean, are we just that desperate for military that, hey, there's a whole transgender, you know, community that will come rushing in if we pay for the sex change operation? they'll never be able to serve probably 95% of them will never be able to serve in the US military under the qualifications that are there now you know I have a doctor friend that came to me with this and said there's been this ridiculous uptick in these surgeries at military hospitals I'm seeing it the all of them have been female to male transitions that this person has seen and the interesting thing about that is one of the requirements after you go through this process through the militaries, you need to change your gender within the military

system. So if you came in female and you transition surgically to male, you need to then be a male in their system and meet the benchmarks for men in the military. Tell me without everything else put aside how many women are going to be able to meet the benchmarks for men for readiness in the military close to zero, which is the same argument that we're having with women sports right now, right? I mean, men are so much stronger than women. It's just the way it is. So it's from a readiness perspective only, forget, you know, the culture part of it. It is a huge detriment to our country. I've said this, I think, on this show before.

When I was working on the doctor's television show, I actually, one of the jobs I had was I would go out in the field and shoot a lot of surgeries. That was what the doctors did. And I shot transition surgery from female to male, one of the most outrageous things I've ever witnessed in my life. But one thing I can tell you for sure is that the healing process from that is a long process. So when we imagine being, you know, military ready, I can't imagine. From what I witnessed in that surgery room, I can't imagine that you would be ready to, you know,

charge a bunker or charge into battle, run into battle for several years. And I mean, run into battle, have no access to a shower anywhere for days. I mean, the sacrifice our soldiers make in the middle of a desert, sweating and dirt and sand and sleeping on the ground and whatever it takes, I mean, so many of us aren't ready for it, but guaranteed someone that just had a massive surgery, either adding or removing, you know, a critical part of the body. I just can't even imagine that. So, and you're saying that's the case, that no one's going to send these people in the field because they need too much medical attention on a constant basis. certainly they must need the ability to shower and clean themselves off. Yeah, it's a big, it's a big problem. It will always be a problem. And, you know, we haven't seen numbers and things like that yet because, again, this policy went in about a year ago.

Some folks are coming up on their year now, and that's why the uptick in these, in these surgeries. The other interesting thing about this, Dell, that really got me was they really do a lot of counseling with folks about their loss of fertility, whether they're going on hormones or not or if they're going to have an operation finally. This will impact their fertility. So they do the counseling to say you might want to freeze your eggs or you might want to consider what's going to happen if you want to ever conceive as an active duty service member. And I know from research I've done

outside of this in the civilian population, there are children being placed on these puberty blockers and hormones all over the country. I doubt they're being advised about the impact on their fertility when they're 18, 19, 20 years old, starting these medicines at 13. So there is a lot of contradictory language in the DOD manual versus what the government will stand at a podium and tell you and what popular culture will try and tell you in the general public sphere. I just, I mean, I don't know how big numbers it would be, but what you're saying then is this just started a year ago, they're all coming to the end of that period in which they had to be on the gender blocking drugs. and, you know, walking around as the other gender.

And now it's now, now this tidal wave of its surgery time is coming. I mean, does your average military surgeon know how to do gender reassignment? Or are they bringing in specialists? Do you have any idea how they plan on handling that? Because I would think you'd have to know how to do those surgeries. You know, it's a multi-disciplinary team that they've put together in all these hospitals. And you know, the person I spoke to was at one hospital and for one branch of the, of the military. And there are several a week going on.

You know, in the case of a woman transitioning to a male, a lot of the surgery, some of it's gynecological or hysterectomy and things like that and others reconstructive. So they have plastic surgeons. They have, you know, people to operate on the voice box. They have all kinds of different doctors specializing in this. Some in the military. Some they have to contract out for. But they're really focused on keeping this inside.

Dell that it's over and over and over again in the policy. You must have it here unless it's absolutely impossible for you to have it here at the hospital near you or the military hospital near you. And that makes me think that there's some sort of a financial component to this that we just haven't discovered yet. And that's obviously kind of just me guessing at this point. But I know too much about how the government works to think that this is just happening for, you know, the sake of being safe about it. One thing that just boggles the mind. I mean, this is really one of the craziest stories that I've heard is because, as I said before, why I joined the military? And what is the function of a military? Clearly, this, I just, I struggled to

see any value in this for the military. I mean, whatever your personal experience and why you're doing what you're doing, that's fine. But when we are funding our military to be able to jump into action and defend this, and if I imagine a whole, you know, line of people like, sorry, I can't be the one jumping in there, even though you've paid, you're paying me to be here and you're paying for my surgeries, I'm actually not able to do that for you. I just can't imagine what taxpayer would think that this is a good idea. And frankly, like, what nation would think that this is how we should be, you know, this is a primary goal for our military. It's just one of, I mean, I'm going to be scratching my head for days and weeks to come.

I love the work that you're doing. I love that you're doing so much of this for us. Of course, it's obvious now why this story has gone viral. Are you getting any pushback? I mean, is there an argument against your perspective? I mean, I guess I'd have to ask that. Like, who would say this is a great idea and here's why? I haven't had any pushback, which is kind of scary. I've gotten a lot of people from very, you know, various places in the military who've come to me and said, hey, you might want to take also a look at this over here. Because this is agency-wide and it's much deeper than just what we're talking about today.

So this is going to be a long series that I'm writing because it is something else, Del. And it's not helpful for our defense at all. Wow. Well, keep up the great work, Tracy. Love the work that you're doing for us. And we'll talk to you soon. Take care. Thanks for joining us.

All right. If you want to check out all the great writing that she's doing for us, go to the highwire.com. all sorts of awesome stories. Many of them go viral. She's got her finger on the pulse. And go to UncoverDC.com, of course, where she does a lot of her writing. We want to support that too. All right.

Great show coming up. And speaking of the military, I have got Dr. Krasana Shackleford, who is a PhD. She worked for the Department of Defense, and she's a Navy veteran. She obviously ran into the COVID vaccine like everybody else, but she's got details, she's got receipts, and we're going to talk about, is the military actually ready?

And I think maybe under these circumstances, ready for what? But first it's time for, the Jackson Report. All right, Jeffrey, you know, bring me back to Earth. I think I just disappeared into cartoon land there for a second. I mean, I just, some of these things just, they just, it's, I know I'm not alone. I know the, you're all, I hope at least most of you like,

Dell, that's crazy. I know. So what's happening in the real world? Yeah, big story in the real world here. And you know, as people are watching this, they may say, why is a globally front running health journalist show dealing with manmade disease, talking about military things? Well, sometimes you have to pause because world events start to really coalesce really fast. You have to pause and say, what are we doing here? Let's look at some of the evidence and let's pay attention. So something just happened recently that has a lot of people talking, a lot of people pump on the brakes. And it was our Secretary of State, Tony Blinken. He said something during

a press conference that had people's ears perk up. Take a listen. All right. We're also here at NATO to talk about the summit that's upcoming in the summer in Washington, celebrating the 75th anniversary of the alliance. Ukraine will become a member of NATO. Our purpose at the summit is to help build a bridge to that membership and to to create a clear pathway for Ukraine moving forward. We've done a lot of work on that over the last couple of days here in Brussels, a lot more work to be done

between now and the summit, but we will see, I think, in the summit, very strong support for Ukraine going forward in its relationship with NATO. Now, there's an interesting point there for people that miss what's going on. That summit's gonna be in July, by the way, 9th through 11th in D.C. But having Ukraine joined NATO,

NATO is a defensive military grouping of countries, 32 countries to be exact. And what that means in plain talk is if Ukraine joins NATO is allowed into NATO, they have a pact of anybody in that NATO experiences an attack or is under military conflict, everyone will join. So you can do one plus one equals two at this point because Ukraine is in military conflict. If they join NATO, that means the EU and the US would have a green light to join into this conflict. Why is this a problem? Well, this has been a promise for a very long time to Russia and the Soviet Union that Ukraine would not join NATO. In fact, it's always called a red line. Thanks to

George Washington University's National Security Archives, we actually have the transcript in 1990 to win at that time Secretary, U.S. Secretary of State James Baker met with Soviet Union leader Mikhail Gorbachev. And they were discussing it was the fall of the Soviet Union, just a year prior, I'm sorry, Germany just a year prior, they East Germany, West Germany, they were unifying Germany at that point. And a lot of superpowers had vested interests in what direction Germany was going to go, the U.S. and the Soviet Union primarily. So this meeting took place in Moscow, and we have the transcript here. I'll read right from it. And this is U.S. Secretary of State James Baker.

He says, and the last point, NATO is the mechanism for securing the U.S. presence in Europe. If NATO was liquidated, there will be no such mechanism in Europe. We understand that not only for the Soviet Union, but for other European countries as well. It is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO's present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction. So to that, Mikhail Gorbachev obviously agreed to that. So there was kind of a loose promise there, not an inch further. I would imagine that conversation is happening because of a tension that Gorbachev is having. Like, wait a minute, you know, the walls coming down,

you're all moving in here, NATO is taking over, and frankly, it feels like you're all lined up against us. What is your plan? I mean, we've always been worried about like all these paranoid people with their finger on the button. Yeah, exactly. And Russia has a reason for that because in World War II, Operation Barbarossa was commenced by Germany in which they invaded Russia, partly through Ukraine. It's the biggest land invasion in US, I'm sorry, in world history. So we're talking millions of people. This was the biggest war known at that point throughout World War II. So what's also going on is Putin has somewhat responded to this movement. And listen to what he had to say. Take a listen to this.

I want to each other, I've said, but I'm very much would want to you, you know, listen to, and denies it to their readers, and users and people to the internet. But you know, or not, that if Ukraine will be in NATO, and, the warren by the military put on will be going to

come to Europe's European countries automatically will be in the war

conflict with Russia. Of course, the potential of the Union of NATO and Russia

is we understand. We also we also we know, we also is one

of the world, but on the other different countries

even many there, the other, the other, and you'll be able to in this conflict, from your will and you'll just

not even you'll just not when you're doing the 5th of the RIMSk of the President, of course, and I don't

want to, and I don't and I don't so, so he's here and he's and mucate me six hours for a

Wow, I want to take a second here, because, you know, we are, we're going to in the space that we, you know, tend to avoid Jeffrey. We had a lot of conversations this week. Is this, does this fit the culture of what the Highwire is talking about? But I think I said very simply when we were discussing it, if we have a nuclear war and our mission statement is dedicated to eradicating man-made disease, we have a man-made disease, we have a problem in which that so many people across this world, maybe all of us get sick. We know where this goes.

and for all of those, like I am not a sympathizer in any way, you know, with Putin. In fact, I find it shocking that the people are like, he's a dick, he's a lunatic, he's a warlord, he's a warmonger, whatever it is, that they would say the best thing we should do then is put back him into a corner where this crazy person has no other options. What he says there is so chilling that I know at that point, if they join NATO, and I'm in the middle of all, I mean, you know, in a war with Ukraine, I will be outnumbered. You will now have every ability to beat me. It's not lost on me that that's the case.

So what do you think I'm going to do? I only have one option then because I still have some of the best nuclear weapons in the world. And we all basically know how that ends and nobody wins. I mean, it's really, really chilling stuff. And I guess do we say, oh, he's bluffing. Oh, he's bluffing. Don't worry about it. Really?

I thought you just said he was a lunatic. Which one is it? Right. And this isn't something he did. This is a speech that just came out of left field, as we just showed since at least 1990. There's been talks about not doing this, not expanding Ukraine and having them join NATO. So this isn't something, this is something that policymakers definitely know what they're doing. And to really understand this story, the recent history of this, if you will, we have to go back to the Secretary of State, Assistant Secretary of State, Victoria Newland.

And at the time in 2013, there was something called the Maidan Revolution or the Maidan uprising in Ukraine. This was basically civil unrest because at the time, the Ukrainian president turned away from the European Union to sign a deal and turned towards Russia to sign an economic pact. And that led to an uprising in the country. The U.S. was heavily involved in parts of that uprising. And in 2014, Victoria Newland was caught on a call. This went out to all the press.

It was released. She was caught on a call. This was the headline intercepted F-bomb phone call shows the U.S. world in Ukraine. And she was on a call with the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine. And they were talking about which government to install, which people they wanted to install that were friendly to the West when the regime toppled, which eventually it did. The president was ousted he had to leave the country. And so from that point on, the U.S. was really kind of in a poll position seat because Ukraine, as you know, turned towards Europe and the United States. But Newland was still had her hands in this as well. So she helped with the sanctions.

This was the headline U.S., Europe, weighing potential deeper Russian sanctions. That's Reuters. And remember, the sanctions were to stop Russia from invading Ukraine. We were told us why we were doing that. More on that in a second, but obviously that didn't work. And then in 2020, Newland penned this in foreign affairs,

pinning down Putin in which she called in this article for expansion of NATO, a wider expansion of NATO with Ukraine involved in that. And so that brings us to, you know, so Newland's an interesting character in this space because she's really just has her foot on the gas in this conflict, really charging towards this conflict with a lot of, it seems like blunders to make Russia really just cause this invasion even faster. But we go to the current headlines now. Biden warns Warren's risk of nuclear Armageddon is highest since Cuban missile crisis, which is ironic because during the Cuban missile crisis, that was John F. Kennedy's tenure. That's when Russia put military armaments in Cuba on our border. So that was obviously a really big deal for us. And that took about two weeks to really figure that out.

So let's look at some of the headlines here because we're not only talking about, I can't believe I'm reporting on this, but potential nuclear war, but we're talking about military mobilization for a greater war in Russia and Europe. These are the headlines just over the last two months. This is France. I'm going to go through these. This is in February. Macron stands by remarks about sending troops to Ukraine.

This is in January 24. U.K. Army Chief says citizens should be ready to fight in possible land war. New York Times, February, 2024. Germany braces for decades of confrontation with Russia, March 24, Bandolin asked Finland to prepare EU for war. And then here's another one. UK and other NATO allies urge to consider conscription. That's a draft as Ukraine war enters third year. I mean, these aren't just one-off topics. This is, I mean, psychologically, you've got to understand what this is doing in the populations as well. is preparing them for a potential engagement. I mean, I don't know if everyone, you know, this is where we're going to play both sides track. How many people want to go to war at this point, a prolonged war with a superpower with nuclear weapons, who says he's going to use them if this happens? But Ukraine has a problem at this point, because this is in March, just the end of March.

Draft dodging plagues Ukraine as key faces acute soldier shortage. So there seems to be an inflection point here. They have a soldier shortage. They're running out of money, armaments. And so we're talking either a peace deal or, you know, troops and armaments from other countries have to join this fight, it seems. And for the U.S. purposes, let's remember just about a month or so after the invasion in 2022, Russia's invasion of Ukraine, we had Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, who was the head military guy, quote, this was in CNN. Austin says U.S. wants to see Russia's military capabilities weakened. So we were told that this is supposed to help the democracy in Ukraine and to fight, you know, one of the world's most brutal dictators. But then you have Lloyd Austin saying we want to basically see Russia weaken to a degree it can't do these kind of things.

So that's an interesting angle there. I mean, that's been the conversation. Is this a proxy war? We're just using Ukraine to wear down Putin, which means all of those. I mean, I think we're in the hundreds. Aren't we reaching somewhere near a half a million Ukrainians are now dead in the middle of the? this conflict soldiers. It's extremely dire.

I mean, it's really, really bad. And to think that we're just using them and now pressing Putin to bring all of the NATO military upon him, it's, we, I mean, I, you know, these are things, I mean, I grew up, my parents, I've said it before, my parents were hippies, I grew up anti-war, war is not the answer. But these are the types of things I was always warned. warmongers take over your country and you start you know you know kicking the hornets nest that's how you start World War III it's just it's really really chilling because

these are commentaries and conversations now that we only heard about before I was born it's first time I've really seen these kind of conversations in my lifetime right and these narratives do weave into health well-being wellness because obviously what we talked about at the top there but for the US we're talking the Senate foreign aid package which is currently up for a vote is another $60 billion that's going to Ukraine. So the Cato Institute did some calculations of all the money that has been has went to Ukraine, including if this $60 billion package passes and the interest. This is what they found. The high costs of war, Ukraine aid could top 240 billion. This is at a time when the U.S. has extremely high inflation.

Grocery bills are through the roof. People are having a hard time even affording or buying houses at this point. And, you know, speaking about those sanctions, those are supposed to stop all of this from happening, sanctioning Russia. What it actually did is it caused them to run into the arms of China. This is Reuters just recently, China to foster new cooperation and consolidate friendship with Russia. So now you have two of the largest commodity producers in the world that have basically cozyed up to each other and have turned their back on the West and the European Union and made life harder for them as far as energy and oil and things like that. So these are, Geopolitically, there's a lot of things moving right now, a lot of big movements,

and it'll be interesting to see how this shakes out because this will have decades-long consequences for several countries, including ours. Wow. All right, well, let's keep our eyes on it. I mean, these are very scary developments. Certainly not moving towards the evolution of humanity, which is their way to establish peace. Haven't we had enough wars? Or any way we can just say, you know, can we all just get into it? to having strong economies and making sure our populations thrive.

We got to keep attacking each other. And man, that nuclear, I thought we were beyond that. I thought we're beyond threats of nuclear war. And here we are. Exactly. It's really, really dire times and it really sad times too to have these conversations with these leaders. But let's move from political and actual wars

to the war on climate. And people may have noticed over the last year a new talking point towards the net zero push or the climate conversation. And it looks like this, if you haven't seen it. Take a look. A dire warning about the state of the world's air and oceans. The ocean is rapidly heating up,

hitting record-breaking levels. Global sea and air temperatures are at record highs for this time of year. Scientists say the average surface temperature of the world's oceans has surpassed the previous record set in 2016. The world's warming waters are a dangerous trend, say experts.

The National Oceanic, and atmospheric administration, better known as NOAA, reported this week that ocean surface temperatures spiked in April and May to the highest levels recorded since the 1950s. Ocean temperatures are warming at an unprecedented rate with 40% of global oceans currently experiencing a heat wave. Those warm waters could cause hurricanes to strengthen more rapidly than normal. You're more prone to get a rapid intensification, you know, where hurricanes can go from some intensity and very quickly become a lot strong.

The climate scientists are saying you can't even say new normal because it will keep ramping up if you can imagine that. Instead it's just going to get worse and worse and worse. So the sooner we get to work, the better. Bill and I, the science guy. Love him. Got to love him. So he comes up in a lot of these conversations, doesn't he? So as you're saying there, it's going to get worse and worse and worse until we act.

So again, another climate issue, boiling oceans is our fault. And so these are the headlines too. If you're reading, you can see these. This is out of the Atlantic. This summer feels like the start of an unsettling new era, boiling the ocean. And then MSNBC, we've reached the boiling seas part of the climate crisis. And then Guardian, former VP Al Gore gives unhinged rant about environmental threats, talking about rain bombs and boiling oceans during a speech of the world economic forum.

So you know it's a global talking point once it hits there. You would hope as soon as someone uses the term boiling with the ocean, that we would just write them up as hysterical. I mean, it's such an absurd, you know, description of the ocean. I mean, whatever, but okay, let's follow through here. Where are we going with this? Well, I mean, that's most people out there, I hope your gut kicks in there when the media starts throwing fear conversation like that out there

and say, let's look at this. So what we've been in is something called an El Nino. And there's a little graphic here we can explain this. In El Nino, it's an ocean atmospheric coupling event, basically, and it impacts the Pacific jet stream. So you have these warmer climates, and then the opposite end of that coin is a Laninia. And it's the two sides of the same coin.

So during winter, you have the warmer, at least in the U.S., warmer, wetter conditions than usual in the southern U.S. And then with the La Nina, you have the cooler oceans and different weather patterns. So this is something that is continuously ongoing. It can either be one side of the coin, the other side of the coin, El Nino, La Nina, or just a neutral zone without so much.

variation between them but it doesn't take you know I just search local news and you can see this headline here so remember El Nino means warming oceans and that's what we're in right now this is the headline confidence grows on El Nino ending quickly replaced by La Nina it says there are several signs the current El Nino ocean condition is fading now the forecast confidence is also increasing that the ocean temperatures are going to cool and eventually turn into a la Nina El Nino is when the Ecuadorian Pacific Ocean water becomes warmer than the long-term average. We have been in El Nino since last year.

The El Nino experts at NOAA are now finding much cooler waters just below the water surface at the equator. They say this colder water is working its way to the surface and will soon replace the warm El Nino waters. And you have a chart here that's accompanying this article. The orange is the warm waters. And you can see all the way back it's since last year you've had the warmer waters, but you can see just after January and February you have this deep decline and now it's cooler water. So we actually have NOAA, this is the government's own website, NOAA Climate Prediction Center, and it says on their website, the odds of a L'Anna developing by June or August of 2024 is 62%.

And it has a chart accompanying that just to give the ratios here. So you can see as we move through the summer and into the fall, you're looking at like 85% topping out there that we're switching directly over to a L'a Nina, not even going neutral. We're just going to go right to cooler ocean water. So you can probably understand here that some of those headlines about ocean boilings, you're not going to see those very much anymore, at least for the next year, because those temperatures aren't going to support it. But this brings us to a larger conversation.

We've been told so long about global warming, warming, warming, we can't let the temperature rise two degrees or something may happen that we don't quite know yet what, but it's going to hurt everybody. So net zero, we have to do our part, reduce carbon emissions. But should we be concerned more about global cooling? This is a part of the conversation that obviously because of the narrative control has been left out. But there is legitimate science showing this. This is a 2015 study out of Sweden. It's called the Approaching New Grand Solar Minimum in Little Ice Age climate conditions.

So it's published in the journal Natural Science. It says by about 2030 or 2040, the sun will experience a new grand solar minimum. This is evident from multiple studies of quite different characteristics. during the previous Grand Solar Minima, i.e. the Spore minimum, 1440 to 1460, the Mondar minimum, 1687 to 1703, and the Dalton minimums 1809 to 1821. The climate conditions deteriorated into little ice age periods. So let's break this down a little further. We have a chart here from Space Weather Prediction Center, and this is a government organization actually tracks the solar cycle progressions. So you can see right now

we're at the peak of Solar Cycle 25, right at the right there. And that Dalton minima was way back in the 1800s where you see that lull. So we're talking about the peaks there. And back in the 1800s, you see this lull here. And that was when it was harder to grow crops. Frost was taking out a lot of the crops, longer winters. They're calling it a mini ice age. So you can see the amplitude of the solar cycle 24 and 25 is getting smaller.

And they're predicting smaller amplitudes that would bring us into another grand solar minimum is what they're calling it. and the years were 2030 to 2040. So these are times when we're getting colder. And there's actually a climate researcher, John Casey, who wrote a great book on this in 2015 called Dark Winter, How the Sun is causing a 30-year cold spell. So this is documented science.

He actually- Bring back that last, I just wanna look at his last charge so I fully understand what I'm looking at. So the peak, it says over there on the left of my screen, that the Sun spot number, meaning I guess the sun is very active, that when it's at its highest point, we see that peak, and then we see it always goes back down. And so, and you're saying, look at the tops of those peaks,

like in the 1950s, and it looks like 1960, somewhere there. It was really peaking high at like 350, but the last little sort of bump, there's, I guess, that's somewhere around like 2010 it looks like or ish, that we're not peaking even above 200, and it looks like we're on that cycle. And when you go all the way to the left, You look at 1800, 1825, what they called a little ice age. That's the only time we mirrored where we're at right now.

And we're about to hit the top of the sun activity where we're expecting it drops down. If it does the same pattern that it's done since this goes back to 17, whatever, 60, 50. And so we're about at 2025, we're going to hit the top of the sun activity. And then we're expecting it to really drop down, which will be the second really low sun, producing period. And what a lot of scientists and what this writer is saying is, hey, folks, global warming is not your problem. We're going to, we're in that little ice age zone that we saw back in the 1800s. And if you're trying to stop us from being warm, you may actually start planning on how to stay warm. Right. And there's a lot of science saying we may be entering

that. We're not quite perhaps in it yet, but we may be entering this. And those, those are 11-year cycles. So each one of those amplitudes, so solar cycle 24, 25, there, They're estimated at 11-year cycles. So that gives you an idea of how long those are. Those aren't just like six months or a year. But you can see this trending downwards, and this is a long process. It's an elongated process.

But something else besides cold weather happens during those processes. So the sun enters a minima, which is low sunspots, low activity. And you can see an uptick in earthquakes and even volcanoes. So John Casey actually wrote a follow-up book to his book, Dark Winter. It was called Upheaval, Why Catastrophic Earthquakes

will soon strike the US. one of the charts in that is showing South Carolina, and it's showing during those low sunspot cycles, you have the Dalton minimum, you have the monitor minimum. You have these stars here. These are some of the earthquakes there at one of those earthquake zones in South Carolina. So there's a lot of, and you know,

this comes into play just recently with that earthquake in New Jersey. A lot of people, my wife and I were doing shopping, and that's all people were talking about that day. So it gave like a glimpse into something that I've never seen before. Everybody was talking about this. on the East Coast. I mean, it was at every location you went to. This was all of it. So this isn't

something that's just, you know, a part, a small part of the conversation. There's legitimate science. And even just a couple weeks ago, our guest, Jim Lee talked about what would happen, talked about this exact scenario. Take a listen. All right. When volcanic eruptions happen, rainfall patterns change worldwide. They know this. So if you start a geoengineering program, which we've had, one going on for decades. We're only two or three very large volcanoes away from throwing that radiation budget off so badly that we have a modern ice age, aka Snowpiercer, the film.

Now he's talking about that from a perspective of geoengineering, but it works just the same if there are these large volcanoes. And something we should really talk about here too. Let me explain that to someone that maybe missed all of that. Part of what he was saying is that, you know, we're starting to contaminate our stratosphere. with particulates. Some of them there on purpose for geoengineering purposes, also jet exhaust, lots of different theories on it, but it's starting to whiten out our stratosphere, which means it's going to be blocking the sun. And he said, if we're doing that and we're going into a grand solar minimum where now we need all that sun, all you need is a volcano to go up and always those

sort of block out, they get stuck. All those particulates go into the stratosphere. He's saying, one, two, or maybe three volcanoes at the wrong time, and suddenly you can't get enough sunshine and you are freezing. So that was sort of the really scary and probably extreme. Let's be honest. That's extreme perspective too. But it's one that is backed by science that we never hear about. Right. And let's root this back into science. We don't even have to go to the extreme point. There was a study in the Lancet just a couple of years ago. And the title of it was global regional and national burden of mortality associated with non-optimal ambient temperatures. They looked at almost 20 years of data, 750 locations, 43 countries, and they concluded this.

Average excess deaths related to non-optimal temperatures accounted for 9.43% of global deaths. 74 deaths per 100,000 residents with 8.52% of deaths explainable by cold temperatures. 67 deaths per 100,000 residents and 0.91% explainable by hot temperatures, 7 deaths per 100,000 residents. So cold temperatures are taken out 67 people per 100,000, while warmer temperatures, too hot, are taken out 7 per 100,000. We've been continually told by the media that hot temperatures are killing people. They're the most dangerous thing that can happen. But this study proves that cold temperatures are by far way more dangerous. And obviously, that's an intuitive thought.

but that's science talking about it right here. And so what happens when you have just a narrow window, a narrow narrative, if you will, that science is allowed to look through, that academia is allowed to look through, and everyone else is blocked out of the conversation. Well, you get inventions and movements that do this. Take a look.

All right. That roar is not coming from a snow machine. Instead, the plume you see are tiny aerosol particles. It's the first technology in the country to test ways to brighten clouds in an effort to cool the globe. This system is composed of three main components. In these tanks, Jessica Medrado and a group of scientists from the University of Washington's Marine Cloud Brightening Program

are mixing salt and water and using a compression system to test if this machine can distribute the right size particles. They say Alameda provides the perfect cloud conditions over the bay. The goal to mimic the effects of pollution in a cleaner using salt water to brighten clouds, which they hope will then reflect more sunlight back into space to help cool the Earth. With something like marine cloud brightening, you're not going to just reverse global warming. So it's really important how it plays out in the climate system will depend on where you could brighten clouds and how much. We are kind of locked in at this point committed to significant climate disruption.

So the question is are there other things we can do to help reduce suffering and impacts? And this might be one of them. Tau State East Bay Professor Elena Giventel is excited about the research, but cautions that as Earth continues to heat up, the various ideas for cooling the world are not without controversy. While there are certain benefits from trying to cool the environment, we are not quite sure what kind of negative effects. So, yeah, we're not saying this is the answer.

It's going to be global cooling, and global warming, and global warming is wrong. What we're saying is there's a whole slice of the scientific conversation. There's real science that shows that we could be entering a time of limited solar output, which may cool the planet. There's a real scientific perspective with real data that shows this.

It has been completely blocked out of the conversation. And so this has to come to the table if we're talking about global, doing any type of global movements, especially like changing weather patterns, this has to be at the table, seat at the table has to be reserved for this conversation. Absolutely. I mean, we've all had that moment where we put on the tank top and the shorts rushed out without any other options,

didn't check the weather, and it ends up clouding up, getting cold, and all of a sudden we're freezing all day long, totally inappropriately dressed. This is like inappropriately dressing the entire world. If we're not watching all sides of this, and I want to say this, if there's one thing I've learned doing the high wire, is that these scientists barely know anything at all. I'm so dismayed at the amount of confidence that all science states when it's getting paid its millions of dollars to do its research because it's only going to get its millions of dollars as long as it really sells what it's looking at right now and time and time again we keep witnessing that these assumptions stacked upon assumptions

come crashing down like a house of cards and while we have all of our focus on blocking the sun what happens if just a few short years away we are desperately needing every single ounce of the sudden we can get or we can't grow anything. We can't move. As you said before, for everyone out there, I'm not saying that global cooling is the definite, you know, that's what it's going. What we are saying is there is a whole bunch of science knowing the media is covering that is just as plausible, has all the same timelines, even some of them, I think, a little bit more obvious that they're not being, that are not being looked at correctly. And so we're going to do that for you. On the high wire, you can expect to get all sides of this story that you can start making your own decisions and know

maybe some reading that you want to do. And of course, I want to take this moment for everybody out there. That's the greatest thing that the High Wire does. You're like, well, where did they get that information? What was that book again? All of that. You don't even have to take notes. You don't have to sit there. Don't look down. Just keep watching the show because if you simply just sign up to be, you know, on thehighwire.com, you just register with us and get a part of our newsletter. It's just as simple as that. You type your email right there. Take the time. 10 seconds if you were doing it right now, hit subscribe, and then you get our notes. Literally what builds, what's sitting on my, everyone's like, what's on your computer screen, Dell? Basically this. All the headlines with all of the links that you can then go and read

the whole article, watch the whole video, see the whole thing yourself, so that you're not stuck saying to your friends, hey, Del Bigtree said or Jeffrey Jackson said, you can say, no, this is a study by the CDC. Do you know that Noah is actually saying we're going to an El Nina? No, not a bunch of right-wing conspiracies, but actually Noah itself is like, yeah, El Nina is the most obvious thing that's happening in the ocean right now. Don't you want to have that evidence? Don't you want to up-level the conversation that you're having? Please, it's free. Being educated and knowing what you're talking about is free here on the high wire. Please use one of the tools, one of the greatest tools that we put out there. All right. And Del, today we're charging into some of the

most serious topics facing humanity, perhaps ever facing humanity, war, rapidly changing climate patterns, and one of the scariest diseases known to humanity and something we've seen a complete uptick in in the last couple of years. It looks like this. Take a look. According to the numbers from a newly released study, a growing trend of younger people who are being diagnosed with late-stage cancer. Researchers predict over the next two decades there will be 15 million more cancer cases. By the year 2050, the number of cancer cases is predicted to jump to 35 million. We're seeing a rise in younger adults being diagnosed with cancer, including people who are who are seemingly healthy like Princess Kate.

Researchers say they're finding more people, some as young as 30, with late stage colon cancer. A new study finds that late stage cervical cancer cases are on the rise in the United States. Kyle Limpra was seemingly a healthy 16-year-old. He complained that his back was hurting. And when the pain didn't go away, they took him to earth. urgent care and then over to Jefferson Hospital. And that's where doctors broke the news to Kyle's parents that his organs were shutting down

due to leukemia. And within 24 hours of diagnosis, Kyle passed away. Just a month ago, Macy and her family found out she was diagnosed with gray three anaplastic menigyoma, an aggressive brain tumor. My life is normal. And then a month ago, they found the mass. Colon cancer at 40. It turns out Jones's cancer was bigger and had spread. farther than doctors first thought. His story is becoming more common. It's the faster rise,

especially in these colorectal cancers and bile duct cancers and breast cancers. Colon, esophagus, kidney, liver, and pancreas, along with others. The scariest thing about that is that we actually don't know what is driving this uptick. All in the health care community going, what's going on here? So what's going on here? That's a really interesting way to end that, because a lot of people know and a lot of people won't report on it. This is the American Cancer Society. A headline just came out. American Cancer Society warns that a tidal wave of tumors is coming with cases set to rise 80% by 2050. Remember, we've had a war on cancer since right around Nixon's time. So this is a shocking headline. And what's confusing for a lot

of people is just a couple weeks ago, an outlet ran the paper, the headline that looks like this, how America's winning the war on cancer. Deaths drop 10% in five years. despite diagnoses staying steady inside country is getting better at treating disease. So you look at that headline and people say, oh, that sounds hopeful. But then you start reading into it and this is where you really got to pay attention to the details because it shows a graph here from the American Cancer Society, US rate of cancer cases and deaths by year. And you can see obviously all those lines for the most part are trending down. The female incidence is kind of just staying, going sideways across the all time.

But what do you notice about the year? That's from 2021 to 2019. In 2009, 2001 to 2019, yep. Yep. Yeah, 2001 and 2019, sorry. And so that was the year of diagnosis. And so they left out some key years, namely the years that the COVID vaccine was being. We introduced a product that's going to shut down your immune system that fights cancer. And so now since that's happened, we got a new headline, 80% increase in cancers.

Amazing. Yes. And so we've been on this show for some time. we've had Edward Dowd on and Edward Dowd has a consulting firm who's been really tracking this in the disability numbers, the cancer numbers. So let's look at some of his more recent charts. This is the CDC's underlying cause. They looked at the ICD codes for neoplasms. Now neoplasm is just tumors. So remember, tumors are up 80% in the next whatever couple decades, it's in 2050. So this is age group 75 to

84. And you look at this and you can see just like that American Cancer Society chart we just showed it's trend it is trending downwards and then around 2021 whoops up it goes now it's just a that dotted line is where it was supposed to go by from the track it was going on but something made it go up what was that well we look at the we look at it from a little different chart the underlying cause of deaths and you can see 2021 2020 it jumps up this was compared to the 2010 to 2019 trend so this as you can see it bucks the trend in 2021 big in 2022 But people may say, well, that's only 75 to 84 year olds, but Dowd's group also looked at 15 to 44 year olds.

Wow. Same chart, same numbers, basically, same colored lines. So you're seeing the same trend there. What's going on? This is, it looks like it's across most age groups. And so there's some Japanese researchers that have had the courage to put this on paper instead of looking at just raw numbers,

they're actually pointing. Instead of like, you know, having to be embarrassed, scratching their head. like a bunch of morons, we just can't figure out. We wouldn't even know where to start looking where this is coming from. Like, we kind of think we know where to start looking. It's not like it's not an important disease

or it's not devastating or anything. So the Japanese researchers have this paper that was just put out, peer reviewed, increased age-adjusted cancer mortality after the third MRNA lipidantoparticle vaccine dose during the COVID-19 pandemic in Japan. They conclude statistically significant increases in age-adjusted mortality rates of all cancers,

and some specific types of cancers, namely ovarian cancer, leukemia, prostate, lipo, oral, pharyngeal, pancreatic, and breast cancers were observed in 2022 after two-thirds of the Japanese population had received the third or later dose of SARS-CoV-2, that's the COVID vaccine. These particularly marked increases in mortality rates of these ER alpha, that's estrogen receptive alpha, the sensitive cancers, may it be attributable to several mechanisms of the MRNA lipid nanoparticle vaccination rather than COVID-19 infection itself or reduced cancer care due to the lockdown. So finally we're getting some, we're getting some traction here. And I really applaud them for doing this, and I hope other researchers step up because this is not something you want to sit back and try to keep your job or worry about your pension on.

This is global changing demographics with these numbers. This is very scary stuff. Very scary. And once again, one of the things that we predicted here on the high wire. very early on. I probably go back and, you know, do and I told you so from 2020 because this is what we're studying. When they created this vaccine, when they took the spike protein, which is the known bio weapon of this so-called virus and stuck it into a syringe, the problem was the spike protein or the MRI that would have yourselves create this bio weapon would die. The MRI didn't know

how to live long enough to create your, get your immune system react. And so the geniuses that decided, well, how about we do this, we mess with the tool-like receptors, we insert uridine and change the, you know, sort of the genetic structure of the spike protein or the mRNA so that it goes all the way in and stays in, stays alive, and keeps going long enough so that your body can have an immune system reaction. Of course, Dr. Robert Malone, who was one of the inventors of this technology, said this was never my intention why invented it. This has turned this into the most dangerous way to vaccinate. He said the whole idea was that it would quickly disappear in the body and leave your body, MRNA.

But instead, they made it this mutant Frankenstein that lives on forever. Now we've done reports. You're seeing it persisting for six months, years, really as long as the study lasts, they tend to still keep. keep finding our bodies, you know, creating this MRNA and creating this spike protein. And we're going to get into that in just a minute about, like, you know, is this a bio weapon? Have we all been given a bio weapon? Has the military been forced to take a bioweapon into their bodies? And what did it do?

We have had multiple doctors says it's shutting down your immune system. It's shutting off your tollege receptors so your body doesn't have the ability to fight cancer any longer. and thus, bang, turbo cancers. Jeffrey, and now the science is backing up, once again, backing up the high wire. Great reporting, Jeffrey. You know, unfortunately, we're going to have some of the ugliest, most horrifying and sad. I told you so is in the years to come. But hopefully more and more people are listening.

Keep up the great work. I'll see you next week. All right. Thank you, though. All right. You know, so much of the work that we do, what you see here is obviously incredible investigations. You see a news show that's not afraid to tell you the truth. Why? As I said

it before, because we're not sponsored by Pfizer, folks. We're not sponsored by Moderna. We're not sponsored by the product that is now in its ninth shot for you to try and do what it could never do, which is actually protect you from this virus. That came from a lab,

which we were one of the first ones to tell you that, all of this. I could go on and on and on. For those you've been following us from the beginning, high wire always gets it Right. But one of the things that we don't talk as much about, certainly not every single week, is the legal work that we're doing. And the fact that we have known what was going to happen, we're able to predict how bad this vaccine was and how bad its manufacturing was, not because in real time we were studying it, but because our legal team had unearthed so many, so much information through FOIA requests and lawsuits that we knew how they always make vaccines, all the problems with how this entire. process is done and why so many people are having adverse effects, while we're seeing this incredible dramatic rise from about 12% chronic illness in America to now more than 54%. Some are even now in saying 60% of Americans are permanently sick all day, every day of their

lives. A lot of it can be, you know, attributed to this vaccine program, but it's our legal team that allows us to see that. That allows us to show you, documents from the CDC, from the FDA, from NIH, from HHS. It's our legal team that then takes that information and goes and goes into states like Mississippi and wins back your religious exemption so that you get the choice, a right to choose what's injected into you and your children. That's what our legal team is doing for you. There is no other news show in the world that has a legal team. I think of over 20 professionals now working to handle all of the lawsuits and all of the things that we're bringing. Well, I have news to report to you. We've got a

match alert because one of our sponsors is getting so tired of having me sit here saying, I need your help. I need to, I need you to join us, join forces. We have so many lawsuits we want to bring. I don't want to hold the reins back on Aaron, see you and his team another day. Well, one of our sponsors said, Del, I want to help you with that. I want to give you something to talk about, which is the daily double, and here it is. Right now, if you donate over the next several weeks, I'm sure you need this QR code. So grab this, pull out your phone, grab that QR code, take a photo of it, because you've got to donate through that portal right now. But if you do, it's going straight to the legal work and every dollar you give will be matched up to $500,000.

So let's say you've been looking at 2024 and thinking, you know, I'm going to match their $24. I want to do the $24. Well, today all you have to do is give $12 and it'll be matched and doubled. So whatever it is that you can give and if you've been sitting here watching saying, oh my God, I haven't seen Putin covered that way. I didn't realize we're on the verge of World War III. I didn't know that global cooling was actually a thing that it was science behind it. I didn't know that this turbo cancer is running wild. I doubt anybody watching the show was shocked at that.

But you get my point. Now you can actually do something about it. And it's all because of the work, that legal work that we're doing, to fight for your future, to fight for your children. Every dollar that you support us with right now is going to be matched. So please take advantage of that. Grab that QR code and help us make a difference. There really are lawsuits that we want to bring.

And we're having a tiptoe right now, you guys. We're having a tiptoe around. I don't know. I mean, maybe we don't take that case. And here's the concern. Maybe some lawyer that has none of the background we have will do what's right and pick up that case for us and go and lose it. This is one of the big issues.

When we don't put Aaron Siri on the job, some other well-meaning, less talented lawyer jumps in and decides, I'll take it. and then they run it and fumble it right before they get to the end zone, and now we have precedence keeping us from winning in the future. I mean, these are the conversations that go on behind the scenes with the legal team. And I want to be able to say, keep the ball in your hands, Aaron. Do not put that ball down. Don't hand it to anyone else.

I want you taking this all the way to Supreme Court. If you want him taking it all the way to Supreme Court, donate today, and they'll match it. Use that QR code. All right. So we're talking about military. We're talking about being on the verge of World War III for real this time. Now we actually have actual threats from someone with their finger on the button say, go ahead, make my day, take one more step further against the promise that you've made.

We also have a military now that apparently is getting transgender operations instead of like focused on basic training and all the things we thought they were doing there. And then what happened to all of those that just said, hey, man, that vaccine looks like it was rushed. And I want to be military ready. And I don't think that thing's going to help me. Well, you saw what happened to them. You saw the lawsuits we brought. You saw all the wins we've had around this.

But this is still the conversation of the day. It looks like this. From January through the end of April, the military administered 2.8 million doses of the vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna. More than 98% of all of the active duty force got at least one of the shots. And the Army has released a memo saying any soldier, active duty or national guard who refuses to get vaccinated will be forced out of the service. A new study on the COVID-19 vaccines found more cases of heart inflammation than expected among members of our U.S. military. Strokes, infertility, breast cancer, heart disease, dramatic spikes in all of these ailments. And more have been reported among military members during the COVID.

COVID-19 vaccine era. Healthy pilots, 20s, 30-somethings that suddenly get strokes, myracarditis, and all sorts of ailments, and they're going untreated, undiagnosed. A fighter pilot who got paracarditis has been grounded for seven months. There was one enlisted service member that had four strokes after getting the vaccine. And so these are serious injuries. I witnessed firsthand the numbers of cases of young soldiers between the ages of 27 and 35 with neurologic events, cardiac events, a 30-something-year-old who I had to explain to his family

while he was on a ventilator, why he had a stroke when he had just got his vaccine. And they're saying to me, what happened? He was fine yesterday. We have in the military the single best data set we that exists because we have baselines in there and acute disease across all categories in the preceding years, five years leading us, to the vaccination year was 1.7 million. They introduced and mandated a COVID-19 vaccine for our US military when they had only lost 12 service members total to the disease.

And in the 10 months of 2021 after that, it jumped from 1.7 million, all diseases to darn near 22 million. That was a 20 million increase. And unfortunately, I think that the Department of Defense is not being open about the number of service members that have potentially been injured by these shots. We here in the United States need to ask the question, did we mandate a toxic exposure when we mandated this injection to our entire armed forces?

Well, right at the end, there was Dr. Chrysana Schackleford and 32 years. She was in the Navy in Department of Defense, and it's my honor and pleasure to be joined by her now. Dr. Awesome, awesome to have you here. Dr. Shaq, is that what the people call you? Dr. Shaq. All right, let me just take, let's start with your personal story. COVID vaccine comes along. How does that, I mean, you've been working for either the federal government or the Navy,

but a part of, you know, our readiness, our national security, your whole career. Certainly someone like you gets to opt out of that vaccine, right? I mean, we always say, look, the heads of it never take it. It's just all the people that have no control over their own. lives or own careers. Did you actually face a moment where you were being forced to take the COVID vaccine? Right. So for those of us that were in the Department of Defense, for federal employees, as well as those of our service members, they came down and they said, same as everybody else, we're going to lose your job, threaten your employment. For those of us that held a security

clearance, they came back and they said, not only that, but we're going to flag your clearance for failure to obey a direct order. So personal medical, decision is created to disobey in an order. Right. Right. So at that point, I decided, you know what? I think I'm done. I think that's my red line in the sand.

You've now actually basically said to me, you know, you're not trustworthy or they don't believe we're trustworthy. So I thought it was time to get out. Why you personally have an issue with this vaccine? I'm assuming you've gotten other vaccines throughout your career. I did actually as a result of my multiple diplomas to Iraq. Afghanistan, the anthrax series, all the exotic vaccines, you name it. We've had to take them for every single deployment.

Like I said, I had five to Iraq, one to Afghanistan, two to cross with one to Bosnia. And this particular injection was different. So, I mean, this is one of the things that we talk about. When I run into people out in the street, we hear, oh, well, you know, the people that are in charge, they're doing it to everybody else, or, you know, they're the ones not getting it. certainly, you know, those high up and rank have some power over their lives, or that our federal government knows, did President Biden get it? You know, did Bill Gates get the vaccine? I mean,

all of these questions are sort of what we're dealing with. And what you realize is that they seem to believe in this thing. I mean, they seem to think that it really makes a difference. And so, even, you know, beyond being a cadet, you should have been able or beyond, I mean, you're someone that has security clearance and you're someone that actually understands science. You've been around this long enough and you can't, I mean that must have been a shocking moment. You can't find anyone to listen to you to say this is ridiculous. No, not only that, we were actually actively, I personally was actively engaged documenting the known and both unknown risks at that time. I mean, we documented the known risk. Yeah. Sending out the data on the fact that the clinical trial said up front we knew from

day one it wasn't going to prevent transmission. It wasn't going to prevent, in fact, We literally sending these out to the department, to the service secretaries, to the Secretary of Defense saying, hey, pay attention. Right. This does not make sense. Let's take a look at the mechanisms of injury. Let's take a look at the fact that it says it's going to cause disease in the body. Then you'll have an antibody response. Are we really going to do this to our entire armed forces?

Right. I mean, in experimenting on our armed forces, which is what this was, we warped speed of the vaccine. We're never going to know the long-term, uh, safety effects. This was a brand new technology. And we're talking about being military ready. What was morale like around that? Because it sure seemed like from my vantage point, you just, you had this huge dip in, I mean, I forget what the number was. I want to feel like, I feel like the headline was something like 800,000 military about to be laid off. Was that accurate? Was it that high? So we've got numbers of those that we actually ended up forcing out. So that

That number was around 8,000 or 9,000 of known. They were actually forced out. Those that self-voluntarily, if you will, resigned, that's an even greater number. So we have a combination of folks that basically critically thought about the problem set and said, can't continue to do this. Those that were forced up because they critically thought about the problem set and said no, and their religious exemptions were denied, then what you end up with is, you end up with is basically you have a compliant armed forces.

Those that were left didn't rock the boat. Like a lot of them just, and they were told this is just what you've signed up where you don't have control over your body. You're basically owned by the US government and you just do what you're told. Yeah, and DOD has to do what the CDC says. We were beholden to CDC guidance.

We were not allowed to go over to another organization to say, what have you got? Right. What is this other set of data over here? that we really, really need to bring into the Department of Defense to say, hey, it's not just the CDC guidance that we need to start looking at and listening to. We need to listen to this other data set over here that talks about the toxic spike protein, that talks about some of the other issues.

Because then you bring us back into a question, number one, you bring us back into a defense readiness question, but you also have to ask the question, did the Secretary of Defense mandate a toxic exposure? Well, I mean, that's the question I have, right? I mean, it seems to me, I know that there's a lot of conversations, you know, lately about taking care of military, right? Taking care of military that, you know, we're around bunker buster bombs that like, are you, you know, breathing in, you know,

radioactive fragments, things like that. Certainly if you are in the line of fire being put in harm's way to have a permanent injury, you know, there's been some, you know, awareness, it seems to say you should be taken care of then for all of the health issues. In this case, as I just said before, you know, know, this segment, the spike protein is a known, I mean, it's the known sort of bioweapon. And I can say that because most science now, even the FBI believes this came from a lab.

So whether or not they, what were they making for, making it to make a vaccine or figure out how to develop, but they were making the most dangerous form of a coronavirus to figure out how to, you know, deal with it. So let's say it escaped on accidents and people got sick and started spreading around, But the most, I've had this conversation with New York Times. I was talking to one, I believe it was New York Times in case someone says, no, it wasn't. But one of those types reporters. And that was where I got them.

They said, oh, the virus is much more dangerous than the vaccine. I was like, well, let's just follow that out for a second. I said, let's just say that, let's say all things being equal, are we agreeing that the spike protein is the most dangerous part of the virus? It's what causes myocarditis. It's what causes parochroditis, blood clotting, all of those things. thrombocytopinia is the spike protein and the reporter said yeah i would agree with that i was like okay so all things being equal if i'm walking around in nature there's a chance i don't catch it there's a chance i'm not around someone that you know i get the spike protein and it starts attacking my cells

but if i take that spike protein and i put it in a vaccine and i make it so that my body makes that bioweapon over and over and over again let's just say it's the same amount of infection and let's Let's put aside the fact that they bragged that the vaccine is going to create far more spike protein than I'm going to come in contact with breathing it in or however. Then could we agree all things being equal that if you make everybody get the vaccine, more people are going to come in contact with this bio weapon than they would have naturally with random selection. And I swear it's one of the only times the light bulbs gone off. I just I heard a gas on the phone. They were like, oh my God, I've never thought about it like that. And this is the point.

If this spike protein is a weapon, if it causes long-term injury just in nature, the version that came from Wuhan lab, certainly injecting it, we now know for a fact that it causes myocarditis in some people. We can discuss rare after you've tracked every single, every person and said we know that happens. Paracharditis, long-term effects, heart damage that never goes away. isn't that in fact then the same as being put in harm's way of a bio weapon or some, you know, chemical exposure? Only we made you inject it. Yeah, we mandated it. We mandated that you take this injection, that your body creates trillions of copies of this synthetic toxic spike protein. Right.

With both known, as you just described, and unknown yet to be learned, harms and injuries to the index. individual. But it gets worse than that. We've actually now said to our complete armed forces, as you transition out with your injuries, you show up at the VA. The VA should, in theory, based on the 2020 PAC Act, which is, I think, something that we should talk about. Let's talk about it. Start their PAC. Sure. What is PAC Act? It was passed in 2022. And with that, the administration said, we're going to take care of our veterans. We're going to take care of the veterans that have been harmed by those toxic exposures. Have you been exposed to Agent Orange? Have you been exposed to the burn pits in Iraq? Have you been

exposed to the oil wells that created all this toxicity? The IEDs, all the toxicity that a service member would have been exposed to. When you transition out, you go over to the VA, you get something called a toxic exposure risk activity screening. It's a mouthful. I appreciate that. Yeah. T-E-R-A. That is the provision that the PAC Act allows for you as a veteran now to go in and say, we're going to give you a screening based on all of the different things that you may have come encounter with when you were in the service. That's fantastic. I'm a vet. I think that's fantastic. Do you feel like you've been exposed to things like that? So I know for a fact

I have, but again, I'm completely aware of where I was during my time and in the Navy and so on and forth. But the issue then becomes, I think, important for us to ask the question, how is the VA going to handle that disability claim? The problem is, we actually know through whistleblower, we actually know that for the VA, for the purpose of a terror screening, the VA has come back and they have said there's no such thing as a long-term side effect of a vaccine. And in fact, you've got that right there. Colonel VASOP, vaccines and medications in general are not considered participation in a toxic exposure risk activity, Tara, because there is no scientific or medical evidence that supports the conclusion that vaccines and medications administered to service members have resulted in long-term adverse health effects. So just look at that again. There is no long-term evidence.

Right. No scientific or medical evidence that supports the conclusion. Right. That there's a long-term adverse effect from a vaccination. Right. How about the, I mean, and I say this when I argue in layman's terms with anyone. Every vaccine, including COVID, comes with a list of side effects that are on it. And we now know for a fact, increased risk, especially in young men, which is a big part of the military of myocardis, pericardis.

I mean, all these lists of injuries. And this is the problem. I mean, maybe the military is the same. One of the things I try to explain to doctors and people that are just trying to figure out, how would this happen? Why are they saying to me that there's no studies? Because they don't do the studies. They never do a comparative study. They never do the studies.

They say, we can't find a study that backs up that claim. Because you were refusing to do that study. I was many years ago when Donald Trump first took office, Robert, Kennedy Jr. asked me to join him to go to the NIH. Donald Trump sent him there and we presented exactly that. Show us any double blind study ever done of any childhood vaccine. They couldn't, has never happened. Then show us, you know, the comparative study that shows taking all these vaccines makes you healthier. Hasn't been done, never been done. We'll never, we're never going to do it is what they said. We refuse to do that. And so this is what they're getting away with. Well,

there's no science that shows that, but you're not doing the science. It's the same truth for the military because you have the best records in the world. You literally are tracking nobody has a more thorough background check on their health than people going to the military. We track them every day somebody must be seeing a dramatic change in the health outcomes of the military. They're all forced to the inspection. And we have now a VA that will disenfranchise every single veteran if they show up and they have been harmed by this injection. We have an SOP that will disenfranchise all of our veterans because they've just blanket decided that there's no evidence of harm for the purpose of a toxic exposure, which is why it's important to talk about the toxicity

of the injection and why it's important to link it back to whether or not the Secretary of Defense actually mandated a toxic exposure, which is shocking in and of itself. I mean, if you think about it, what has he done to the totality of our armed forces? Right. And all of our allies and all of our partner nations that did the same thing. So do you think every, do we know whether or not all the militaries of the world to force their military to take this vaccine? It's a great question.

I think it's a great question that we need to ask and just ask the question, which, which militaries out there did not. Right. Did China line up all their military to get the vaccine? Did, you know, Russia line up all their military? Iran, China. Iran, sure. Russia.

Right. Yeah. Those are great questions to ask. And so then when we think about military ready, This is one of the arguments that our let Air and Siri did make. We fought for the military for many people that donate to this show. They were a part of winning cases for Air Force and others like them. But we talked about we got the V-Safe data.

The V-safe was sort of the tracking data for people that got the vaccine that asked certain things about their health records. And we have a dashboard on our website. Here it is, folks, if you haven't seen it the B-Safe COVID vaccine, Everest Health Impacts. Go to ICan Decide.org and just type in V-Safe. and you'll get this and you can look at all of the different. It was over 10 million individuals put in their data, but one of the things that popped up right away is if you see that bar at the top, 1.2 million, 1.3, the yellow, pink, and red.

That means about 33.2% of the people that got that vaccine reported that in the yellow, they were unable to perform normal activities. In the pink, they couldn't go to work. They weren't able to go to work or school. And in the red, nearly one million people required medical care. So 33.2% right there would be defined as not military ready. For everybody, if this matches the military, we wiped out one third of them who certainly in the days and weeks following couldn't perform, you know, their duties.

So when we think of readiness, when we think of where our military is at, are we ready? Are we ready for, I mean, as I said earlier, if we're going into World War III and everyone's going to jump into a NATO war, where are we at from your perspective? So if I put a warfare perspective on, if I put a warfare spin on this conversation, then I would probably have to step back and say, at what point is our adversary, adversary's plural, looking at us and thinking we're softening the battlefield, the battlefield has been softened to put it into warfare language. Yeah. Arguably, the answer is yes. We've softened our battle. We softened our battlefield. Yeah.

I mean, that transgender story, I don't know if you caught that early on. I did. I did. I mean, that's, and again, I want to be careful not saying everyone should be allowed in the military. But if you're going there to get a sex change operation, I think we're, what is it when you're on the wrong mission? Might be on the wrong mission. Right.

Yeah. Yeah. So now when I look at things like this, you look at the Secretary of Defense. has mandated a known by a weapon in this spike protein that attacks the body in so many different ways and has done it to our military and now won't even take care of those that are injured. Probably is continuing, I'm sure they're continuing vaccine programs,

all of that. Absolutely. And I look at a military that is now saying, come on in if you want a sex change operation, all things that clearly are, I mean, obviously softening our military, making it so, as we pointed out, I don't know how anybody after a sex change operation is going to be able to rush into battle, so they're not ready. They're obviously having, you know, as Tracy Beans pointed out, having psychologicalism that

require more than the acceptable amount of counseling. And so my question then becomes, from just an outsider looking at it, it does not feel like the leadership of our country is acting in the best interest of our country. So I have written in the past and proposed that what the Secretary of Defense needs to do is actually take a different look at how to think about our defense readiness posture. I was talking to you earlier about the fact that I wrote an article asking the question, what does the autism epidemic have to do with now security and defense readiness? Right.

So this is a much, we have to add to all of these discussions to talk, to get to the totality of defense readiness, we have to add, there's an additional layer. If we have an autism rate today, let's say it's 1 and 36. I think the stats are roughly 1 and 36 with the diagnosis. If you project that out, I believe it's to the year 2030, we're looking at a number somewhere between 1 and 2. Of that population, they'll largely be boys, and they'll be nonverbal. That's just the data. That's the trend that we're taking right now. So we're saying by the year 2030, we're going to have one and two that will potentially have a diagnosis of autism

then we have to step back and ask the question Secretary of Defense by the year 2030 how many people will be enlistment eligible so that's just another component of this. I just so I can protect it I think that there's ways to look at the science and I don't want someone to report Del Biggs from the high wire said by 2030

one and two are going to have autism it's certainly stats like that are in the movie VACs that I made anything can change that. There's a lot of variables, but you are right, when we see a trajectory that started at 1 in 10,000, and we now find ourselves at 1 in 36,

I think there's even stats showing more like 1 in 28, certainly boys 1 in 18 to 1 in 20 are now suffering from autism. So already, already you've reduced the amount of population. They're going to be eligible to be able to join the military, and nothing is stopping this.

Let's just say very generally, this is what's happening with autism as we speak. Nothing is slowing it down. We still, you know, and so to your point, and let me add this, that I'm pretty sure if you have asthma, you're not really ready to rush into battle either. If you have, you know, if your body's all covered with eczema

and you need a shower every day in order to handle all the scales and things that are in your body, all of these things, lupus, we have a population now of children that more than one and two already have a chronic illness. a chronic disease, either a neurological disorder or an autoimmune disease. They're not military ready. So we're already there.

I mean, there's the stat that just came up right there. We're already there where one in two Americans is too sick to go into battle. We can't have people pop in a bunch of drugs and where I need another asthma inhaler out in the middle of the battlefield. And so that is a question. Is the military addressing it? I mean, are they looking at it? If you're sitting there and you're the Secretary of Defense, I think it would be very smart to look right and to look left and say,

I need to bring in some folks that are going to bring me some alternative data. Right. We need to consider that data that is considered, quote-unquote, alternative in order for us to have a comprehensive picture of what our defense posture looks like going into the future, especially when we're going into dramatic changes around the world that are becoming much more integrated. When we talk about the nation state, we talk about the supper state, we talk about all. of these issues that we've covered, the World Health Organization, the IHR amendments, you talk about fundamental changes in global power structures. These are the challenges that our Defense Department is going to have to go into. Those are the environments. When we talk about... If they see them as

challenges, which gets back to my question. If we're being led by a nation's like, yeah, let's follow WF. Globalism rocks. Let's tear down our border. Let's just make sure everybody that wants to come in, criminal or not, come on in. And let's force our military to take vaccines. and get sex exchange operations, it sure does it look like anyone is saying that the goal is to protect us, to protect our interests. You were in there, Department of Defense. Is it still sitting around going, how do we make America stronger? Well, I think to be fair, to be fair, we have a defense department that will look at our big,

big China, big Russia, big Iran, and we'll sit there and we will have a concerted defense strategy that says, I need to think about how I'm going to potentially go to war with a big, big adversary. But I think at the same time, it's important to understand how these conflicts are changing, how we think about global interdependencies in terms of global fights, and from the local to the global, what does it look like in terms of our ability to go step into that new space, develop that foresight picture, our adversaries think about warfare much differently. When I think about nonlinear warfare, our adversaries think about how do you look for the potential that's going to unfold in the future environment? Sounds very zen, doesn't it?

It's kind of like how do you watch water flow? But our adversaries think about warfare that way. The Russians think about warfare that way. In fact, they have a doctrine called nonlinear warfare. So if we're busy talking about, and again, I would talk about the fact that it's not fifth generation warfare, this is not an evolutionary linear process of how we're going to transition and develop. change in the future or be a part of that change in the future. We have to stop and consider how our adversaries also think about the future that they want to shape, because that's what we

have to be able to step into. It would be almost like a really good way to attack America would be to accidentally release a man-made bioweapon into the world, then have the government of your enemy call you and say, could you give us the genetic code of what that bioweapon was? Yeah, here you go, put that in a vaccine and give it to everyone that didn't come in contact with our bio weapon. That would be really, would that be non-linear? So if I wanted to be an evil mastermind and plan my own war game on how to go about defeating my adversary, and I would want to soften that battlefield, and I want to create chaos, and I want to have people that are totally focused on things that, quite frankly, I'm not concerned about at this point, because I'm going to be able

to put this apparatus in over here. While they're looking left, I'm doing something on the right. I think if our adversary thinks that way, then we probably need to say to, oh, by the way, our Department of Defense, make sure we get in that. How do we think the same way? How do we make sure that we're actually focused on the non-linearity of warfare? Yeah. As a set of behaviors, as things that adapt, they co-evolve, they have emergent characteristics. I recall Brett Weinstein made an observation about his observations in the Darien Gap. He was talking about the illegal immigration issue.

These camps and the Darien Gap, for people that have, I've had Michael Yon on the show. So this idea that we're building these, we're funding, Americans are funding these giant camps to help these immigrants fly into Panama and accelerate their trip, their free ride right across our border. And it was a comment that Brett Weinstein made,

he made two. Number one, he too observed something about our military, which was now have a very, very interesting dynamic, which is we forced them to become come compliant, but it didn't have anything to do with his observations about how did he think about the problem? And as an evolutionary biologist, he actually makes a very, very interesting statement, which is we need to think about all of these adaptations in the environment, how they change, how we think about the problem set. Because it's not just the issue of illegal

immigration coming up to the border. It's all of this tacit support both from all those UN organizations, NGOs that are being funded. So now you've got people that are thinking about if you wanted to say, again, in my language, how do you soften the battlefield? You have to understand where these threats are coming from as well. Right. It's just, it's a different way of looking at warfare. And then it folds all the way back into, bring it all way back into a defense readiness posture.

Are we ready? Right. And then just go ahead and unfold into the middle of that. Are we ready? Will we be ready from a health perspective? What do we do to our own armed forces with regard to the toxicity that we know is in the shot? So all of this comes into play and will impact our defense readiness posture in ways that we just haven't even began to have a conversation about. What are the mechanisms by which we can out this?

Secretary of Defense has been, you know, went and poisoned the troops from my perspective. Now it's obvious. I'm not standing. I'm not like stepping out on some third rail here. All science is adding up to show, increase rates of myocarditis by CDC's own numbers. I mean, just that alone, God knows the turbo cancers and everything else we're talking about on this show.

What is the mechanism by which we either demand an apology, but certainly a shift? What would have to happen? Because the military seems out of touch. I don't even know that, I mean, I can't, I don't have standing to sue. Do the military cadets have a standing to sue? Or did they, it seems like to me they've signed away their life enough

that's like, hey, man. you know. I think there's two things at play. Actually, there's three. When you think about demanding military accountability, you've had Brad Miller on the show. He's talked about the effort that a group, a very, very prominent group of folks have stepped up and said, we are publicly going to ask the public for accountability. Go to military accountability.netter.com and actually, you know, pledge and sign that petition.

But at the same time, we've also got to say, what were those violations? Let's have a really, really concerted look at the violations that have occurred. The Secretary of Defense is actually prohibited in law from actually harming service members through the use of a biological agent that can cause disease. Let's take a look at some of those other violations that we know are known within the Department of Defense, tie them to regular statutes, deceptive medical practices, is an example. I think for those of us that were in the military and those of us that were paying attention early on, It was hashtag kill the virus.

You know, get your vaccine, hurry up, get your shot. Hashtag kill the virus, protect the force. Hashtag kill the virus. There was no way that if you got the shot, you're going to kill the virus. That's a deceptive medical practice. So there are a number of things that I think are in play, that there are a group of folks that have sat down and itemized and said these are the alleged crimes.

These are alleged violations of law. And that effort is ongoing. And then just to have some public awareness on the fact that the veterans administration is disenfranchising every single one of our service members that will have potentially been harmed when they show up at the VA and they need that disability compensation, which we know the programs are broken. So where do we have, how are we going to help our vets, how are we going to help the vaccine injured? You know, I mean, when nonprofits have to stand up in their stead, when a service member doesn't get what they need, and they have to go and say, please, can you help me? Because CICP is broken. Right.

You know, when we have so, when the disability compensation programs are so broken that service members have nowhere to go, I think that's also important. But to raise awareness on the secretary, the VA secretary, Dennis McDonough, and then to raise awareness of the fact that the SECF, in tandem has potentially harmed our entire armed forces. It's a very bold statement. Yeah. It's a very bold statement to say,

did you mandate a toxic exposure? And what were the effects of that? You've got to ask that question, which is why on that clip I said, start bringing in the issue of national security and defense readiness into the issue of the mandate, the toxicity of the mandate, bring all those other issues at play

and bring this into, a much different conversation, it takes it out of the vaccine safety discussion, brings it into the Defense Department discussion. So the Defense Department listens to this conversation. And they're going to have some concern, perhaps, about what do you mean? What are they talking about, the toxic spike protein? What is that? Right.

And oh, by the way, what happens if all of a sudden the Department of Defense is compelled, or the VA is compelled to acknowledge that they're going to have, to compensate the service members for that toxicity. You certainly would have, you know, a totally different response. You would certainly, you know, once the government had to pay, once you started realizing this was going on, then you would think you would have a huge knowledge growth, which is maybe we should look at the whole vaccine program. Maybe we should look at what readiness is.

Someone that spends their life in the military, Department of Defense, obviously you must really be into national security. on some level. Do you miss it? Is it hard to walk away from? You know, it's interesting. You're kind of stumping there. I don't miss it. I enjoy what I'm doing now. I had an opportunity to step into this space in a way that I was already passionate about the topic. But it gives me a chance to speak about it in a way that I would have never had from me inside. I mean, I was very active in war game, and it was very active in actually playing through defense scenarios. whether I went down to Socom and sat there and worked with the guys to think about how do you think about warfare,

and how do you bring resources to the fight? I'm very much involved in that. But being able to speak about it on this side, I think is much more important at this point. We've got too much at stake. What's the work that you're doing now? How do we follow the work you're doing and get involved? So there's been a couple things that I've done since I've been out. The primary one, of course, is follow me in terms of my work, making sure that our veterans get taken care of.

Raising awareness on that. I'm on X. And then I started a nonprofit, Stimwood to Act 19, said, hey, if you guys have been injured, come to it. Here it is. RealReactions.org. Yep. Go there. And what is the work you're doing there?

What is it doing with you? What I wanted to do was raise awareness for the fact that it wasn't only the COVID shot that we were trying to help people with. If you've been injured by the shingles vaccine, if you've been injured by the MMR vaccine, because as we both know, the disability compensation programs are broken. So we're able to provide basically what we call a grant. React 19 calls it a care fund. We're able to go ahead and help that individual that is financially harmed, medically harmed severely. If there are donations there, we will be able to. to support them. So I started that after I got out and then just went straight into the work

over the Children's Health Defense as their military fellow. So I did that. And then we're able to get the Children's Health Defense military chapter up and running. So I've done a lot of work on the military side with regard to the vaccine safety issue and all of those discussions. So we've really, really got a tight network of folks that are focused on this discussion. But it's the national security piece it's the most interesting is national security military readiness is that something that like as we you know i'm not going to tell people who to vote for but when we think of is this is this responsibility of civilian you know of those of us that are voting is this something we should be thinking about like who's actually going to make sure that our military is ready who's going to like

really ask the right questions about what happened here because if we're injuring our you know our military Are they going to be protected and taken care of and given the right way forward? Is that something that we can even figure out as a voting population? I think every single American needs to ask that question. I think they absolutely need to ask the question again going back to the very first shot, what's the nexus between national security defense readiness and the harms that we've committed, potentially committed on our armed forces. And it's not just, oh, by the way, it's not just the U.S. force.

It's all of our partner nations who did the same thing. Yeah. All of them. Right. So this is very much a global concern in terms of the partnerships that we have, the allies that we have, if we're all in the same boat. So I think for the average U.S. American, this should be, in my humble opinion, our number one concern. Are we soft? I think we're way too soft.

Way too soft right now. It seems that way to me too. Yeah. Dr. Krasana Shackleford, thank you for joining us today. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you. Well, we've asked the question so many times like how do you high wire and you know,

as I go around, it's really fun to run into people that wearing a hat, running a t-shirt. But we've said, you know, send in your video, show us like what you do to sort of celebrate the works that's done here to help us expand this audience because I want to make this really clear to you just for a minute, right? There is no network here. We're not picked up by affiliate television. We are not like ABC in one town, and so therefore ABC all the way down the road picks us up. You know who that network is? It's you.

You are the informed consent action network. When you simply take this video today and say, wow, this is really fascinating, I think all my friends would like it, and you put it on your Facebook, you put it on your Twitter, and you forward it out. You just did what NBC is praying you don't do. You just did what CNN is praying that you won't do. You just became the network for the truth. So for all of you that are making that happen, thank you for that commitment.

Thank you for being a part of this network. And if you've got your own interesting story, maybe it's a little bit like this one. This is your health matters. And I'm David Termine. And I'm going to show you how high wire up here in Sturbridge, Massachusetts. It had a store for eight and a half a year, has been in industry like 30.

32 years. When you first walk into my store for the last four years, this is what is up front, where all the free literature is. And I can't tell you the joy it has given me over the last four years to have somebody stand there, take a picture with their cell phone, come back after they've watched an episode and say, thank you, David, so much. Makes me so happy. Oh, let me show you more stuff. So when I'm not using this, it sits up there. And then we go to my front counter. Oh, what's also on the counter, we started this at the end of the fall. You'll see right there that little change box for people when they don't want their change.

Guess who's going to start getting it? Not me. And the chair around the corner when my little dog who's on it now is not on it, people will sit on it. That's oboe. See the back of the chair? Oh, that's obo. obo, see oboe? And I point out, I say, oh, he's the guy that leads the news show, and I can as the organization. And then we come behind my counter, and there's a couple

of things that I kind of, some conversation starters. Yes, that book, and yes, I met him 20 years ago. And it's pretty much my variation on a theme for high wiring. Oh, of course, I'm wearing this. Just want to say, Dell and team, thank you so much for all you do. The inspiration you've given me the last four years and kept me sane. You guys are heroes. I'll meet you one day, Del, and you will get the big hug. I hope you liked it.

And don't stop. Thanks. Bye. David, I want to thank you for submitting that awesome video. Thank you for spreading the word and helping us build this audience. You are making a difference. You're part of something that makes us feel really good. And it felt great getting to play your videos. So if you want to submit one of your videos on how you highwire, just put in how I highwire at the highwire.com, send us your emails, your videos,

your posts, anything you want to do to talk about it. It really warms our hearts to know that that's happening. And I think it's fun. And every once, well, who knows? And certainly let us know, if you're like, this is between you and I. Just want you to know what it doing, but I wouldn't want it out there in public. But maybe we'll play one of your videos too. You know, very important conversations are happening here all the time. The question is happening in all the other major news channels. And one of them, specifically the one that's probably supposed to be the most objective, since it's all of our tax dollars that are funding it is NPR.

And I just want to take a moment because I think there's a very important story that is breaking right now. I have so many friends and family that, you know, listen to NPR and think, oh, I'm getting the great news. But definitely check out this article. been at NPR for 25 years. Here's how we lost America's Trust. It's about Yuri Berliner, who we've all watched. He's done lots of great reporting through the years.

But he really lays out what happened at NPR, the fact that there's just not any sort of diversity in the reporting. And they started pushing agendas. And when they're getting it wrong, they're not admitting it any longer. Here's just a couple of excerpts to this article. But you should read it, get it to your friends. persistent rumors that the Trump, this is just one of the stories he talks about, persistent rumors that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia over the election

became the catnip that drove reporting. At NPR, we hitched our wagon to Trump's most visible antagonist, Representative Adam Schiff. But when the Mueller report found no credible evidence of collusion, NPR's coverage was notably sparse. Russia Gate quietly faded from our programming. I've talked about this over and over again. Where are the apologies on all of it? With the COVID vaccine, all of it. Rachel Maddow, I'm still waiting. You said this vaccine that it would stop. The virus would

stop with you. When are you going to stop and say I either lied or I was totally wrong? But let's get on the rest of this article because it's the same point here. In October 2020, the New York Post published the explosive report about the laptop hunter Biden abandoned at a Delaware computer shop containing emails about his sorted business dealings with the election only weeks away. NPR turned a blind The laptop was newsworthy. Everyone would have to admit that, but the timeless journalistic instinct of following a hot story lead was being squelched. During a meeting with colleagues, I listened as one of NPR's best and most fair-minded journalists said it was good we weren't following the laptop story because it could help Trump. And then when the essential facts of the post reporting were confirmed, the emails verified independently about a year and a half later, we could have fessed up to our misjudgment. But like Russia collusion, we didn't make the false. hard choice of transparency. And then getting into one of our favorite topics, the lab leak theory came in for rough treatment almost immediately. Dismissed as racist or a right-wing

conspiracy theory is how NPR approached it. Anthony Fauci and former NIH head Francis Collins representing the public health establishment were its most notable critics. And that was enough for NPR. We became fervent members of Team Natural Origin, even declaring that the the lab leak have been debunked by scientists. That's not science. That's not reporting. And I would imagine we should all probably start complaining about our tax dollars paying for misinformation at this level.

But it's okay. I mean, you really, I guess what right do you have to complain? If you still fund your cable bill and you still turn on Fox and MSNBC or CNN, you're funding the lie. You're funding people that lie to you. And right now, NPR gets funded by our tax dollars to lie. to us to pick an agenda, be dead wrong, and then never apologize for it. You know, it's all right. People get it wrong. Certainly journalism can get it wrong once in a while, but fess up. Be honest.

If you're not, then you're just pushing propaganda, which it has become clear to me NPR does. They're not alone. They're just one, the only one sort of declaring that they're here is the open public good. So I'm glad this article is out. I'm glad we essentially have a whistleblower, one of the writers coming forward and saying, this is not what you paid for, and that's not what I signed up for. That's what's happened to the news. How many whistleblowers will we get from NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, all of them? They're all lying.

I doubt they'll ever admit to it. But here's one thing you can do. You can keep watching the high wire. You can keep donating so that we can bring all the legal. cases and maybe even point one at some of those organizations. We can keep protecting those around us and you can keep sharing these videos with everyone you know so we can continue to brag that our audience is bigger than yours, that more and more people are turning to the truth and the truth is

being found at the high wire. Today was a pretty intense show. We're talking about the lies of global warming, a war that may be or may not be totally misguided, taking our armed forces and disarming them by getting them surgeries that make him incapable to protect us, giving them vaccines that, you know, basically inhibit their ability to be healthy so that they can do anything. All of this is happening while we have turbo cancers that are sweeping the world, and only Japan is willing to admit to it. You heard it here on the high wire. Tell all your friends, there's something we can do. We can be more knowledgeable.

We can have better conversations. We can get more people to wake up so the next time an election comes around, maybe we'll bring in people that actually care about our readiness, about our health, and about our future. This is the high wire. We're bringing you the truth as we find it backed in all the evidence we can find on the planet. And I'll see you next week.