The Highwire with Del Bigtree - Episode 384: CALCULATED CHAOS

Episode Date: August 9, 2024

Del Debunks John Oliver’s Funk; Jefferey Jaxen Reports on UK unrest, Universal Income Fail, and Newly-Banned Forever Chemicals; What is Driving Markets to near-collapse?Guests: Jefferey Jaxen, Edward DowdBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

Have you noticed that this show doesn't have any commercials? I'm not selling you diapers or vitamins or smoothies or gasoline. That's because I don't want any corporate sponsors telling me what I can investigate or what I can say. Instead, you are our sponsors. This is a production by our nonprofit, the Informed Consent Action Network. So if you want more investigations, if you want landmark legal wins, If you want hard-hitting news, if you want the truth, go to I Can Decide.org and donate now. All right, everyone, we ready?

Action. Good morning, good afternoon, good evening. Wherever you are out there in the world, it's time to step out onto the high wire. You know, we talk a lot about winning here because we're getting really good at it on the high wire. I've been bragging for many weeks now at all the incredible. advancements we've had in disseminating truth and the ability to give out truth and the reaction by those that have been lying to us for a long time as being the ultimate proof of our truth. Well, this week, a Gallup poll was done, again, looking at the United States of America to just

see how deep is the truth that the high wire is sharing. Of course, it didn't mention our name, but it did mention one of our number one topics. This is what the headline was. Far few, in U.S. regard childhood vaccinations as important. This is an article by Gallup and this is what it went on to say. Americans are now much less likely than in the past to say the government should require children to be vaccinated against contagious diseases such as measles. 51% now hold this view, meaning 51% believe that the government should require to have them. That's down from 62% in 2019. question was also asked in a 1991 poll by Princeton Survey Research Associates, which found at that point, 81% were in favor of vaccine requirements at that time. So just since 2019, basically look at

what COVID did. It dropped it down. I've been saying that on this show, that I believe that 50% of America, roughly, I guess I was off by one percentage point, but 50% of America are now questioning this vaccine program for many reasons, especially when they watched the debacle of COVID, a rushed vaccine that was never tested for safety. They put it out in front of their own eyes and mandated it just like they do all the childhood vaccines, which freaked a lot of people out. And thus sort of caused this issue. There's the, I guess that's the childhood CDC vaccine schedule. You can see the list of all of the vaccines we give our kids. Can you imagine if as adult you had to go back into the doctor to get forced to get all of those. That's the dream, by the way. Right there,

that's the dream of the most powerful lobby in Washington is to line you up. Yes, you, all the adults in the room watching this right now. If you think they think you're done with your vaccinations, trust me, you're due for the same amount. Your kids are getting up until 18. You need them all over again. So imagine 72 vaccines for users as an adult. How long is it going to take them to convince you that you've been dying all this time because you didn't get them. That's right. It'd take a really long time. It'd be like, I've been doing just fine.

I don't, what are we talking about? It's about the same thing that's true for our children. But as I pointed out last week, we have been winning so much that now they're sending out scientists, Dr. Paul Offutt, tried to defend the vaccine, saying, of course, we can't do the proper safety trials because there's just no way to do them. And I pointed out what that was all about last week. But when the scientists don't work, what the scientists don't work, what they're going to do the the industry likes to do is it likes to go to its highest paid shills. Sometimes that's even

a comedian. And that's what happened this week. This week they rolled out none other than the vaccine shill John Oliver to give his diatribe and tropes on vaccine safety and how amazing they are. Now, if you're not aware of this, John Oliver did this exact same segment all the way back in 2017. It was an absolute and total repeat, almost no new information. And for those of you that have been watching just recently, that's actually the episode that put me on the map. We went and refuted every single statement he made in about a 30-minute piece that he did. Took us, I think, almost like an hour and a half to get all the way through it. I'll play that.

I think sometime we'll do a replay of that because it's amazing to sit and watch how accurate we were and how he apparently hasn't gotten any of the information. But just for a flashback of just what it felt like to be talking about the episode he did back in 2017, this is what that looked like. And even when it comes to other serious side effects, like a severe allergic reaction, it is literally, according to the CDC, close to one in a million. All right, one in a million people are injured by vaccines. That's what the CDC website says, so I can't blame you, John, for getting this wrong. But that's actually a complete and total lie. We are not having one in the middle of injuries, and I'll tell you how I know that.

We have a national surveillance system called VERS, the vaccine adverse events reporting system. Essentially, this is a system where every doctor that sees their patient injured by a vaccine, they have to log into VERS and report that injury. Well, just last year, 2016, we have that VERS report, and what we find out when we look at this VERS report is that there were 59,117 reported injuries from vaccines in just last year alone. 432 of them were deaths, 109,000 permanent disabilities, and over a million visits to the emergency room, all because of vaccines. It gets worse, John, a lot worse, because health and human services,

this is the government agency that oversees all of our health departments, including FDA, CDC, NIH, they're the big cahuna. And what they investigated and reported was that 1%, only 1% of the vaccine injuries are actually being reported to verres. Doctors aren't doing what they're supposed to. They did a study and found that out. So only 1% are being reported to verres. So that means, based on the HHS's stats, that we could potentially have had over 5 million

injuries reported last year had everyone done their job. So does that mean there's five million, million people in the United States of America? I don't even know how many zeros that is. Is that, is that like a gazillion? Is there such a word as a gazillion? I don't know. But you get my point, it's a huge amount of injury, not one in a million. That show is a real hit. It's probably partly why we can afford a better screen behind us now. And I was even able to afford a haircut since then. It's fun to, you know, look back. And, you know, sometime we'll go through that show because at that point, I had no teleprompter, no way of seeing it, no way of knowing where we were going. And there was like 20 different things that were refuting. And I was trying to pull up the

science and the team. And that was episode number 13. I mean, we'd only been at this for, I guess, like four months or three, three or four months, something like that. So it was brand new to us, but a very effective show. But not effective enough to obviously. they've gotten through the John Oliver, which by the way, we had Aaron Siri, our lawyer, all the way back then that was helping us, you know, sue the government and we were just getting started. But we sent the legal letters showing all the things he got wrong, especially that one in a million, which he even touted once again this week, as though it's just one in a million, which is just as about a moronic a statement as it can be made. And that's why I really love it

when people like John Oliver do pieces like this, because they're really making a time capsule. once again has put himself in a time capsule so that the future of, you know, human beings will look back and say, what an idiot. When the entire world was waking up to what was going on, when the science was collapsing all around them, this moron still went out and stated facts that no longer are facts anymore and don't exist. Same facts we debunk back in 2017 with a couple of new ones. But just to get a sense of what it felt like this time, here is some of the tropes that he fired out on John Ovalor on HBO. Take a look at this.

Not only have vaccines already held to a higher safety standard than other medications, thousands of studies have found that they're safe and effective, including a systematic review of over 160 studies on vaccine safety that found any serious adverse reactions were extremely rare. You could also look at this study of over 650,000 children born in Denmark, some vaccinated, some not, which concludes that the MMR vaccination does not increase the risk. for autism or this meta review of 10 studies involving over 1 and 1.5 million children, which also revealed no relationship between vaccination and autism.

There are so many examples like this. And it's why experts will tell you that a person's chance of having a bad reaction to a vaccine is about one in a million. As one expert we spoke to, pointed out, given that we have over 40,000 deaths by car accident in the US per year, the most dangerous aspect of vaccinating children is driving to the doctor's office to get them. Especially, by the way, if your kids are singing, baby shock the whole time because that will make you drive off a

cliff. I think John Oliver's piece is going to make any one of us drive off an effing cliff. But, you know, let's just look at the statements he's making. Once again, and I've done this every week, and I'm going to use some repetition because your television stations are doing this to you all the time. He keeps saying that it's inaccurate to say that vaccines were not properly tested prior to licensure, which is just simply. now been absolutely proven. One of the most famous graphics online is one that we made. It's being used all the time. It's this one. We show absolutely, this is the list of all the vaccines with the inserts that arrive with every vaccine. So in their own words, describing that they never do

a placebo study on any of the vaccines. You can grab that Bitley right there or just take a shot of that QR code if you want to hand this document, which is absolutely irrefutable, that there was never a long-term placebo trial for any of the childhood vaccines prior to licensure and explains exactly where we got that information in their own vaccine insert. But it's gone so much further than that now. Instead of us just having the evidence in their own writing, now we have literally the godfather of the vaccination program, which I told you last week. The largest textbook on vaccinations is written by Stanley Plotkin.

it's Plotkin's vaccines. That's the name of it. That's how important he is. If you're going to talk about vaccines, Stanley Plotkin is the guy. And, you know, John, I don't know how you missed the news, because we've been saying this for over a month now. This paper came out from Stanley Plotkin.

Under all the pressure asking, are we properly testing these vaccines? This is what he went on to say, funding post authorization vaccine safety science. Now, look at that title. What this whole article is about is, after the vaccines have already been released to the public, we need funding. I'm asking you for funding so that we can actually study safety of vaccine products.

So that mountain of evidence, like all the thousands of studies that John Oliver has tried to convince you exist, he's telling you, we would actually need funding to do those, John. We would need funding for that. Here's what the article goes on to say. However, the widespread vaccine hesitancy observed during the COVID-19 pandemic suggests that the public is no longer satisfied with the traditional safety goal of simply detecting and quantifying the associated risks after a vaccine has been authorized for use. There it is. He's not even trying to, there's nothing unequivocal.

I mean, he's just, he's not equivocated. He's not saying, look, we do some studies. He's telling you our traditional method is we assume safety. And the only studies done on safety are after it's been authorized and in. into all of you. You're literally walking test subjects. All right. So if that's not problematic enough, the public also wants the public authorities to mitigate and prevent rare but serious adverse reactions. Oh, how ridiculous that we want that, which no longer seem rare. They don't seem rare anymore. They don't seem like one in a million when vaccines are given to millions or billions

of people. Well, it goes on to say when it comes to post authorization, it is critical to examine adverse events following immunization. No kidding. That have not been detected in clinical trials which weren't designed, as he just told you to ever find a problem, to ascertain whether they are causally or coincidentally related to vaccinations. We would need to do studies. But how are those studies going?

Well, progress in vaccine safety science has understandably been slow. Really? It's not understandable to John Oliver, often depending on epidemiologic evidence that is delayed, or is inadequate. So all the things that John Oliver, and I'll explain some of it, why it's in inadequate,

to support causal conclusions and on an understanding of biologic mechanisms that is incomplete, which has adversely affected vaccine acceptance. All of our studies are bull crap, is what he's saying. They're not well done. We have no funding. They're not big enough.

We can't make a causal determination. Is there one more paragraph? Here we go. And currently, in the United States, right now, as we exist in 20, When the advisory committee on immunization practices recommends a new routine vaccine, it was never tested, the only automatic statutory resource allocations that follow are for vaccination procurement, meaning buying them.

We buy them to make sure that they're sold. And for the vaccine injury compensation program to pay you if you end up in the vaccine court. Although the ACIP acknowledges the need, there are currently no. No, zero zip nata resources earmarked for post authorization safety studies beyond annual appropriations, which is zero zip nata, which must be approved by Congress each year and they've never even thought to do it, John. So I don't know what you think you're pointing to there, but it's a giant pile of rubbish put out by a totally corrupt agency called the CDC. And I'm glad that you're down on video because I'm being proven right on a daily and yearly basis. and slowly but surely you are going off the edge as being one of the largest buffoons

to ever cross a television set. But let's get into a few of the details too, because he doesn't just stop the fact that it was properly safety tested, which now the leading authority in the world is telling you that never happened. He gets into autism and the Danish study. This is probably the newest piece of information he brought out, and we've talked about a lot on the show. This is March 15th, 2019, and he talks about how this study proves that MMR doesn't cause autism.

All right. First of all, there are tons of studies done by totally independent researchers that show a causal or at least a strong correlation between MMR vaccine and other vaccines and the use of vaccines in autism. But let's not talk about that. Let's talk about the pharma-funded studies that prove that their own products are. safe, which is what this is. This is an MMR study. And if you are going to try and create a study to exonerate your product and hide any problem you would want, you know, to hide, let me tell you how you do it when it comes to autism. I call it the Jack Daniels study, and let me explain why. Here's what they do. What they do is they take a large group of children that were all vaccinated.

In fact, everyone in this study was vaccinated. And they grew up. the hundreds of thousands that received every single vaccine there was except for MMR. And then they grabbed the group they got all of the vaccines plus MMR. And then they compare those two groups and they say the amount of autism is relatively the same. It actually was a little bit lower in the group that didn't get the the MMR, but not significantly significant. All right, it wasn't significant enough. But why I call it. this the Jack Daniels study is this. I could prove to you that Jack Daniels does not cause intoxication. And here's how I do it. I have a group of people that take 10 shots of vodka.

And then I take a group of people that get 10 shots of vodka plus a shot of Jack Daniels. Then I put them all in cars and I send them out on a track and guess what? About the same amount of people had car accidents. Therefore, if the group that only got the vodka shots had car accidents, and so did the ones that also had the Jack Daniels, they mitigate each other, and Jack Daniels doesn't cause intoxication. That is how this study was done in Denmark. And the reason this study makes no sense, and I'm amazed any scientist has ever touted it, is the only way this study would work is you have to prove that all the other vaccines you're giving your kids don't cause autism. Because that's your control group.

Your control group was all of the other vaccines, all of them stacked together against all of them plus MMR. Do you see how this works? Now, they've never done those studies. And I have evidence of that because I sued our government looking for it. I said, look, if you're going to do a study that says it's okay to get all the other vaccines, this is the article that when now CDC fails to produce support, to support its claim that vaccines given during the first six months of life do not cause autism. So when we look at the vaccine, the CDC schedule, you can see in the first six months of life, there's six vaccines given in multiple doses, and that's hepatitis B, rhodovirus, diphtheria, tetanus, and acylia pertussis.

One of the ones most blamed for autism, right there, by the way, the D-TAP, hemophilus, influenza, pneumococcal, inactivated polio virus, all of those. And look at multiple doses inside those. So you're in third, you're in dose number three on pneumocococcal by the time you're six months old. So you've got a whole load of vaccines already happening there. So if you want to say that they can take all those vaccines and there's no autism, but if I take all those in the MMR or the autism is about the same, then you've got to prove that those don't cause autism.

That's what we did. We said to the CDC, will you please show us every study that you relied upon to determine that those first six vaccines and the first six months of life that It ends up being like 20 something total vaccines by the time you're six months old that they don't cause autism. What studies did you use? And they fought us for a year. They wouldn't even respond. And they were like, come on.

And then the judge is like, I don't understand what's going on here. He's saying to the CDC, just give these people what they want. Show them all the studies you relied upon. I mean, your website says vaccines don't cause autism. Certainly you have evidence that they don't cause autism. That's what they're asking for. Well, they ended up, you know, giving in and they gave us. 20 studies, 22, I think, in fact.

And here's how that breaks down. Of those 22 studies, one of them is MMR. That's given at two years of age, not in the first six months. So throw that one out. And that's the one we're trying to figure out if we've done a correct study to prove that that doesn't cause autism. Then the second one was an MMR and a D-TAP discussion, which also MMR, and that's the only one's close and I'll come back to that because it did have D-TAP.

in the first six months of life. And then four of them were MMR and thimerosol. Well, MMR is after two years of age. And thimerosol is not in any of the vaccines that are inside the first six months. So those are irrelevant. And then you have, again, I think it's, what is that, eight, whatever, 15, 16 on thimerosol,

which again is not in any, it's a preservative, not in any of the childhood vaccines we're asking about. And one study that was just done on antigens. And in that study, they say this study, cannot be used to determine whether vaccines cause harm or not. This was not a vaccination study. It was an antigen study. So of all the 22 we got, the only ones, that purple one, the only one that addressed the first

six vaccines given the first six months of life was the one that included the D-TAP vaccine. And if you go to that study, what's fascinating about it, it was done by the National Institutes of Health, adverse effects of vaccines, and in it, this is what we read. The conclusion of causality by D-TAP and autism, the evidence, this is what they found in this worldwide meta study, the evidence is inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship between diphtheria toxoid, tetanus toxoid, or acylia pertussis containing vaccines in autism, which is what Stanley Plotkin is saying. We haven't done enough studies to actually determine in the post-licensure phase whether or not

there is a connection. The reason they were saying that in this case is they couldn't find a single study in the entire world looking at the D-TAP and autism that proved that it doesn't cause autism. They did find one that proved that it did, and they mentioned that. The committee reviewed one study to evaluate the risk of autism after the administration of D-TAP vaccine. This one study, the Geyer and Geyer study, was not considered in the weight of epidemiologic evidence because it provided data from a passive surveillance system and lacked an unvaccinated comparison. population. They're a placebo group. The very thing that they skip with every single childhood

vaccine, they never do a placebo group. They're saying, well, we can't count on this study because it didn't have a placebo group. Like, that's how you do all your studies. This thing is such a fraud. It's absolutely insane. But still, this is a lot of words. It's a lot of jumbled up. And I'm trying to explain it to you with vodka and Jack Daniels. So let me make the same exact point I made last week. If there is mountains of evidence, John, don't you think that the leading vaccine makers and pushers in the world would know about that mountain of evidence? And when they were under the stand, under oath, and being asked, prove to us that vaccines don't cause autism. Wouldn't you think they have that mountain of evidence? Well, once again, let's look at the

vaccine Bible, as they call it. Stanley Plotkin on vaccines, Plotkin's vaccines. One of the other authors is Catherine Edwards. I did this last week. We're going to do this again for John because John obviously missed my episode. It's probably told you should make your own because this guy Dell's making people really question vaccines. Well, we had Catherine Edwards on the stand underneath Aaron Siri. And once again, what does the leading authority do when she's pressed on the evidence that vaccines don't cause autism? By the way, this was just recent. is more recent than any study John Oliver just showed you. Take a look at this.

According to your profile, you have done most of the predictable trials relied upon the license, many of the vaccines, correct, on the market? Yes, sir. Okay. So you're highly experienced conducting clinical trials, correct? I'm highly experienced conducting clinical trials. Okay. And you're familiar with many of the clinical trials that relied upon the license,

many of the vaccines currently on the market, correct? I am. In your opinion, did the clinical trials relied upon to license the vaccines that Yates received, many of which are still on the market today? Were they designed to rule out that the vaccine causes autism? No. You've badgered me into answering the question the way you want me to, but I think that that I that's probably the answer.

Is that your accurate and truthful testimony? Yes. In the expert disclosers for this case, it asserts that among other things, you will testify that, quote, the issue of whether vaccines cause autism has been thoroughly researched and rejected, end quote. It's your testimony that MMR vaccine cannot cause autism.

That's correct. It's your testimony that head B vaccine cannot cause autism? That's correct. It's your testimony that iPod cannot cause autism? Yes. It's your testimony that HIPV vaccine cannot cause autism. Yes. Your testimony that Varicella vaccine cannot cause autism.

Yes. It's your testimony that Prevnar vaccine cannot cause autism. Yes. It's your testimony that DTAP vaccine cannot cause autism. Yes. And do you have a study that supports that DTAP doesn't cause autism? I have. I do not have a study that DTAP caused autism.

So I don't have either. Do you have any study one way or another of whether iPol causes autism? No, I do not, sir. Do you have any study one way or another of whether Endrix B causes autism? I do not have any evidence that it causes autism nor that it does not. And what about Hidtiders vaccine? Any evidence one way or another whether it causes autism? And what about Prevnor vaccine?

Any evidence one way or not? No, sir. No, sir. And how about varicella vaccine? Let me just finish. Are there any studies one or another test for whether it does or doesn't cause autism? Part of MMR, but not as varicella by itself. No, sir. No studies that say it does or no studies that say it doesn't. Right. There have been studies that have found an association between hepatitis B vaccine and autism, correct? Not studies that I feel are credible.

Okay, which study, which study are you referring to when you say that? Well, why don't you show me the study and then I'll see whether I agree with it. That is literally, you know, maybe the second or third most smartest person on vaccines there is John Oliver. And his author on many of the types of articles. And by the way, the thousands of articles you say out there, it's thousands of metadata that is done on the same two or three studies. They're all fraudulent. If they weren't fraudulent, she would be bringing them into a courtroom right now. And I challenge anyone out there to sue me if I'm wrong.

Any of the vaccine makers out there, sue me. Sue me and say Dell is spreading misinformation about our product. We can prove it doesn't cause autism. Sue me. I'm right here. I'll take it. Let's do this. Let's go to court.

John? Are you ready for this? What an idiot you are. And by the way, you're supposed to be a journalist. You're actually supposed to be able to do an investigation, though I forgave you last time for believing what the CDC told you. Which, by the way, the same CDC that told you that, you know, oxy cotton is non-habit forming and past Fenn-FEN and every other product that's been recalled from the market. The same regulatory agencies that have glyphosate being sprayed on all your food and P-FAST, which we're going to, talk about very soon. We have corrupt regulatory agencies that are poisoning us. We have the sickest

generation of children in history. And by the way, you even took issue with the fact that, you know, saying, well, anyone that says that, you know, we should be able to see 70-year-olds with autism is just, you know, somehow not understanding that we've gotten better and better at diagnosing autism. That's not the point, John. If we've gotten better at diagnosing autism and it's always been here, here's the question, where are the 70-year-olds with autism right now? It's not a mystery. They should be filling old folks homes right now. We should be able to walk into any old folks home and see people stand in the corner spinning, having repetitive motion disorders with, you know, limited language issues, inability to communicate. Where are they? It should be one in 22 of the men and about

one and 34 of all humanity. Why were we all so shocked by Rain Man we'd never seen it before? We didn't know who that guy was. He wasn't our child. He wasn't the neighbor. But now we all know that person. We all have one of them in our family. So clearly this really is on an increase. And to say we're just diagnosing it better makes you look like one of the biggest fools that has ever lived. How is it we're diagnosing it even better than 2012? We didn't have the technology. back when it was 1 in 69? No, 2014, we really figured it out at 1 in 59. But then the science really kicked into gear in 2016

when we figured out was 1 in 54. But hold on, the world changed in 2018 when our technology finally showed us, it was 1 in 44. And then in 2020, lo and behold, the final piece of equipment that showed us, it's 1 in 36. You don't think it's going to go up in two more years? Come on.

You're living a lie, John, and you're lying to people, and you're getting them injured. But that's okay. The group of people following you are becoming fewer and fewer, and those that are following me are becoming larger and larger. Not just me, every scientist and doctor that's waking up to the reality that this has all been a giant lie, a dangerous one. So maybe you'll wake up, maybe you won't, keep going those booster shots, and I doubt there's many, more years, we'll have to see your videos at all. All right, I have a huge show coming up once again. We just watched, you know, our economy sort of take a big bounce, which has a lot of people asking questions. Is it real? Is it showing something more dangerous in our future? How should I

be looking at my own finances? I'm going to ask all of those questions. And one of my favorite guests that ever comes on, Edward Dowd, former manager and Equity Portfolio Manager for BlackRock. Not a big fan of them. I doubt he is anymore, but boy, he's got great thoughts on these subjects. We're looking forward to talking to him. But first, it's time for the Jackson Report in studio. You know, I was questioning doing this segment because we keep hitting the same things kind of over and over again.

But, you know, some of our producers like, tell, that's exactly what mainstream media does. It just keeps hitting its same information here at Combs. They're really starting this attack again because we're seeing polling like this. We're not at like a couple of unvaccinated kids anymore. It's not 3%, it's not 5%, not 10%. 30% denied the COVID vaccine. And now, you know, 49% are saying, I'm not so sure I like, you know, vaccine mandates.

And frankly, if I asked the question, if I polled people, I think I would get a different response if I said, did you get your most recent booster shot? No. You know, why I know they're mostly going to say no, because like over 90% aren't getting it. And so do you think the government should take away your job? If you don't get your most recent producer shot, oh, hell no, would be the answer.

And then if I asked, so do you think the government should be able to mandate any vaccine they think? I think you would watch those numbers go 60, 70, maybe to the 90% that aren't getting the current vaccine. Imagine being John Oliver. You know, the team comes in, the producer comes in and says, John, we got to do it again. I know COVID just happened and no one believes you, but you make a lot of money. And we're going to have to trot you out there and do it again. Same thing with Jimmy Kimmel. I'm sure he's getting the same orders at some point down the road here.

because vaccine hesitancy, the mandates that we made for COVID are causing vaccine hesitancy. It's not working to blame anti-vaxers anymore, so let's just go with that same information and just see what happens. Yeah, let's just stick with doing the same thing and trying to get a different result. Yeah, not this time. Nope. Sorry, guys. Or last time. All right. Well, Del, I want to take people's attention to what's happened in the UK right now.

There's a lot unfolding there within this past week. Absolute tragedy. You know, it's difficult to report on these things, but we have to because of what's coming on the back of this. And so what happened there was there was the tragic murder of three young girls. And if anybody didn't see this in the news, this is what the reporting has looked like around that. Take a look. Okay. Criminal violence on Britain streets.

More than 400 people have been arrested in the wake of disorder around the country. Grief for three young girls tragically murdered has been seized upon by agitators looking for an excuse to damage and destroy. The sleepy seaside town of Southport. it became a scene of terror and grief. Three innocent young girls killed in a frenzied knife attack. The suspect behind yesterday's attack isn't known to be Muslim, but a connection was drawn nonetheless.

The Prime Minister travelled to Southport after laying a wreath at the police cordon. When are you going to change through our children? Our children are dying here because of you. He was heckled, a measure of the anger many people are feeling here. Just before 8 o'clock, they met out. outside a mosque in the town where a few hundred people threw bricks and fireworks at the windows. riots involving hundreds of far-right anti-immigration protesters have erupted in several towns and cities. In Belfast 2, a hotel housing migrants was the target leading to clashes with police.

As night fell, the protests got more violent. These three police officers were injured. They are scenes that are now happening daily in town of the police. and cities across the country. Saturday there was unrest in Stoke, Manchester, Bristol, Nottingham, Hull, Leeds, Belfast and Liverpool, with more yesterday in Rotherham, Tamworth, Bolton, Weymouth and Middlesbrough. I won't shy away from calling it what it is. Far-right thuggery. To those who feel targeted because of the colour of your skin or your faith,

I want you to know that this violent mob do not represent our country. Police say they're working around the clock to identify more people involved in the violent disorder with more arrests expected in the coming days. Any person organizing or taking part in the procession is committing an offense. We've been clear to the police that they have our full backing in taking the strongest possible action against perpetrators. Anyone who engages in this kind of disorder needs to be clear that they will pay the price. full force of the law will be visited on all those who are identified as having taken part in these activities.

I mean, you know, it's obviously widespread in England's a very small country when we think, you know, United States of America. Yeah, the size, just to give you a scope of this, when we think of something happening in America, like say there's riots or something going on in New York or Portland, Oregon, it's, you know, people in Texas or other states may say, well, that's kind of far over there, but The UK is almost three times smaller than Texas we're sitting in right now. I'm just to give you an idea. So I mean, this is very close and very, you know, it hits home for everybody that lives there.

And so, you know, what happened was 10 were injured, three girls lost their lives in this, and the police detained a 17-year-old, they captured a 17-year-old man, and they, you know, they drugged their feet on really releasing any type of information on that. So that led to a lot of speculation. What was being reported was he had Rwandan parents. He was a citizen of the U.S. born, I'm sorry, the U.K., born in the U.K., lived in Wales. And the riots really kicked off, though, because there was a vigil really shortly after this for the girls that lost their lives. And at that vigil, police apprehended a person with a machete wearing, you know, all in black, and you can see video of that right here.

And at this point is really when the people had enough in the U.K. this is when people really started to kick off. And it really is important here to have a look at the events of the past five years, to understand what the people of the UK have been really just what's been thrown in their lap. So like the U.S., we reported this last week, the people in the UK have dealt with mass migration. So this has been going on. This is a headline here. UK net migration in 2022 revised up to record 745,000.

It says the ONS, Office of National Statistics, said the population of England and Wales grew by an estimated 1% in the year to June 2022. The fastest rate since the baby boom in the 1960s, but this time it was driven by international migration. So on top of that, there's also a raging housing crisis that's been going on. So you have these forces coming down on the people that have lived there for a long time, really rapidly changing their society. And so people that are bringing up concerns, they have questions about this. In comes this word around 2016-2017, far right. And that is the label. Now, this word...

We're hearing that here. I mean, they're using that here. You never hear conservative anymore. You know, there's no right and left. It's far right and left. Yeah. You know, right. And it's a catch-all term.

It's never really fully defined by government. But it's used to loop in. When these situations happen, it's used to loop in people for, you know, certain political agendas or certain responses. So let's look at just let's look at tracking this a little bit. In 2018, there's an article that came out. It was looking at the monitoring extremists. So it's just a weird word too.

You're extreme? Okay. But Britain looks to better monitor extremists after the release from prison. And at the time, we had the British Health Secretary of State, Saji Javid. And in that article, he said this. He was quoted by saying ISIS, no, ISIS, the world's largest terror group, and right wing groups. They're still lumping them to together.

Have more in common than they acknowledge. He said they both exploit grievances, distort the truth, and undermine the values that hold us together. But it doesn't stop there. In 2019, the BBC goes with that same, picks up that same ball and runs with it. It says the unlikely similarities between the far right and ice. And this is government and media purposely stoking these tensions.

So you have the migration. You're literally talking about like a political party or group and terrorists. and lumping them together. Continuously. Right. Continuously. Not just someone who's slip in the tongue

or someone saying, well, these people, they kind of, literally, let's bridge this gap hard. All media for years on end, years on end. So at that point, this is what that powder keg is looked like in the UK.

So this wasn't just an isolated incident, these tragic murders. This is this powder keg that was lit. And you almost look, you can see this, you can see this trajectory, it was only a matter of time. But what I want to focus on is the government response, because this is moving forward,

this is really what people have to watch out for, and what are the two things the government's going to do? Well, one of them right now is controlling how people speak, speech, freedom of speech. That is directly under attack in the biggest way possible in the UK right now. And this is the headlines. Before we get, just so I have a full understand what we're talking about, because you have the prime minister saying we won't tolerate racism.

So is my understanding that a lot of these, the migration is happening out of, is it Muslim countries, Africa, things like that, that is sort of, you know, coming into England. And I'm sure just as we have issues here, we are a melting pot of so many different cultures. But when you just open your borders up all manner, we have, you know, there's some reports that Venezuela is basically, you know, opening up its jails and just letting everyone come. come over here. I'm not saying they're all criminals, but you only need one or two to start really stressing people out, a couple girls that are assaulted things, that the same thing's happening here in the United States of America. But really, the government is, seems to, you know, as far as what's happening in England, they're basically just pointing out everyone that's asking questions about the dangers, what's going on here of these migrants. You're not allowed to do that.

Right, exactly. You know, it seems like if even one heinous crime like this was committed by someone that came into the country, it really should be looked at, as opposed to saying, you really shouldn't question this because you may be a racist or, you know, whatever, whatever label that is put on the people. So as this happens, so on the back of these, what we're being called far-right riots, the government comes in, when you see this concerted media effort, all the media on the same talking point, that's obviously when we pay attention. So this is what happens. Southport attack misinformation fuels far-right discourse on social media. Then we have the telegraph going further. Unregulated social media disinformation is wrecking Britain. Free speech must come with

accountability from TikTok influencers to newspaper editors. And then the New York Times even gets in on it. The UK riots were fomented online. Will social media companies act? So you can see this pressure on the social media companies on people's speech online pointing to that and saying it's not it's not the government's fault. It's the people online having open discourse. That is the problem here. And so what else did the UK government do? They activated a secret spy unit that was closed down during COVID because it was so it was so just it was, it had so many issues on it. It was tracking journalists.

It was tracking activists that were trying to keep the schools open, try to keep the country from being locked down. Secret COVID era, a spy agency brought in to monitor social media during riots. And this was the counter disinformation unit. And that was used, as we know, to crack down on this dissent. But we're at this inflection point right now because the director of public prosecutions for England and Wales just came out yesterday and said this. Take a listen. The offence of incitement to racial hatred involves publishing or distributing material, which is insulting or abusive, which is intended to or likely to start racial hatred. So if you retweet that, then you're republishing that and then potentially you're committing that offense.

And we do have dedicated police officers who are scouring social media. Their job is to look for this material and then follow up with identification arrests and so forth. So it's really, really serious. People might think they're not doing anything harmful. They are. And the consequences will be visited upon them. I think that may be the most chilling video we've played on this show. I agree.

That's a Democratic nation that is where we, you know, we left England, became the United Kingdom, but they've been our partners in the world in so many different ways. It's like our neighbors just decided to start tracking everyone, like retweeting. Hey, did you see this article about immigrants, the number of immigrants coming across, and you see the level of crime that's happening by them? That literally, like that article, like an article like that just shows, you know, this is how many murders, robberies, whatever, has been. You know, that happened because of immigrants coming across the border. We have the evidence of it. Sharing that article means this group of police are going to come to your house and have serious consequences and arrest you. And governments know that more speech is a steam valve for social issues, for political issues.

So by cracking down and not allowing people to, I mean, the way he phrased that was not, hey, everybody, you just watch what you're posting. You've got to be careful. That was deliberate intimidation tactics, and that's deliberately for a chilling effect. So that is going to take this powder keg and put a pressure cooker on top of it. It's not a good thing. So what else are they doing? Well, in 2019, Time magazine wrote this about England, about the UK. And it said, Britain has more, more surveillance cameras per person than any country except China.

That's a massive risk to our society. Well, what do you do when you have a lot of surveillance cameras? Well, it's kind of the same thing you do when you make a lot of vaccines. You use them. So this is what the prime minister, Kier, Kier Starrmer said. He said instead of addressing the root causes of maybe what caused this attack, I mean, a 17-year-old, why did he do this? Mental health issues. No, instead, we're going to do this.

Kier Starrmer says facial recognition technology is the answer to far-right riots. So let's just surveil everybody with this live surveillance technology that we have more cameras than any other country except China per person. So Big Brother Watch is a nonprofit. They've been on this for four years trying to stall the rollout of this facial recognition technology, knowing the danger of this. So as soon as they heard their prime minister say this, they immediately went, put out this press release as a response, and it says this. They write, this AI surveillance turns members of the public into walking ID cards, is dangerously inaccurate. and has no explicit legal basis in the UK. While it's common in Russia and China,

live facial recognition is banned in Europe. To promise the country ineffective AI surveillance in these circumstances was frankly tone-deaf and will give the public absolutely no confidence that this government has the competence or conviction to get tough on the causes of these crimes and protect the public. Now, if you want to go to Big Brother Watch,

four years ago, they started a petition to stop the roll of these facial recognition technology cameras. You can sign that. It's almost 50,000 people of something. 50,000 people have signed this at this point. But what I want to look at right now is the deliberate stoking of fear, because this isn't over yet, and the media is still doing this. So just a couple days ago, you had this headline talking about 38 planned riots.

And these are, in my opinion, these look like planted stories. So you can- But a plan riot being like a planned march, I'm assuming, but they're assuming there's going to be other people coming in or maybe they're supplying those people and creating conflict. But this is the right to assemble here in the United States of America. And though I am totally against ever, you know, in your assembling, ever, you know, committing acts of violence. The right to assemble is what we're talking about. And they're just, they're immediately labeling these as riots now.

Right. And think about this. When have you seen, you know, military intelligence or police intelligence come out and say, hey, we just had intelligence that Russia may bomb us tomorrow. So just a heads up. No, they keep that stuff quiet and they do their job because they don't want to let the public. They don't want to alert the public. They don't want to scare them.

This is the exact opposite. So check out just this reporting. UK riots planned by far right in 38 areas. Police treat leaked target list as credible threat. That's a scary topic. And you go in there. It says a supposed target list of 38 areas where riots are said to be planned on Wednesday has leaked on social media. I mean, there's no verification there.

And a police source, who, who, today said that the force was treating it as a credible threat. The source said it is difficult to identify. what threats are credible, but so far the intelligence has been fairly solid. There's nothing, there's nothing of substance there. Just basically you walk away with that is be scared, stay in your house. This is a continual message. And then another, it gets even further than that. UK braces for day of unrest amid fears of 100 more far-right riots.

So now it's gone from 38 to 100. So it's just ramping up this fear, ramping up this fear coming into this weekend. And everyone's, you know, talk to people there that, that you and I know, and their families are scared to leave their houses because they don't know what's going on. They can't post anything on social media because they make it a knock on the door by the police. I mean, we're looking at the creation of a surveillance state in over a week that... It's amazing because we've been reporting on the fact that, you know, there's this huge sort of shift to a more liberal, you know, leadership in the UK over the last votes. And I still sit here in,

sort of I've said it so many times. I grew up a Democrat in Boulder, Colorado, and it seemed like what I was raised to believe in. We were like anti-war, love everybody, like peace, you know, hippies. And even in one of those reports, they're like the far-right, you know, extremists. As they're saying in the news report, you see a couple like hippies with silver hair standing there. They look like my mom and my dad. I'm like, those aren't far right.

Those are hippies, you guys. Like, what has happened? But now the liberals, right? I guess in England are now getting on television saying if you share any information on the internet, we will arrest you. If you decide to assemble or speak or have any attempt at free speech, you will be arrested. We will not tolerate this. And it feels like just this authoritarian response, which is amazing because it's the same ones that are saying, you know, here in America and around, like defund the police. they're not really against, I really am starting to think,

they're not against police per se. What they want to do is create chaos, which is what's happening there, open up your borders, threaten people's jobs, threaten the neighborhood and everything that's going on because you're not doing it appropriately. Everyone knows if we legally immigrate people,

and, you know, run them through a court system to prove that they need asylum and make sure that the kids that they're with are actually their kids and all these things. That's how a good society would work. But this isn't that. This is just wide open takeover of your neighborhoods. Crime is on the rise. And if you ask about it, then they say, oh, we have an answer. It's total authoritarianism, facial recognition software.

And we'll bring in, you know, in America, we'll bring in the National Guard, whatever it takes, to make sure that you don't assemble in the streets. I mean, it's really, it's, it's so if far right is wanting to tweet each other and say, you know, hey, did you see this in the news? then we'd assume far left is facial recognition software authoritarianism and arresting of civilians? You know, I think looking throughout history up until this moment, absolute power working through government takes on whatever form it needs to achieve its ends. Whether it's Republican, Democrat, far right, far left, conservative, independent, fascist, communist,

that's what we're looking at here. And so until this government backs off, will they recede the rollout of facial recognition, Probably not. Will they make their police force smaller after this? They are arresting people right now. Are they not? I mean, this police force is active in the UK. It's not like a thing we're dreaming about in the future. People are getting knocks on their door and they're being arrested for things they've shared on the internet. I've seen reports just today of that, yes, yes. I mean, what's really, and this is the thing that I hope that the people watching this

show or getting this reporting anywhere else, I mean, we're in the middle of elections now. And I think we've got to really start asking ourselves, you know, is it possible the person I'm thinking of voting for would ever abuse their power and decide to take my right to free speech away? Would they ever in America, you know, decide to think they can arrest me for a piece of information that I shared? Do I think that those cameras I'm seeing everywhere will ever, could ever be used by someone I'm about to elect to, you know, recognize my face and turn me in if I'm hanging out with somebody that maybe shared something on the internet

that I don't know about? Exactly. I mean, if you can't unequivocally say, no way is the person I'm looking at capable of that, then I hope people start thinking twice. Yeah. Let's move from a heavy conversation. From facial recognition cameras, let's go to...

Scary. It's extremely scary. It's so close. It's so close. It really feels like even America. It's just around that door. It's like door number two. Oh, my.

God, they're right in there. And everyone that thought COVID was over and we can take a breath now. Let's think again. We have to stay vigilant here. So let's look at facial tissues. And so we have some- Facial recognition software to facial tissue, okay? Yeah, so we have some health issues and it's not just facial tissues. It's permeating throughout our environment. And these are toxins. These are P-FASS. And we actually are John Oliver talk about that. And they're per and polyfluoro-alkalized substances. It's a big mouthful, though. But it's, it's PFS, and these are toxic chemicals. They're found in so many products.

They're found in contaminated water from military bases. That's the famous part of this. But we had, not us, but environmental health news and a group called Mammavation, they hired an EPA certified lab, and they looked at facial tissues. They had them sent the facial tissues there, and they tested those for organic flooring, which is kind of an indicator of these PFS,

the presence of these PFS. And they found this. And you can go to this here. This is the actual article that was published. facial tissues like Kleenex tested for indicators of PFAS forever chemicals. And they say... CleanX, like the brand? Yeah, that's what it says there.

So it says... Do I have that box in here? I don't know. I wipe my nose with that. I think I white one nose just one of those just 30 seconds ago. Shoot. So it says 46% of total facial tissue products tested had indications of PFS forever chemicals. That's six detections out of 13 facial tissue brands that had organic fluorine above 10 parts per million,

according to our laboratory. 66% of the products with detections of organic flooring were advertised made from bamboo 100% of the products with detections 100% of organic flooring were advertised as having some type of environmentally friendly feature and you know so so actually like being like we're being coaxed into bamboo it's better it's it's sustainable the environment sustainable so when you start seeing now sustainable sustainable environmentally friendly that's the red flag you should be looking at that you might be jumping into a product with PFASTS. Well, it's not a catch-all term.

So sustainable doesn't mean non-GMO, organic, or even chemical-free. So this is kind of a touchy-feely catch-all term that may not mean what you think it means. So people are saying, forever chemicals, okay, this is something I'm hearing for the first time. What's the concern? Well, the group put out a list of these are newly being studied.

This is a new form of chemical that's really, it's really being widely studied now. But you can look at this list here, reduction in immunity, increased allergies, asthma in kids, cholesterol levels rising. Then you get to the serious stuff, lower male fertility, lowered women's chance of getting pregnant, endicron disruption, testicular kidney cancers, leukemia and children.

And this is an ongoing list. And just last month, there's an alarming study that unveiled showed that Forever Chemicals can be passed from mother to newborn. So these things are ubiquitous, and they're moving through our bodies. It's called Forever Chemicals, because they're having

half life is like... Yeah, it's the strongest bond in organic chemistry with these chemicals. They do not detach. They don't break down. So we're more other chemicals, you can maybe get like 100 years in the soil. You can remediate the soil. These are there, obviously, forever. So we go back to this conversation here, this EPA study from the lab, and it shows the tissues

that have nothing. They didn't find anything in there. So if you listen into this, you're at the grocery store, and you're in the, you're in the aisle for facial. Now, whoa, stop, hold on. Hold on. Put down the Kleenex. Yep. So here we go.

This is directly from their study. Ecosol bamboo, ultra-safacial tissues, kaboof tree-free facial tissue, seventh generation, and ply tissue. They did not detect any organic fluorine, which was the presence of PFAS. But on the flip side of that, here's some of them that they did detect that in the parts per million up to about 16 to 25 parts per million. Amazon Aware, Cloud Paper, Gaias, 100% recycled. puffs the cheeky panda and then who gives a crap you smell like fancy candle bamboo tissue but you're wiping your nose possibly with PFS Well that puffs plus lotion see that one advertise all the time 25 parts per million

Right and think about this it's it's it's it's contacting directly to your mucus membranes and so obviously a concern there because this is directly mainlining right into your body and this isn't the only product it's not just like facial tissues or we're spotlighting here Just a couple months ago time magazine put out this headline evidence of dangerous forever chemicals found in bandages So now you're having direct contact with wounds with these. But I think one of the biggest, as I was researching this segment, one of the biggest light bulb moments for me to really share was the Environmental Working Group published a study looking at forever chemicals and pesticides.

And now we're getting really serious here. And this is a total game changer. The fact that this isn't all over mainstream news, I really wish it would be. Wait, wait. Hold on, let me start again. Mainstream news? What did you call it?

The fact that this isn't all over alternative media That's not paid for corporate funding. All right, good. All right. So this was in July. I mean, just a couple days ago here. New study finds alarming rise in persistent forever chemicals and pesticides. And they quote it in this press release, I can think of no better way to poison people and the environment than the spray PFS-laden pesticides on our crops and in our homes said peer science policy director, Caleb Bennett.

The blame for this contamination crisis lies squarely on the EPA shoulders. And it's funny here that John Oliver can make the connection between forever chemicals being bad and the EPA putting them out, but not the CDC and their lax. I mean, that's it. That is what we have been just trying to get through to people. All of your regulatory agencies are corrupt. And if that's where you get your information, if that's your Bible, you're in real trouble, we have total corruption in there.

If you have corporate interests that your regulatory agencies are sliding things through without proper safety studies, you know, sliding them through so they can make money, And a lot of times have kickbacks now going to our regular three agencies, especially when it comes to vaccines. Then what are you trusting in? What exactly what science do you think you believe in? Right. You know, exactly. And the science around pesticides, that conversation, we really jumped into that full steam when Duane Johnson was suing Bear, which...

Not the actor, but the guy who has his skin falling off of his body. He was the groundskeeper in California who won this landmark legal case against Bear, who bought Monsanto over their glyphosate. herbicide. And so on that ingredients list on glyphosate, this is something that very few people have ever pointed out. It says active ingredients. So during those court cases, when you read, when you read about the science that was presented, it was glyphosate has been tested. This is safe. When we found out it really wasn't. But glyphosate's tested. It's safe. You just wear some gloves. You're fine. No one ever tested the other ingredients. It has this whole list of active ingredients. Well, this is where the story picks up right now. This is where it comes around full circle.

And this is the actual study. I'm going to read the conclusion. We found that the biggest contributor to PFAS in pesticide products was active ingredients and their degradants. Nearly a quarter of all U.S. conventional pesticide active ingredients were organofluorines and 14% were PFAS. And for active ingredients approved in the last 10 years, this has increased to 61% organofloreans and 30% PFAS. So think about this.

You have super fun sites that the EPA is shutting down. because they're so contaminated, the groundwater is contaminated, and they have to shut these sites down. Darkwater was the movie, if you want to watch, a great movie, Mark Ruffalo talking about exactly this. Whistleblowers coming forward, of course, being threatened, as always happens, our government looking the other way, and sometimes helping corporations to shut down

the person that's really telling the truth, like John Oliver is trying to do to us. And so down the street, you have the Superfund site that no one can walk on that's being cleaned up. And then just around the corner, you have the crops, being sprayed with that same chemical that's in the ground from the super lungs on your windows, all over your food you're eating. It can enter through the skin.

So fortunately, there's a good news at the end of this story. So people are doing things. Governments are acting quicker than they did with the pesticides from bear. So we have New Hampshire governor. He has signed a bill just three days ago targeting these forever chemicals. This is Governor Chris Sununu. And it says here, New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu signed a bill Friday that bans certain products with intentionally added PFAS from sale in the state starting in 2027 that creates

strict liability for PFAS polluters. The bill creates a right to civil action for certain PFAS contamination. It also holds facilities strictly liable to the state for containment cleanup, restoration or other remediation related to the release or threatened release of hazardous water, hazardous material in accordance with the application of law and departmental rule. So there's actually... Oh my God. I mean, like I was talking earlier about like this flip- flopping parties like growing up and we used to be the anti-war party and now you know Democrats of the pro-war party. Sununu is a Republican, right?

I mean, that sounded like something written by Bobby Kennedy 20 years ago or any of the environmentalists that would have come forward. He's basically saying we need regulations, we need to stop the stuff going into our water, and that's a Republican saying that, which is what, I mean, now this is where all these lines, I think we all have to sort of readjust and recognize what's happening. I don't care what party you're in. Exactly. Right?

should all want clear water. We should want clean air. We should want our food supply to be the best there is in the world without any chemicals or byproducts that are putting us in harm's way. We should have the best drugs. If you're into vaccinating, they should have been properly safety tested. All of these things. We are actually the most poisoned nation, certainly in the first world. There is. United States of America, we have more toxic chemicals coming our way because we have such corruption in our government. So this is where I just feel like, you know, you can't call yourself an environmentalist anymore because it means you believe in some sort of authoritarian carbon credit regime. But what do we call ourselves when we want to actually know that the water

we're drinking is safe, that the tissue we're blowing our nose in isn't going to cause cancer 10 years down the road? I mean, is this a left or right issue anymore? It seems like a pro-thriving humanity issue. Totally. Anti-toxins, wherever they're found, whether they're injected or in your water, wherever. I mean, it seems very simple. So fortunately, science is working on. this and I know what you're going to say about this, but here's the article. This was August 1st. Scientists uncover microbes that destroy forever chemical pollutants. So they found

that these microbes break that bond, that strong organic bond, that fluorine bond. So they're saying, well, we possibly could inject this into the groundwater to break that down and where there's contamination. Look, I want to be done with PFAS too, but like, you know, like what happens after these microbes

get done eating PFAS? Right? I mean, it's like, it's ready for like the next movie the blob like what the hell is this thing made of what are they right and i'm sure no one's going to test that just hey look at east pfas put it everywhere put it in everyone's water i'm sure it'll be fine we'll safety test it later what we do with vaccines you're going to get you're going to get anti-blobbers as blob moves in the background don't don't be arrested for calling you do you see this article and the fact there's a blob moving through new york city so i want to hit one more kind of segment here one more headline and that's

this idea of universal basic income. So we, you know, these are all, this is all kind of a connected idea. So you're seeing, you're seeing population struggling with jobs. There's not enough jobs for people. You're seeing population struggle with housing, with, you know, how to pay their rents. And this idea, also artificial intelligence is coming in. And this idea of, well, how are people going to make a living in the future? How about we just give them universal basic income? How about we just pay them? They'll be the utopia that we've always promised. We can have it. People can just go about and do whatever they want.

Well, we have the first, kind of the first really mainstream conversation point was when Elon Musk brought this up. This really mainline this a couple of years ago. He was at a forum. He was discussing this. And people really perked up and paid attention when he brought it. This is what he said. There will be fewer and fewer jobs that a robot cannot do better.

What to do about mass unemployment? This is going to be a massive social challenge. And I think ultimately we will have to have some kind of universal basic income. I don't think we're going to have a choice. Universal basic income. Universal basic income. I think it's going to be necessary. So it means that unemployed people will be paid across the globe.

Yeah. Because there is no job. Machine, robot is taking over. That's simply the... And I want to be clear that these are not things that I think that I want to, wish would happen, these are things simply things that I think probably will happen. The harder challenge, much harder challenge, is how do people then have meaning? Like a lot of people, they derive their meaning from their employment. So if you don't have, if you're not needed,

if there's not a need for your labor, how do you, what's the meaning? Do you have meaning? Do you feel useless. These are much, that's a much harder problem to deal with. So, you know, there it is. He brings up a lot of good points there. And I mean, Andrew Yang sort of ran on this, if I remember correctly back in, you know, the last election. Absolutely. And so this, you're seeing this, the, the dripping of this out into the conversation now, but also you're seeing it happening in state. So Louisiana is offering a million dollars for what they're called a guaranteed income program. And they're asking here in this article, do you qualify? These are actually for 12th grade high school students.

But it turns out, with a number of kids in there when you read the article, it turns out to be about $400 a year. So it's not really life-altering money for people. But then you have these articles, and this was New York Post, free money, less income. Study finds no strings, cash leaves the poor worse off.

And then an editorial, universal basic income fails universally. And they're talking about a National Bureau of Economic Research Study that just was published. And it was looking at that. It was looking at that in two states. And it was talking about the employment effects of a guaranteed income. And it says this. We study the causal impacts of income on a rich way of employment outcomes,

leveraging an experiment in which 1,000 low-income individuals were randomized into receiving $1,000 per month unconditionally for three years with a group of 2,000 participants receiving $50 a month. The program resulted in a 2.0 percentage point decrease in labor market participation for participants at a 1.3 to 1.4 hour per week reduction in labor hours. You know, not a surprise. With participants' partners reducing their hours worked by a comparable amount, the transfer generated the largest increases in time spent on leisure,

as well as smaller increases in time spent on other activities such as transportation and finances. But they concluded, we observed no significant effects on investments in human capital. Though younger participants may pursue more formal education, overall, our results suggest a moderate labor supply. effect that does not appear to offset be offset by other productive activities. So the more you give people free money, the less are inspired to work. That's strange. Wow.

I don't know. I don't know. Who would have thought that that would be the case? I mean, look, we've talked about this before. It's really, I think you're taking away really the most basic, you know, self-driving, self-interest we have, which is survival. Right. If you remove survival, how many people just never even get off their couch again or do anything?

Exactly. And, you know, Elon Musk hit on that at the end of that segment that we just showed. The work is purpose. There's honor in that. There's making one's way in life. And people find that through, often find that through work. So it's more than just money. It's more than just an exchange.

There's a bigger human yearning with finding one's true purpose. Yeah. What are we doing here otherwise? You're not a plant. Right. So in giving people this universal basic income, in a way, you're taking. that away from them. You're taking that ability to achieve that purpose in their life. And strangely enough, Yuval Harari, the W.E.F. Luminary wrote this in his book about what to do with those

people. So say AI takes all the jobs and we have universal basic income. Listen to what he says about this. Right. In the book, if I understand it correctly, you argue that actually the amazing breakthrough that we are experiencing right now, not only we'll potentially make our life better, But they will create, and I quote you, new classes and new class struggles, just as the Industrial Revolution did. Can you elaborate for us? Yes, in the Industrial Revolution,

we saw the creation of a new class of the urban proletariat, and much of the political and social history of the last 200 years involved what to do with this class and the new problems and opportunities. Now we see the creation of a new massive class of useless people. As computers become better and better in more and more fields, there is a distinct possibility that computers will outperform us in most tasks and will make humans redundant.

And then the big political and economic question of the 21st century will be, what do we need humans for? Or at least, what do we need so many humans for? Do you have an answer in the book? At present, the best guess we have is keep them happy with drugs and computer games. But this doesn't sound like a very appealing future. I mean, everyone's laughing there.

It really is quite scary, and it's been predicted for so very long. Watching that reminds me of the famous interview with Mike Wallace and Aldous Huxley, who wrote Brave New World, although I think that was written back in the 1950s. And in that book, if you remember it, it basically has classes of people, those who work, those that don't, you're actually bred to accept whatever position you're in. I suppose you're going to accept the position of being a video game playing useless eater,

which is what Yvalhohoho Harari is saying there. But just take a look at this. Just to think this was recorded in 1959. He basically says you're going to be slaves. I think they'll give you drugs and things to make you accept that, but you probably shouldn't accept it. It's really fascinating. If you want to preserve your power indefinitely, you have to be able to be able to. the consent of the ruled.

And this they will do, partly by drugs, as I foresaw in Brave New World, partly by these new techniques of propaganda. They will do it by bypassing the sort of rational side of man and appealing to his subconscious and his deeper emotions and his physiology even, and so making him actually love his. slavery. I mean, I think this is the danger that actually people may be in some ways happy under the new regime, but they will be happy in situation where they oughtn to be happy. And you know, that book was written, Brave New World in 1932, I believe, and that was about

a eugenic society and, you know, he has connections with Darwin and all those people. Yeah, his family goes all way back in there. Yeah. You know, just thinking about that, we were, I was just traveling, I was in the airport and And my manager, Jimmy, was like, have you noticed that when you walk through a city now, it just smells like marijuana everywhere you go? I mean, nothing, not to judge legalization, not legalization, but you do get this impression now that everyone, everywhere is on drugs all the time. Like, that's how it's the daily experience.

We don't go to the bar after work tonight. It's like all day long, we're walking in some form of an intoxicated. So I think we're right there. And where is the legalization of drugs, of, you know, online activities that are questionable, of video games? We are literally being trained to just sit in a cubicle. Yeah, and Yvall Harari says video games and drugs. And I was on the flight over here to come to the studio. And there was a grown man next to me who looked like, you know, could have been a stockbroker.

He was nicely dressed. And he was feverishly on his phone. I look over and he's spinning a wheel, getting coins coming out of it. And I thought, what is going on? I mean, this is, you're seeing the beginning of this. Yeah. You know, what kind of drive? I mean, you look at the charts for people on antidepressants and Xanax.

They're going like this. I mean, are we here? Is this the beginning of this? I don't know, but my gosh. No, it's upon us. All right. Well, look, great reporting, Jeffrey. As always, it's great having you in studio.

It's always so much fun to get this connection. And so once again, I'm just hit you in person. You rock, brother. Thank you. I want you to stick around. Just last week, we were, you know, at this time of the day, you know, in the show, we usually. talk about fundraising, trying to bring some funds in so I can keep getting you out there

to do investigations and things like that. But I asked, you know, is there some other way I could do this? There's something we could do to help raise more funds. Lots and lots of people sort of got involved and wrote in their thoughts. There was some themes that just want you to check out. And for the audience out there, you can check these out. So here was just, we grabbed ones that was sort of repetitive that a lot of people said, this was from someone saying, I want to don't but I only do cash. Is there an address? I can send cash too. Well, I like that. Okay, so cash is king. We should keep it king if you are a cash person. This is how you donate to ICANN. You can mail it there. PO Box 131568, Houston, Texas, 77219, 1568. We take crypto. We take stock. You can do an international transfer. So all of those things, some of them just ask it info at I can decide.org and we'll reach out and set you up with that. So that's great for all those cash people out. There's one way to go. Right, let's look at another one. Bring on Matthew

Erritt and follow his lead to the Anglo-Dutch American Financial oligarchy and how they've manipulated world history for hundreds of years. I mean, I guess if that was going to get this person to donate, ironically, five minutes later, Matthew Erich was our guest for the day. Hopefully we cashed in on that. And let's look at another one. I'm thinking that it would be beneficial to perhaps host a yearly or twice yearly telethons, special broadcasts with guest speakers, videos about ICANN successes, etc. And live fundraiser, live live live live live live fundraising with a board keeping track of the funds raised. I suggest this because some people might be more receptive to a fundraising format like that rather than being hit with it every week and maybe do

a shorter pitch on the weekly show. I suppose I've probably already gone too long right now, but I like that. We've talked about that. Maybe we should try to do that this fall. you know, reach out across the world to all the great guests, the musicians, things like that. So everybody out there you can, you know, hope to see maybe we'll try to do a telephone. It'd be great because we want to keep doing this work. 8-4-hour. I think of one or two more. Let's take a look at this.

All right. I wish there was less podium pounding. It's over-the-top emotionally at times. We get this one a lot. We also get the opposite where people just say I'm too emotional. I'll be honest, Jeffrey. I've been having people complaining about my podium pounding since I was like five. years old. That's what you're here for. I know. And by the way, that's what you're here for.

I mean, you're here for those people that just can't say at the podium bounding. You're one of the things that people talk about the most when I travel around. They can thank God for Jeffrey Jackson. He's cool-headed. He just brings the facts and the science. So keep doing that job so we can hold on to people like that. Keep pounding that podium. I need you. I can't help it. I will. All right. And I think lastly, you have to give benefits to the ones who donate, for example, a private Zoom call for donors who donate at least $25 a month. That's actually a really great idea. I think that would you be into if maybe, I don't know how we're all so busy, you know,

to quarterly get together and maybe do a Zoom call and we can take questions from people donating. I think that would be great. I think we should make that happen. So we're going to work on, I'm going to tell you right now, we will work on, we're working on technology. I've been telling you there's a lot coming in the future. We have Jeffrey Jackson's been working on an investigation show. He's going to start diving deeper into things outside of the high wire. Super exciting stuff and a couple of other surprises that are coming.

But that technology would be great so that we can maybe bring in Zoom calls. I don't know if we do it. We'll look at a phone line or something like that. But you can expect that for those of you donating out there, we'd love to hear from you. We did get several people that said, you know, I'll donate if I could get Dell on a phone or Aaron, Siri. I mean, these guys never answer their phone. That wasn't just one person, but I will say this to everyone out there that's thinking that, or at least to all the rest of you that are donating. Can you talk to that person?

I doubt what you want me or Jeffrey or, you know, Aaron doing is being on personal phone calls with the thousands of people, thank God, that are donating to this program. We would never get around and doing an investigation. We would never file a FOIA request. We would never be able to bring a lawsuit. And we would never be able to bring you a legal update like this, very important. one. I can request them and has supported an entire legal effort surrounding self-spreading vaccines and other erasolized issues. We uncovered a number of troubling discoveries, one of which was a company called autonomous therapeutics with millions of dollars of federal government funding,

was creating what it described on its website as inhalable vaccines, artificial immune systems, encrypted MRI, vaccines and therapeutics, all of which, as it explained, is intended to get around informed consent. There are people out there that just won't agree to take these new MRNA or any other vaccine product. So the way we'll get around it is, we'll just create one that self-spreads through the population.

We uncovered that scheme and expose the underlying details and how incredibly dangerous it can be. Well, autonomous therapeutics is now apparently a bit on the run because it is now updated its website and it's removed all of those claims. that I just read to you. Instead, now it calls them precision medicines

and disease activated. We're not fooled. We don't intend to let this issue go, and they can try and hide in the shadows, but we're not going to just let them engage in this conduct. On behalf of I can, we actually have over 30 FOIA requests all with regards to self-spreading vaccines, and we are pursuing those vigorously,

including into federal court. I mean, there's companies that are actually working on the scientists that are bragging that they have created these self-spreading vaccines, highly infectious vaccines, basically man-made viruses and I guess maybe man-made bacteria that you can inhale and then spread to each other. This is just one of the many investigations. We had a beautiful angel out there that said, I would really love it if you would start looking into chem trails of all things. And so it brought us a lot of science to look at, and we started that investigation. As many of you know, we've had several different interviews and dove into that. This is one of those things that turns up where you're least in expecting it. And thank God we were looking at chemtrails because in our FOIA requests over things that could be sprayed on us from the sky,

we actually discovered this plans to spray what vaccines on us? Self-spreading vaccines, the company rebrands after ICAN raises alarms. So we got them on the run. sure what an accomplishment that is. It shows you that they're aware of us. It shows you that they're afraid of us, but they're not stopping what they're doing. They're renaming it and trying to hide it because it's underway. And once again, I want you to ask yourself, when you are voting, ask yourself, is this person I'm about to vote for, do they believe in vaccines so much that they'd be willing to give it to me without my choice? We already had one mandated on us. We had

COVID forced my jobs taken away. Do you think they'd have any problem just wiping out? completely your informed consent and dropping vaccines on you from the sky that you're all going to breathe and catch and give to each other. And, you know, it's imminent, folks. The technology is already there. This is coming. So when you think about, you know, well, why should I donate to I can and the high wire and maybe you have to overlook how bombastic I can be, but it's bombastic people like me that get up every day really passionate about fighting for you. And you can't even imagine what it's like to spend a day with Aaron Siri, who is just the most incredibly talented lawyer I think we've ever seen, especially when it comes to your constitutional rights,

your body, autonomy. We need to fight this, folks. We've got to make sure that the next pandemic, they don't release self-spreading vaccines. Can you imagine that COVID vaccine, for those of us, that didn't take it, those of us that aren't having myocarditis and periocarditis and, you know, turbo cancers, can you imagine a time where you have no choice that you were going to take whatever cockamamie thing they rush onto the market and you'll have no choice, you're going to breathe in and won't even know, what are you going to do? I mean, can you imagine we're all about to be the ones wearing masks? I'm going to be in a hazmat suit because I know we're being poisoned by our own government. Please don't make me come on the show in a hazmat suit and say,

Sorry, folks. We didn't get enough funding in time, and they did it. They gone and done it. You know that we've talked about it. They're planning on doing this during the, they wanted to try it out during the last pandemic. If you want it stopped, and it's a priority for you, then why don't you become a recurring donor today? Go to the highwire.com if you're not already there. Hit that button at the top of the page, donate to ICANN. We love it when you're a recurring donor because it allows us to predict long-term cases. many of these go on for a year. Are we going to be able to get involved in this and see it to the end? $24 a month for 2024 or whatever you can give. Honestly, and many of you wrote in that times are tough.

I love what you're doing, Dell. You know, what I can do is share the videos. Everyone do your part. I mean, that's it. If that's what you can do, then thank you from the bottom of my heart. Keep sharing these videos because the more people that get this information, the more we can put pressure on the government of the United States and the government. of the world, it's super important. But if you can give, if you have that ability to reach down or maybe give up a cup of coffee, you know, once a month and just take that money and say, you know, today I don't need to be all fidgety. Instead, I'm going to make sure that I can and do its work. We're going to make it easy. You can text 72022 and write in the word donate, and you'll immediately get a link to fill out so that you can be a part of this incredible work

and maybe stop us from ever having to breathe in untested vaccines that could spell the end. Can you imagine once they do that? I mean, do you realize that that literally could be the end of our species? You've seen these people. They don't have any concern. They will inject everyone on this planet they could with a product they never tested and discover after the fact in their post-marketing surveillance.

Oops. As it turns out, now we're all going to die. We're going to do something about that. help us out. Okay. We've been up and down. There's a lot going on. It keeps saying this new cycle we've been involved in every week, something crazy. This week, it felt like the stock market was crashing. It was terrifying, but then it came back. Wait a moment. It didn't come back. Is it real? Is it not? Is it happening in America? Is it Japan? So many questions. So little time. That's why I'm going to talk to somebody that can really get to the point.

But first, if you missed it, this is what happened to us this week. around the world taking a major hit. Markets around the world have dropped. The Dow's down more than a thousand points as that global sell-off intensifies. We saw around a trillion dollars worth of wealth wiped off just a handful of the biggest tech stock. And the stock market is opening in the red this morning

after a rough finish last week on a weaker than expected jobs report. The NASDAQ is down 1,067. That is a loss of five and three quarters of a percent. And the S&P is down 231. That is a loss of more than four. and a quarter percent. Overnight Japan's Nika plunge 12 percent. That is its worst day since 1987. That's Black Monday's crash. And investors are responding to Friday's stock declines and

weak jobs report here as well. Only 114,000 jobs were added to the U.S. economy in July. Now, that was much lower than expected. And that raised fears that the world's biggest economy is slowing. And you're seeing that rippling across those markets, which we were just showing you around the world. You're getting all these warning flags and signs saying that if the Fed doesn't start to cut and cut a lot soon, we will be in recession by the end of the year. I mean, look, right now, the volatility index or the fear gauge, which is a measure of how afraid investors are right now, it's at a 65.

And just to put that in perspective, if we go back to March of 2020, when the pandemic was full swing and people were locked up in their houses, it was 50. It's 65 right now. International markets appear to be rebounding after Monday's concerning global sell-off. Technically, we're reversing course right now, but this market has definitely none of the woods. Well, look, it's been a wild and crazy week. I wanted to reach out to, you know, my favorite person when it comes to being a financial truth teller. Of course, I'm talking about the former Black Rock executive Ed Dowd, who joins me now.

Ed, thank you for taking the time today. It feels like there was a massive panic, some calling for the end of the world as we just saw, and now we feel like things maybe are just coming back to normal. But we live in a time now to me that seems anything but normal. I'm getting afraid to wake up in the morning to what's the headline of insanity that's going to be today. You've always really been great about not just telling us what we want to

here, but giving us a sense of what's really happening and what we should be looking at into the future. So just to begin with, you know, was this just a crazy panic? Was it a reset? What have we been experiencing in the markets this week? So this all started with the Bank of Japan and Japan. And there's been a lot of us, including myself, that have been highlighting this is a potential Black Swan event for the better part of a year. now. Japan has a zero interest rate policy and they've had deflation for decades and decades. It's had a zombie economy for a long, long time. And as a result of the Federal Reserve, raising interest rates from zero to five and a half percent in a very short period of time,

the Japanese currency, the yen, has come under pressure. It's been depreciating quite a bit. And it hit levels recently we haven't seen since the 90s. And so Japan could no longer keep their zero interest rate policy. So last week, they raised their interest rates only 25 basis points, a quarter of a percentage point. And that set off a panic in what's known as the yen-perry trade. And what is that for your audience? Basically, it's a trade that's been going on for decades where speculators and large institutions

borrowing yen and at zero interest rates and buy other foreign denominated securities and other currencies. It's been a great trade for decades. The fear that swept the markets was if Japan was going to raise interest rates and defend their currency, that would cause a margin call. And that's what you saw. And you saw panic in the Japanese markets. Their banks imploded. They went down 30% in a very short period of time.

one of the greatest bank crashes we've ever seen in Japan in 30 years. So the fear is after the panic has subsided a little bit, the fear is that there's going to be knock on effects and there's going to be kind of this global deleveraging going on. And I want to go back to the U.S. economy. You know, I have a firm finance technology. We have our own internal economic cycle indicators. We started showing recessionary levels last year.

We called for recession in 2003-3-4 last year. We were wrong, but the only reason we were wrong was because the U.S. government juice the economy with government spending and government jobs. Also, the payroll numbers, which surprised people on Friday, and they went negative, have been, in many people's opinions, and I hate to say that's fraudulent or statistically patted with niceties, even Federal Reserve Jerome Powell, and it's not this meeting, but the meeting before this, even called that out, said there's questions as to the veracity of the payroll numbers. So we have finance technologies have been looking at a real economy that's been underperforming quite a bit. And the middle class is suffering greatly and businesses across the country are starting to grind a whole bankruptcies are on the rise. We have credit problems starting to rear their ugly heads.

So this is just the beginning of what we think will be a recessionary economy coming in the next six to 12 months and it's definitely going to come probably either signs of it will be appearing free election or post-election but the financial markets will lead back and so what we've been recommending for the better part of the year is if you have and again i don't give financial advice but if you have a portfolio or retirement savings move some of it into cash money market accounts or us t bills and i want to also suggest you would follow you Warren buffett Warren Buffett has converted most of his portfolio into T-bills. He owns 4% of the US T-Bill market.

And Warren Buffett's not looking for an 8% pullback in the markets, which is what we just had. He's looking for a big, big correction. So one's coming. It's not the end of the world. These actually present opportunities for people that prepare ahead of time. And like I said, if you have some cash on the sidelines, it's called dry powder and you can take advantage of it. The big fear is that this goes systemic, meaning we have the business.

bank failures and what have you, and that's a whole different situation. But I can't call them until we start to see it. The Federal Reserve will at some point have to give up the ghost and start lowering interest rates. They do not want to do that because once they start doing that, that will put pressure on institutions to sell what order called risk assets like stocks and corporate bonds and buy safe securities known as treasuries. And that'll have a feedback loop on itself.

So the Fed is loat to take action after this weekend, because again, if you're It's not our economy. They want more data. But I've seen this movie before. They're going to have to cut. And when they start cutting, they'll cut fast and furious. And we'll have to see what the policy response is. But again, it's not the end of the world, but it'll be painful.

And it could turn into a systemic problem. And then we'll have to see the policy responses. I was wondering, I mean, you know, we obviously look at it. We're going into an election cycle. We've been in one. You know, we're going to have an election this year. did any of this have anything to do with Kamala Harris moving into this position? Is this political in any way? You know, how are the markets looking at that? I've talked to, you know,

some of the well-to-do people I know are very concerned with a Kamala future compared to perhaps a Trump future. Are these things that do, does a market tend to look at those ahead of time, or does it happen in real time? Well, we've seen. it once the election happens? So I would say that this market had nothing to do with Kamala Harris. This was a problem that had been flagged by many others, including me. And I've speculated the timing of when Japan goes Keplewy was uncertain, but it was a risk in a Black Swan event before the election.

The goal of any administration is to keep the economy rolling in general. the economy any way they can going into an election. And my bet before this was that they were going to be successful in at least getting over the finish line economically. I mean, the real economy is bad, but a lot of people look at the financial markets. So I think this was a surprise out of nowhere. It does favor not the current regime

and favors Trump and Bobby Kennedy. But this isn't political. This is something that came out of the blue. And I will tell you, I'm a professional. I was alarmed at how quickly things unraveled starting last Thursday. I was expecting prior to this that the markets would kind of maybe go to a new all-time high right before the election a month or so, but then we'd have volatility right before the election, maybe a little correction, and then the economy would get worse from there.

But this is a big surprise. It's shocking and the ripple effects we don't know yet. We don't know, we call it who's holding the old maid. bank in Japan just one bus that we don't know about yet and then that has ripple effects. Credit starts contracting and whatnot. And the other problem we have is prior to any election, especially the most controversial one we've seen in our lifetime still, is any large business decision is not going to be made until people know who it's going to be sitting in that seat come November. So businesses are already on pause. The economy is kind of slowing down and

grind into a halt, which isn't going to help things at all. When you look in the future, obviously we've had you on. You've been one of the only people looking at the finances just around the COVID vaccine. We've discussed that, the harms from it. Of course, you've published on this issue. One of the things that's, you know, we've been talking about more and more on the high wire and that I'm nervous about is AI. I feel like I'm really late to the party here.

It's now hitting me how quickly this thing is going. going to start sweeping up and taking up jobs. I did a show where we just talked about the fact that it can write a song that probably is good enough for most commercials to use what's going to happen to commercial songwriters. But just the fact that it can be creative, just sort of open up my whole mind of what's possible here. Then when you see the people that have developed it saying things like we made two critical errors, we swore we would never like introduce it to the internet and we wouldn't let it code it. both of those things are happening. Do you have concerns? I mean, when we look forward now,

everyone will always just say it will be like anything else. It's just like when we, you know, got car manufacturing up. You just change how you do things. Then there'll be people that run the AI. Is it going to be disruptive or do you feel like humanity has a way, and especially the United States of America, to handle just what, is this just an evolution and necessary evolution? And we'll be fine. So we just put out a piece on AI at our firm. And also I've been here before. There was the dot-com bubble.

So two things. AI is coming, but it's not coming for a while. The current version of AI is not robust. It's a language processor. And it's not thinking on its own and doing, you know, Skynet is not here. And there's been a lot of hype in the financial markets on AI. This reminds me at the dot-com boom where it wasn't ready for prime time. A lot of companies came public and then disappeared.

And then eventually we had Web 2.0 and firms like Facebook, Amazon, rides and the ashes out of that. So the good news is I think this is bubble it's bursting. It's not ready for prime time. And the biggest problem is no one knows how to make money off AI yet. So there's been a lot of capital investment in the Nvidia AI chip. A lot of money spent, but there's no business model on the other side. There's no way to monetize this quite yet.

So we're going to have a bust. So that's the good news. The bad news is AI is coming slowly over time and will be disruptive. So the fear I think is misplaced that it's going to hit us now. The current AI is not enough to snuff and there's no way for people to make money yet. So this is going to take five to 10 years to unfold in my humble opinion. Now let's get into the area that you've been in here with us talking. about, which is COVID vaccines, bird flu vaccines are now in development. It looks like they're going to

really start fast tracking those adjustments to statements about there being an emergency in sort of some of the documentation around it. We watched Pfizer starting to take a hit because, as we've reported over and over again, it seems that a lot of Americans just think that nine shots is more than they need and the booster shots are not doing very well anymore. I think it's somewhere, you know, probably between, you know, 70 to 90 percent of those that are eligible for a booster aren't getting them. Are we continuing to see that effect the pharmaceutical industry or do you see them starting to load up? You know, what are you seeing for the future? I mean, when you watch numbers, market is how you've learned a lot of what you've learned. I'm very concerned that when they

start calling for a pandemic saying not if, but when, when I see them ramping up to develop a vaccine, I feel like we're around the corner from them needing to use that vaccine. Is there anything in the market that gives you that can foretell what you think is going to happen there? Or is there a pandemic around the corner? Well, right now the stocks of Pfizer and Medina are not taking off, which is good. If you start to see those stocks take off, we might have issues. But we have an election in 90 days. The bird, has been hyped up and I don't know if you saw the WHO, the WHO, the WHO, just declared an emergency meeting on monkey pox.

So personally, I believe this is a lot of pre-election games. They're trying to gen up some fears so they can justify mail-in ballots again. I don't think anybody, honestly, there's enough of us now that won't comply, that won't do this and I don't think it'll be effective. The great news like you said is the booster uptake on the nine shots like two, three, three, percent. And word of mouth, even though you and I, especially you and others, did a great job of getting the word out on these things. And it's spread word and mouth. Mainstream media is still, as we know, miserably behind the eight ball on how bad, how unsafe and infective these things were. But I don't think anyone is going to sign up again for a new untested vaccine anytime soon.

And if they do, there will be far fewer in numbers this time. And I think we have enough of the critical mass that we will resist any of this attempted medical tyranny. There's been some recent comments by Dr. Hotez, Mr. Vaccine himself, who wants to bring in the UN and Department of Homeland Security to round up the anti-vaxxers and saying that we are a threat to national security. I mean, that's insane talk. Yeah, absolutely.

Lastly, housing is such a big deal. It's a major conversation. You know, here in Austin, we just had a huge building boom, which seemed to just sort of, you know, things were going crazy. Now it's sort of dropped down substantially. But the real conversation is something we've talked about, the World Economic Forum, promising just a couple years ago, everyone's going to rent. And it does feel like we're moving into a renter society if we don't watch out. Companies you've worked for Black Rock, State Street, Vanguard. There seems to be a lot of investment into the single-family home market.

Some discussions by political leaders on trying to do something about that. What do you see in the housing market? Do we really have an issue with large corporate entities competing with first-time home buyers and things like that? And what will that do to an economy like Americas? That was more of a problem several years ago. In fact, I'm hearing now a lot of these firms are unloading some of their portfolios because they're nervous about prices coming down. A couple things to solve the housing problem. We need to build more homes, affordable homes, not these McMansions.

So if you increase the housing stock, that would bring home prices down. The other thing that's going to force home prices down is an economic recession. That's one. The third one is right now it's cheaper to rent than it is to own. And when that's happened historically in the past, and when that happens, home prices will correct. So I predict home prices are going to at least moderate and come down. And whoever's the next president, I would love to see some sort of policy response where we incentivize people to build cheap affordable housing

that would really bring the stock prices, the prices of the homes down across the nation. All in all, and then, you know, the petra dollar, our place in the world, how's America doing? I mean, are we, do we, you know, are we holding strong? Is there a hope? Because it feels like if we lose our financial strength, we could also lose our moral authority.

Are those two things connected in your mind? Absolutely connected. This is a good news, bad news situation here. The current regime has done a bunch of moves to de-legitimize the dollar. One was to float the idea of, we have sanctions on Russia where we froze their assets. There's been talked for the first time of stealing their money, which would send a chill throughout the global system that the US could at any moment just take your money. Freezing and stealing are two different things.

And so that delegitimizes the dollar. The weakness of the current regime has caused a lot of the other nations become more bold and actually talking open about the bricks and de-dollarization. The good news is reserve currencies don't die overnight. It takes time. So we're doing a yeoman's effort in trying to destroy the credibility of the dollar, but it's so ingrained and so pervasive in the global financial system. Any country that tried to de-dollarize overnight would have a deflation.

depression. So it's something that is slow moving, but we've started that movement. And so we need to worry about this. And the next administration that gets in there needs to fix this. I just got a question from one of our producers that's, you know, starting to invest in Bitcoin. Where are you at with Bitcoin? Is this a real thing? Is it going to last? Is it going to stay? Is it dangerous? What should, you know, what is your perspective on that? Cryptocurrencies. Crypto is now an aspect of It's here to stay, but like anything, you shouldn't have all your eggs in one basket. You should never own just gold, just Bitcoin, just stocks, just bonds. You want to have a wide variety of assets.

It's here to stay, but I will also caution people. People think that in a recession or economic turmoil, Bitcoin will go up. Bitcoin is a very volatile instrument. It's still new, and it's also a function of liquidity. And Bitcoin will go down in a financial panic. But long term, you're fine. But if you're buying it hoping to avoid near-term depreciation, that's not the instrument. The safest instrument in the world is a three-month T-bill because you get your money back in three months with five and a half percent interest currently.

So that do what Warren Buffett's doing if you're worried about the future. But own some Bitcoin long-term, other cryptos if you've done the work on them. So it should be part of everyone's portfolio. They're going to be part of the financial world for years to come. Well, look, I really appreciate all that information. Any last words to people, you know, that are maybe struggling to pay for groceries and having a difficult time? Is there a way that they should focus their resources to sort of ease the pain? What can your average American do inside of this economy to make life easier for themselves and maybe protect themselves for the future?

Well, first of all, you know, one of the biggest things everybody has to do is not getting. in fear and not worry about the future. Try to live in the present moment, try to create personal human relationships and rely on one another. During the Great Depression, as bad as it was, people started to help other people. And there's nothing more gratifying than giving something to your neighbor. So, you know, we need a sense of community. We need people to rely on each other and get through this. If you're sitting alone worrying about where the next paycheck's coming, you'll end up in a state of anxiety, fear, and depression, and you won't be able to function. So try to reach out to people, try to help other people. When you help other people, it comes back

your way. So I would tell people that are struggling to form groups and networks to help each other out. All right. Thank you so much for all that great information. I appreciate you taking the time today to enlighten us on all this going on. I look forward to speaking with you again soon. Take care. Tell. Great seeing you. Thanks for having me on today. Absolutely. For those of you that maybe you're watching for the first time, you should check out his book, Cause Unknown. You can find it anywhere you find a book. Obviously, it's a discussion on, you know, this rise in sudden deaths amongst athletes and students around the world. Is it being caused by vaccines or something else? We should certainly be asking the question, what is causing it? Great book to take a look at. You know,

when we do all of this reporting, obviously we are a news show. We're bringing you everything that we're learning from our legal team when they're winning lawsuits or bringing FOIA requests. But so many of you wanted an online magazine that spoke the truth the same way that the high wire does. That's why we created the informant. The informant has arrived, our online monthly magazine. The informant curates the best from I can and the Highwire, keeping you up to date and informed on our biggest news, science, legal actions, and more. We're doing that for you with really great writers we're bringing in. This is really a gift to all of you that support our work.

It doesn't matter how much you donate, if you are a recurring donor, then you get this online news magazine. We want you to feel what it feels like to be a part of the change, and the informant is going to be our gift to all of you that are doing that. doing that, just go to Ican decide.org slash the informant. Get caught up, stay informed with the informant, exclusive to monthly donors. Go to I can decide.org slash the informant. I don't know if you recognize a theme in many of our guests, but, you know, what we're looking at is it's a lot of positive things happening in the world. There's a lot of growth. There's people waking up.

And those crisis, you know, drivers, the media, though they want to make us feel like the end of the world is coming. If you just stay in your ground, if you just, you know, keep working, keep dodging and weaving, taking care of your family, remembering to sort of stay in a place of joy, definitely reach out to your neighbors. Such great advice by Ed Dow there, you know, build a community. That's what we, so many of us did during COVID. It doesn't matter whether you live in the middle of Los Angeles, San Francisco, or maybe you're out in Texas where it's, you know, not quite as oppressive. We love it here. But community is what it's all about. It really doesn't matter what's going around you if the people nearest to you that you socialize with every day

agree with you and you can share information. So it's so important to recognize all of the victories that we've had. These are very intense times. And in many ways, because it's so volatile, we can actually win even faster. We can use that to our advantage. So as we're being hopeful, Of course, I started out the show with one of the biggest shills we know, John Oliver, comedian. But don't worry, there's comedians that have been waking up all the way through COVID. Probably the most watched with a much, much bigger audience than John Oliver would be Joe Rogan. And this is some stand-up he did recently just to show how this journey. This is a what special?

Netflix. Netflix, again. So let's go ahead and give a shout out to Netflix for allowing Joe to say this. You know, it's just good to see everybody having a good time. The country's almost back to normal before World War III. COVID was just so strange. We lost a lot of people during COVID, and most of them are still alive.

Yeah, there's a lot of people that I don't f***ing with anymore. Before COVID, I would have told you that vaccines are the most important invention in human history. After COVID, I'm like, I don't think we went to the moon. You got to believe this I am. And trust us. I heard that so often during the fucking pandemic. Why don't you trust the science?

I got canceled so often during COVID that sometimes I would find out by accident. This is a true story. One time, I just woke up. I'm in my underwear. I plopped down in front of the TV. I turn it on. The moment I turn it on, Prince Harry's talking about me.

I'm like, I just woke up. Purple. I'm in my underwear, and there's a prince on TV. Do you know how fucking weird it is and a prince knows your name. He's like, Joe Rogan's giving out dangerous vaccine misinformation. Could you imagine doing mushrooms of Prince Harry?

You imagine if you could trick that guy into doing mushrooms with you? If you see him chew it and swallow it, and you're like, oh, that's gonna happen? While Prince Harry's tripping b-b-h-ha-t. I'm gonna hover over and go, are you sure vaccines are safe? You're not a scientist.

Well, the world is changing. If Joe Rogan can change, we can all change. Joe, look, I can go even deeper with you. If you ever really want the evidence, let me bring you our vaccines on trial and bring all the evidence of what they're saying with their own voices. But we're winning. We've just gained 10 percentage points in people that are waking up and recognizing, I should have a choice. Imagine, right? We're at 50, you know, 49% now say, I should have a choice over what's injected into my own body. Amazing. I don't think we're that far from it being 90% as I said.

I just think you need to ask the question the right way. So use questions. Use, you know, the science. And by the way, for those of you that want any of the evidence that we provided in our show today, all the studies, all the articles, not just the excerpts, but the whole thing, all you have to do is be a member of our newsletter. And that doesn't cost you anything. Go to the highwire.com.

Just scroll down the page. type in your email right there where you find it under Brave Bold News. There is fire your email in there. And every week right after the show, usually on Monday, we'll collect it, and all the videos, all the evidence, all the science, all the studies that we talked about so that you have all of that information in your hands so that it's a great party trick, by the way. Just show up with that sometime in the middle of a conversation. Say, hey, it's not my opinion.

This is what the CDC just said. This is what Stanley Plotkin just said. Anyway, I want to thank all of you for taking the time. I want to thank you for being on this incredible ride. We are all on together. Not just in America, as I said, good morning, good afternoon, good evening. Everywhere in the world, we are sharing this together. Go out and tell everyone you know about this show, build this community so more and more of us are in the nose.

We don't have to wait so long for the next 10 percentage points of mind-opening awareness. We're going to keep cracking up in the minds of the world. as we do every single week. Be a part of that. Cracks some minds open this week and I'll see you next week on the high wire.