The Highwire with Del Bigtree - EPISODE 390: HOT OFF THE PRESS

Episode Date: September 20, 2024

ICAN-backed lawsuits secure vaccine exemptions for 300k students in California; Jefferey Jaxen Reports on the UN’s ‘power grab’ conference, and the details of immune dysfunction brought on by the COVID shot; Then, Award-winning Journalist, Sharyl Attkisson, discusses her journey of discovery uncovering the dark underbelly of the pharmaceutical industry, detailed in her new book, ‘Follow the Science’Guests, Aaron Siri, Esq., Sharyl AttkissonBecome 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?

Yes. Action. Good morning, good afternoon, good evening, wherever you are out there in the world. It's time for us all to step out into the high wire. So many of you are watching from all around the world. Many of you are new. Some just joined us during COVID, and some of you just joined us this week. So welcome to everybody.

For those of you that may be new to this show, I just want to give you a little bit of a background. We really launched this show in 2017, very beginning of 2017, after I had spent a year touring with a documentary I made called Vaxed. I made that. Really, I had been working at CBS on the daytime talks for the doctors all the way up in about 2015 when I stumbled on the story of a whistleblower inside of the CDC named Dr. William Thompson. That is the heart of the story around Vaxed. That film released about a year later in 2016. But right at the same time that I stumbled on that story at the CDC, the same exact moment, suddenly on my show The Doctors,

a senator, Senator Richard Pan, came onto the show and promoted a brand new bill he had SB 277 in California that was going to take away any exemption, any ability to opt out of the vaccine program for kids going to school from K-1. through 12th grade. Now, at that moment, my child wasn't vaccinated. I didn't really make a big deal about it. It was just sort of how I was raised. I wasn't vaccinated as a kid. And I remember sitting backstage watching him on, you know, talk about this bill and thinking, oh my God, that's like the

end of the world that I know, that how I was raised. And ultimately, there were protests trying to stop it that we should have a right to decide what's injected into our children, when it's injected to our children. Really, there was always, you know, an anti-vaccine movement, if you want to call it that, certainly vaccine hesitancy, but really medical freedom movement. But Senator Richard Pan, I would say really is the godfather of the modern movement because it exploded and there were rallies all over California. It looked a little bit like this. A rally at the Capitol today brought in hundreds of parents, children and activists, all because vaccine exemptions could change in California.

A crowd of parents and children took to the steps of the Capitol speaking out against a bill requiring California school children to get vaccinated. Parents call the shots. Parents call the shots. Parents call the shots. Parents call the shots. Senate Bill 277 abolishes the personal belief exemption, allowing children to enroll in school without the legally mandated vaccinations. The only kids that would be exempt from the vaccines are ones with physical and medical conditions. If there is a valid medical exemption the child would not have to get vaccinated and still be able to attend school. Senator Richard Pan, a pediatrician, proposed the bill. We are seeing ever larger outbreaks of diseases like pertussis or whooping cough, measles, and we certainly don't want to see those diseases or others that are prevented by vaccines to be spread into our community. We believe that

God gave us the ability to heal from within. He gave us all the tools to heal naturally. So we're willing to risk a childhood illness over risking something more serious like autism. But opponents are hoping the law never gets that far. They are already mobilizing to gather signatures for a ballot initiative and are holding rallies hoping to change minds before it takes effect in 2016. We will be out protesting every chance we get to just say we don't we think it's an impingement on our freedoms and our rights and their education. I want my kid to get an education. I was in California at that time. That was one I was just getting involved in the documentary vaxed, as I said, and I was protested with my wife also, that I believe that we had

a right to body autonomy. That really started a push as they tried to pass these laws all across the country, taking away the religious exemption. Well, that's been one of the number one battles that we've been involved with with our nonprofit. We brought in an attorney, Aaron Siri, to represent our cases and start trying to push back and put up because SB 277 was passed. And they said, well, there will still be medical exemptions and doctors will be free to do those. And then SB 276 came along and it basically said if you're even giving medical exemptions as a doctor in California, we're coming after you. It started feeling for those of us that believed in body autonomy like we were living in Nazi Germany. Of course, there were other states that had already lost their religious exemptions years earlier, Mississippi, West Virginia.

But we made it a mission. And I would say, you know, ending chronic illness and stopping man-made disease has been the primary goal of our nonprofit, informed consent action network. But at the heart of that, when we, you know, with all the science and research that we've done, vaccines are contributing to this massive rise in autoimmune and neurological disorders all over this country. We have the sickest nation of children in the industrialized world, really in the entire world. I don't think there's anyone with higher chronic illness now than the United States of America. And we have the sickest generation of children we've ever seen. and we've made it a personal goal to bring back the religious exemption ultimately. I've been to many think tanks with all sorts of nonprofits around this issue.

And when we all come together, we want different things. But every time we come down to one sort of consolidated thought, which is end all vaccine mandates. This should always be a choice. Well, we won back the religious exemption in Mississippi. It's the first time it's ever been achieved by any nonprofit. They, since 1970s, hadn't had a religious exemption to opt out of the vaccine program. We won that back in April 17, 2020, and since that moment, the way we, you know, the sort of legal argument that we found at work there, we've been using it in the other states.

We're calling it free the five. Well, of course, at the heart of this is this question, are you ever going to be able to get to California? I mean, that place has gone so far, so many people, so much of our support is coming out of California, and I've been saying all along, we are fighting in every one of these states for you. But I want to be clear that, you know, what I think makes us a little bit different than some of the other nonprofits that have legal arms to them is a lot of times they'll just tell you, we're bringing this case, and they'll raise funds off of that, and then they bring a lot of

attention to it, and the press comes out, and the judges get agitated, and you end up losing a lot of those cases. So we've had a different approach. We really go out, and we win a lot of different cases that we don't talk about. We run our cases until we win. And the way we work is we don't just try to come through the front door, throw them open and say, give us back our exemption. We have a religious right, which is how the approach had been for decades before we got here.

Instead, with Aaron Siri, it's like using a scalpel and slowly winning one little case at a time, choosing just the right cases that you build a bigger and bigger precedent to try and create a wave that can then maybe move the needle in somewhere like California, probably the hardest state now in the country. Well, that has been going on. We haven't been talking about it. We've had little victories all along the way, but we don't want the state of California to know what we're up to or what we're trying to achieve here. Let's just let these cases go along. But just this week, we have had what we think is a milestone victory, if you will. It's not the whole thing. We're not going to be able to get back the, Exemption for every kid in California, but it's pretty huge.

And this is the breaking news right here. Breaking News, University of California allows religious exemptions on the heels of two successful I-K and back lawsuits. That means every UC school in all of California will now be bringing back the religious exemption to talk about what that means and how that was achieved. I'm joined now by our legal representation. one of the great constitutional lawyers of all times, Aaron Siri. Aaron, first of all, congratulations. This is huge. It's really, really big.

And so just some thoughts on, did you see this coming? Was it a surprise? It's great news for the over 295,000 University of California students that now have the option for a religious exemption to attend school without one. or more vaccines if it violates their convictions to not receive those products. And did we see it coming? Well, we've been suing the University of California for quite some time repeatedly and winning.

And there was more coming down the pipeline, as I'm sure they knew. So, yeah, I was not surprised at the end of the day. Question was just when. It's hard to know. but it was the expected end result of the onslaught, so to speak. Now, you know, obviously there's still people with their, you know, children in K through 12, but a victory like this, to see all of the university system in California, the UC system, to make this decision, does that put pressure now on the state of California and, you know,

the lower grades K through 12. Does this help you in that fight in those cases that we have ongoing right now? Yeah. I mean, here's the way I look at it. You're either, the pendulum is either swinging towards restoring rights, protecting rights, or it's moving in the other direction. Right now, the pendulum is moving in our direction. Yeah. I mean, outside the school arena, we fought back most mandates, certainly with regards to COVID vaccines and in many other arenas. And now with regards or child the vaccines, the pendulum is moving in our direction. You know, Mississippi, as you mentioned, and now with the UC system as well. And as well in a number of other contexts that I don't, you know, we can get into in future

shows after we've fully completed those legal maneuverings. With that said, they all are focused on one central principle. And that central principle is, look, if you can accommodate a secular reason to not vaccinate, whether it's a medical reason, whether it's for a host of other reasons, because you want to make a lot of money in a sports game. So you're going to let 10,000 people into an arena. You don't care about the vaccination status. And the point is that if you can accommodate for non-religious regions, you got to accommodate for religious reasons. And that's the argument we made in our Air Force case. That's the argument we made in our Army case. That's the argument made in Mississippi.

That's the argument we've been making in numerous cases around the country, and we've been prevailing and most of them. And every single time we prevail, what we've done is we've created a little bridgehead in the legal precedent. The legal precedent gives us another case to cite. So, for example, when we filed the case in the University of California, the first one, we cited to our case in Mississippi. We cited to our Air Force case. We cited some of our other cases. And then we won the first one. We then cited in the next UC case to all of that precedent plus the first UC victory. And so, you know, that creates an ever-expanding body of precedent that supports the proposition under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution that if you can accommodate somebody

to give them an exemption for a non-religious reason, for a non-reason that's not based on their convictions, you need to do one based on their convictions as well, their religious beliefs, so to speak. So yes, I think it has a massive impact in that regard. and saying that that's bringing action that results in that happening for 295,000 plus students, certainly will have an impact. And now is this something that you'll find in their manual? Does it change the language? Like, what does this do?

Do we have to now tell everyone we know that have kids in the university system, or are they just going to see it? It's going to be broadcast on a website? Like, what is the actual change that now happens? So the official manual for the University of California for regards to this vaccination policy now has, for the first time since eight years ago. So there used to be one in the University of California system

or religious exemption. They got rid of it on the heels of SB 277, which you mentioned earlier. Right, because remember, that law, just so everyone knows, SB 277 didn't actually go after the university system, but it just followed suit. Once they removed the religious exemption from K through 12, the universe is, hey, let's do that too.

We'll do that too. Right. And so right. And so these people, California chose to do it separately because they're governed by a board of regents. They're kind of their own little power structure in California, massive power structure. They chose to do it. And so what this does is it now restores the religious exemption for every vaccine. It kicks in starting next semester.

It is now officially part of the policy manual. the degree to which that they will promote it and so forth, that remains to be seen. Because I will tell you that here. Here's what it now says if you're looking at it. If you're going into school next semester, students may request exceptions to any of these vaccination requirements premised on medical contraindications, religious objections, objections or disabilities. So that has been added back now officially.

Again, that's huge. You know, one of the things, how important. Now, I always get asked this, are these class action lawsuits? Was it 100 students who are bringing the case? Or how do you select the case? Because I think that's a huge part of this. A lot of, and we're always worried. One of the things I'm always saying is, is dangerous when you have a well-intentioned lawyer

with a bad case, or maybe they just don't fully have the right argument like you're making. That can set precedent against us. If they go into California and they lose, then that gets used against us in court because the judge will say, well, this other case are all right. already said that you don't have that right. So how important were the cases, how many were there to achieve this? So when we bring these cases, we typically only bring them on behalf of one or two or a few individuals. Because winning for them sets the precedent that everybody should be entitled

to it. You know, the cases are, should be able to be, the result should be applied broadly. It's a different strategy in each situation. But in this instance, we brought the cases, on behalf of individuals. So we had the first case we brought was behalf of an individual who was in an online program at the University of California. There were four in-person days as part of this online program. This individual had already done two of them. So they had already been to school. They're an online student. They only have to come to the school four times. They'd already done two of them and now the school's saying we're kicking you out because you're not vaccinated. Okay.

Now, not only does that sound illogical, but that fact pattern actually fits really well into the way the legal analysis works, okay, with regards to under and over-inclusivity and so forth. And so that factual posture, obviously, also pointed out like the absurdity of excluding this student. And so we were able to prevail, and the judge granted a temporary restraining order, and that converted into a preliminary injunction, saying, no, no, no, no, you must register this student. And that student, in fact, was allowed to continue to attend without vaccination. We then brought another suit. And in that's the second suit, there was a student who was in a graduates program, but also was an employee of the university. So the student was already going on campus every day anyway,

interacting with students as part of her job, but yet was not going to be allowed to continue her undergrad, excuse me, her graduate program. It was an old saying. And it is good facts make good law, bad facts, make bad law. Why? Because the factual posture of a specific case might determine its outcome, but then the principle that it results from that will be applied far more broadly than that one case.

So if you have a good set of facts that fit more neatly into the existing precedent and so forth, those are the ones that maybe make more sense. I'll give you a classic example. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was, you know, a pioneer of women's rights. And she did it through court cases in the court system. Her first major case for the Supreme Court was on behalf of a man, not a woman, a man. To establish you need to protect based on gender. I'm not saying, so, you know, the point is, is that, yes, the factual posture matters,

how neatly it fits matters. And so in that case, they were basically saying it's not, you didn't need a vaccine requirement in order to be an employee. So all the employees can walk across the university all day, but it's dangerous the second you walk into a classroom as a student. It's almost like the standing is dangerous, wear a mask during COVID, sitting down okay. At some point, some judge goes, this is ridiculous.

And so by that, at what point, I mean, how many cases does it take? Did you have, you know, more cases lined up? Did you know it was only going to be two? The attorneys for the university actually directly asked. So we're bringing more of these? And we're like, of course. And so, you know, and they could see that we were going to, no doubt.

And why wouldn't we? I mean, did you end up having, like, like a website, like if you feel like you've been wrong, like one of those, like come on and call us. I mean, that must be pretty intimidated when you're just like, are we going to get like a line of these things coming? Now, one of the things that you've been so great at is these depositions. We've got the deposition of Dr. Stanley Plotkin that I think has resulted, you know, the godfather of the vaccine program. You had him under oath for nine hours. Eventually, he just wrote an article stating that we've been right. There have been no proper safety trials prior to

Leisinger. Hopefully, if you've all been watching the show, you saw that happen. You've deposed Catherine Edwards, one of the other authors on Plotkin on vaccines. The Bible literally is what they call it on vaccines. In a case like this, were there depositions to be had? I mean, were there people, like big people that maybe we could have deposed? Yes. So there is a board essentially that decides on these policies. And you can imagine the board that decides on these policies with regards of vaccination, the University of California system, is comprised with many folks who are viewed or considered leaders in this area of infectious disease and immunology and vaccinology, not only on the medical side, but on the legal side. And the next step in this

lawsuit, the lawsuits that were pending because we got the preliminary injunctions, would have been for depositions. And those folks would have likely been compelled to sit in. a room and I would have deposed each of them for eight hours and gladly. I wonder how many sat there just like watching the plot in deposition that Catherine said, I don't know, I don't know. I don't know. So I mean, so they bailed out. Essentially, they just basically conceded this case and we're just going to go ahead and put

back to the list exemption. Do you think that any of that could be that some of those, you know, we're not going to mention names, but very luminaries of a pro-vaccine position on. education, let's put it that way, that they just didn't want a public deposition. Would they've been able to back out of it in any way? I mean, could they just say, no, I'm not showing up for the deposition? Because we see that with the Congress and things, where people just seem to get away with just saying, I'm not showing up. You know, can they do that in a case like this? No. If they were subpoenaed and they have essential facts, which I would argue they all do,

every one of them, then no, they would not and should not have been able to actually skirt out of it. They would have, what they should have faced is the choice of sit for the deposition or face the sanctions of the court, which could include up to jail time potentially. And so, no, they would have. And since it's a public institution, those depositions should not have been able to have been sealed either. So not only would they have to have sat for that deposition, whether they liked it or not, it would have been on video and they wouldn't have been able to see it. it up presumably I'm assuming they didn't want to do that I'm going to take I'm going to speculate

okay I'll allow you to have that speculation so now then as you said this is you know one of those bridge heads that we've achieved once again through our work with I can the sponsors out there right now have funded this have funded our ability to to have your team work on this for you know years really and that's just California does this now is this the type of precedence that you will then walk into West Virginia, I don't Connecticut, these other states and say, look, we now have Mississippi, we see the UC schools. So this precedent is going to have power not just in California, but across the country in other cases. Is it not? It would absolutely help. Exactly. It pushes the ball forward tremendously. The ball is rolling in our direction. And I should say, we already have

lawsuits pending in West Virginia, New York, and we are involved with one to some degree. and other. So we have got lawsuits already going in lots of places, as you pointed out. And I love, I love that about I can. And I love that about the way I can does things. It doesn't announce typically a lawsuits when they're filed to fundraise off them. It waits until you win until there is a win to then announce it. And that has a number of benefits. And so that's, you know, one of the great things about the way ICANN does, the legal work, the supports legal work that it supports. I should also maybe just say more broadly in terms of the university systems around the country, I'm not aware of another major university system that didn't have a religious exemption. Oh, wow. So even within California,

there's another California system of universities. They had a religious exemption. And so, you know, the old saying, as California goes, so does the rest of the country. And so, you know, one of the goals here was also to beat back University of California so that they would not become a contagion for the rest of the country and all the major systems around America who start following in their lead. So this is not only a win for the, you know, the 295,000 plus students in University of California. I think it's also a win for the university students around this country where there may have been consideration of rolling it back, watching what happened here. I can't imagine any other university system, major system would consider doing that. And of course, as we just talked about, it will help

more broadly because now is something else we can cite, not just Mississippi, not just the military cases, not just a few others. Now also these UC cases, TRO decision as well, we can cite, and there's more coming down the pipeline. This bridgehead is building to where the goal here is to set that precedent firmly in place that if you have a secular exemption, you must provide an exemption based on your sincerely held convictions. Well, Aaron, I want to thank you for the incredible work that you've been doing this really is a giant victory in one of the strongholds of vaccine ignorance in California. And so we're going to keep funding that work. We're going to keep funding. I know you work tirelessly. Please give our thanks to your incredible team and all the work. I know this is

just a multi-pronged effort by a lot of very talented individuals. And we're very grateful, I speak, for everybody that's, you know, got people going to college. I mean, this is a lot of very talented individuals. This is a university system now that you know that your child can go to, and it's a big one. A lot of great schools there. So I think that's just a really huge victory. I want to thank you for all of your work on that. Thank you. And I would love to put the pictures and names of the members of my team involved with this because they deserve a lot of praise and credit for it.

They just often like to work behind the scenes. They just want to grind and put their heads down. But it's our honor to do this work. Thank you. All right. Take care. I look forward to our next announcement. Have a good week.

Well, you know, I just want to just point out there's several factors there that I hope that those of you that are sponsoring ICANN and the work that we do, that you see that there is a reason why we're as successful as we are. It's not just because we're funded. There's other groups you could fund, but we have many things we do differently. We're one of the only nonprofits they know of that uses the same team all the time. A lot of nonprofits will just get involved with a pick a case that's already going and say, we'll use that lawyer. That lawyer is bringing that case for the first time in their lives. They don't really fully understand it.

They mean well, but they haven't spent seven years with ICANN, winning against the CDC, winning against health and human services, winning against the NIH and the FDA, winning against the Department of Justice, winning against the United States of America, winning in Mississippi, winning, winning, winning, winning, that's who you want. You want to win a Super Bowl? Put in a Super Bowl quarterback. I mean, that's how this works. And then also look at the precedence that he's talking about.

Not only is he saying, look at the case of Mississippi. Guess who brought that case? The guy's standing right before you right now. Think about all those people that know, oh, my God, we're going to be deposed. Do you think they're worried about being deposed by someone that doesn't really know what they're doing, some divorce attorney or something that God involved is trying to fight for their child or whatever it is and just thought, well, I'll try this. Probably not.

But in this case, when you find out I'm going to be deposed by Aaron Siri, the guy that took down the godfather of the vaccine program. So this is what is happening here. We have now set a presence. We have a tidal wave coming. And frankly, we reach out to other lawyers and say, look, if you're thinking about a case, this is one thing we do too. If you're thinking about a case, we'd rather get involved with you, look at it, see if it's got that right, you know, the right thing that will make it just look so ridiculous. There's some cases that don't come across as ridiculous as, wait a minute. She's working as an employee at the university walks up and down the same sidewalks, every single.

single day, but you're not going to let her be a student and do the same thing. It's that type of story that you want in the court. That is what makes this team so brilliant that we brought in. It's why we are the most successful nonprofit there is. And when you think of the future, if you think there's another pandemic coming, guess who won for the military? We did. All of this is being done. All of it's only possible because of the sponsorship that you bring. Trust me, no, we're not funded by Pfizer to stop a Pfizer vaccine. We're not going to be funded by pamphers or, you know, even vitamin companies. We are not letting anyone get involved here except you.

And so I want to, you know, really say at this moment, we're going to critical times, there's critical decisions being made. These precedences are going to also be involved in political decisions by political leaders as they try to go in for votes in November. We are having a massive effect, but we don't want to let off the gas. for so many cases that are sitting there right now that we're like, you know, we're strapped a little thin, we've been really pushing hard, maybe we need to back off a little bit, just accept the successes that we've had, or do we give it a full court press?

Do you want to just see this wall come crashing down and see truly an end of mandates altogether, then become a recurring donor? Just go to the top of the screen, the highwire.com, hit the donate to I can button right there. You will get a screen. You can decide how much you want to donate. We would love it if you become a recurring donor because these are long cases. We have to project, can we afford to do this for the next three to five years? $24 for $24 for $24 a couple months left to grab that deal.

I hope you'll take us up on it. It's really making a difference. There's now nearly 300,000 students in California that are going to have the option to opt out of the vaccine program for the university system. There is one more time. Breaking News, Celebrating University of California. allows religious exemption on the heels of too successful. I can back lawsuits. It's hard for me to even take credit.

We can't do that without you. You should be patting yourself on the back if you even give us a dollar a day. It actually, I mean, a dollar a month even, it really makes a difference. Dollar a day would be great. But there it is. Please donate if you can so that you can say, I actually made a difference in the world. You know how rare that is? I mean, we all know it.

I mean, I ran to so many people who have been traveling, So much I just spoke at a convention yesterday in Denver. And, you know, people are coming up and just saying, boy, just, you know, you're so bold, but just feels like where are the victories? They're right here. If you're watching the highway, you're donating, you're a part of those victories. I feel, I feel great. I feel like, you know, as Aaron said, the ball is moving forward.

We are moving in the right direction. We are, you know, we're putting numbers on the board. All right. I have a huge show coming up. I've got a really a bucket list interview that I just. just did the other day with one of my heroes, Cheryl Atkinson. Brilliant CBS reporter was one of the ones that really pushed into the vaccine conversation before anyone else did. She's got the show full measure.

Still a dynamic reporter. And she has an incredible new book, Follow the Science. We're going to talk all about that. But first, it's time for the Jackson Report. Ah, it's a good day. I love the smell of a lawsuit wind in the morning. morning. I remember the first time we talked, or one of the first times we talked to, you said, there's this deposition of Stanley Plotkin. I need you to watch the whole thing. I'm going to send

you the transcript of it. It was like 400 pages. I looked through this thing. I said, this thing is going to make history because if anybody hasn't watched this, you need to go back and do it right now, because the bombshells that happen there, again, there's vaccine science under oath, and then there's vaccine science as communicated to the public, and there are two different things. Well, I want to bring your attention to something happening in New York City, starting tomorrow. And this is from the United Nations. They're bringing us something called the Summit of the Future. And this has been enough to raise some alarm on Capitol Hill with representatives.

And it looks something like this. Okay. Later this week, the UN is going to hold a, quote, summit for the future. And they're going to produce, this is right from their website, an inner government. negotiated, action-oriented, packed for the future with a chapter on transforming global governance. Ascending beyond the powers being sought by its subordinate agency, the WHO, the UN is seeking even broader and more powerful authority, as you will hear a lot about today. They don't want us to be subordinate to or governed by our Constitution. No, they want America to be

subordinate to and governed by the UN, the World Health Assembly and the WHO. And in fact, they intend to join with others at the UN summit this week to vote to award additional powers to the UN Secretary General. They seek to facilitate the evolution of the UN from an international cooperative body to an international governing body. These powers would be triggered by any one of a number of so-called global emergencies, whether it was a so-called climate emergency, a health emergency, a cyber emergency, or a gun violence emergency, whatever that's supposed to be, a financial emergency or whatever they deem appropriate.

I mean, when people try to ask, what do you do or what is your focus on? Is it political? This is it. I mean, put all the parties aside, this is our fight right now that we are bringing here on the high wire, which is this globalism, this global takeover that does not care about our Constitution, does not care about. I think they find America a pain in the butt right now. This Constitution is getting the way of a global governance, a new world order. This is a very scary development that this is even happening on our shores. Right.

And you hit it right in the head there. They use kind of ambiguous language, flower language, you know, global governance. That's a one-world government. That's a new world order. That's all these conspiracies that have been talked about for all these years. And the politicians have been talking about this. You hear them kind of slip up and say, a new world order. But this is it.

what they're talking about and what does it look like? Well, the World Economic Forum, the WF and their own website was hyping this. They wrote an article about it saying, what is this UN summit of the future? And in it, it said that it's basically pushing the sustainable development goals. This is agenda 2030. And it says in this article, in footballing terms, the United Nations UN SDG summit in September 2023 was a moment to go back to the locker room and re-strategize because games are won or lost in the second half. So what are they talking about there? Well, they have these goals, these sustainable development goals for 2030.

And what are those? Well, we've covered those before, but basically, you know, again, when you get past the ambiguous language, when you look at these documents, they're talking about rationing food, rationing energy, talking about ending private property, the global war on farmers. This is part of agenda 2030. You're seeing like the cutting off of the fertilizer, this rapid shift to society to net zero, everything, and it goes on and on. And so they say, we need to go back to the locker room here and re-stratage.

Why are they saying that? Well, they put out, the United Nations put out a report, a progress report, if you will, in 2024. And it was called the Sustainable Development Goals report. And what is it saying there? Well, it says the progress assessment carried out in 2024 reveals that the world is severely off track to realize the 2030 agenda. Wait, I want to have like, I want to have balloons and explosions right now. Well done everybody. All right. I love hearing that. It's a great sentence. Good. Now, let's find your point on this. You're going to love this part. Among the accessible targets only, ready for this, 17, 17% display progress efficient for achievement by 2030. So if you're going to school and you get a 17% on your exam, you're not doing very well. So they're really, really behind track. And so this brings us to the summit of the future.

What is it? Well, as those reps were talking about there, they're not, it's not just, it's not just, it's not just a conference where everyone can go and shake hands and smile and have some drinks. What they're talking about there is they're going to make policy there. And two of the policies that they're talking about, one is a declaration of future generations and one's a global digital compact. And both of these have, you know, some teeth to them. The digital compact has this whole section on information and integrity, you know,

talking about misinformation, disinformation, the normal words we see to censor people. And then they're talking about a whole society approach in the other one, whole society approach to climate justice, this turbocharging trying to, get to this end result of this net zero economy. And so when you look at their actual website, this UN website of the summit of the future, you can see in there that they wanna focus on some key messages. So not only are they making this policy there

they're gonna vote on, but you see this page here, that is the cover page, but then you flip to the next page, and you have five key messages, and it says the messages urge us to prioritize young people. So you look at each one of these numbers, Number one, let young people lead the way. Number two, political leaders must fight for every generation. So you go through there and you can see this undertone, you know, it's not really that hidden, is we're going to really target and focus on kids.

We want kids to bring. We don't care about politicians anymore. Doctors, researchers, scientists. No, no, because they only got a 17% of the way. We're failing. So now we want kids. And so you go into this. We want the captured audience that when you're not around, they've got them in school.

for eight hours a day. We can push a social agenda. We can get, we can really get them, turn them on their parents if you will have been watching the separation of the family. And that's really gross. I mean, to just see, we're only at 17%. It's because we're talking to the adults. They're two, you know, their minds are made up. They believe in freedom still. Let's get them when they're young. Right, right. And to your point, we are saying about the global government, you look in this document here. This is the case and point of the language they use. It says, about making global governance more flexible, participatory, and in tune with the aspirations and needs of the world's young people and future generations. So we want the young people

to lead this one world government, not the older people. And then you go look throughout the media as well, like the rest of the media, they're still banging the same drums. So you go to LA Times and they have this headline to fix climate anxiety and also climate change. We first have to fix individualism. So you go into the article and talks about how bad it is to be an individual. Well, you need to be part of the collective. That's where this is going to get done. And then LA Times, again, they have this opinion piece. It's almost shameful to want to have children.

Well, that's the part of the, you know, it's just, I can't believe they're actually putting these things out. But, you know, to talk about this, where are the older people? Well, the older people are right here. This is the headline from the BBC. Retiring in your 60s is becoming an impossible goal is 75, the new 65. So that's where the older people are. They're going to be working until they drop dead and not get their retirements.

use that money to shift society over to the net zero. But when we're talking about, like you said, indoctrinating the youth with bias science, cultural programming on a global scale, we have to look at history as a guidepost. And I want to point people to the year 1966 in China. We have the cultural revolution by communist leader Mao Zetong. And what they did there was they took children and they made them into what are called the Red Guards. And there's pictures of this here. And you have these kids, groups, large groups, stadiums of kids. And they have all of these, you know, the fist in the air, revolutionaries. You can see they're trained with weapons to bring in this cultural revolution

because the kids were malleable. They were socially malleable. You can see here they all have their red communist book with their grand leader there. And we go to Stanford, the historical account of this, talking about the introduction of this cultural revolution and targeting the kids. And it says the chaos and violence increased in the Ottoman winter of 1966. as schools and universities closed so that students could dedicate themselves to, quote, the revolutionary struggle. They were encouraged to destroy the four olds, old customs, old habits, old culture, and old

thinking, and in the process damaged many of China's temples, valuable works of art and buildings. They also began to verbally and physically attack authority figures in society, including their teachers, school administrators, communist party members, neighbors, and even their friends, relatives, and parents. At the same time, purges were carried out in the high ranks of the Communist Party. This was highly coordinated. And again, this was done also in the, there was flavors of this in the Soviet Union under Stalin and Lenin. And so when you see global government bodies, this isn't just one, you know, offshoot of a nonprofit saying this. This is the UN, the WHO, the WEF.

They're all on the same kick saying, let's go ahead and target children now. We have to look at historically, this is extremely dangerous. And this shows like the last ditch effort. They're going full steam for the kids. and they're going to start to really indoctrinate them hard because they're at halftime and they're losing bad 17% to the attainable goals. They're nowhere close. So this is where they're going. All right.

Well, look, we've got to stay on top of it. But there's like a cornered shrew, if you will. They'll do anything now. I mean, they're losing the battle. But we can't forget they do have all the money. I mean, they've been cashing in on this takeover for decades. we are finally waking up in the final hours, thank God, but boy, we have work to do. Absolutely.

I want to bring people to last week we had a podcaster, Dark Horse co-host, Brett Weinstein, Professor Brett Weinstein on the show. Extremely informative interview with both you and him. And during the interview, he said something that had a lot of our viewers pause right in and say, wait a minute, I can't believe what he just said. And so we want to play this here because that's going to bring us into the next section. Take a listen. All right.

this IGG4, if there's a weakness, as you're saying that an enemy could utilize it, but they all, they all took the vaccine too. So clearly, if that's a vulnerability, any enemy is going to say they can't, like, create a weapon to attack the vulnerability because they're vulnerable too. I don't think so. In fact, I believe it is correct to say the Chinese did not inoculate their population with anything MRNA based or spike-based. So this would be the separation between populations that weapons makers are seeking just in a direction that is extremely unfortunate for the West. So what are we talking about?

We're talking about the MRNA vaccine, the COVID vaccine, and we want to go a little bit deeper into this because we're talking about the after effects of this, something, obviously we're reporting on it for years, but these layers, upon layers that keep coming out of the possibility of something, a detriment this vaccine has had on people. And so when Professor Weinstein was in our studio, he walked down the road just a little bit and he sat down with Joe Rogan and spoke about the immune effects of the COVID vaccine, specifically the MRI vaccine to an audience of millions of people. And it's interesting now because the idea that the COVID vaccine may actually harm the immune systems of certain people

is now becoming mainstreamed, and it sounds like this. Take a look. Why is it we are dealing with a simultaneous panic over Eastern equine encephalitis and West Nile virus? Well, that is a very odd coincidence. One thing that's true is the last panic was, over COVID. And the response to COVID was massive vaccination with the MRNA shots, as you know. The MRI shots, for anybody who got two or more, triggered the production of something called

IGG4, which I don't know if we've talked about it before, but IGG4 is the immune system's own message to itself to turn itself down. Okay. Why two or more? That's just empirical. I don't know whether anybody expected this result, but when it was pursued, that was just the number at which we could detect the presence of ITG4. So not with one? Not with one. I'm not saying there wasn't any with one, but we don't detect it with one shot. And then two produces some effect, and the more shots you get, the bigger the effect. Does that explain why disease itself appears to have changed in the last year or two? Now, I want to... I want to go deeper into this, something we do on this show quite a bit, but we want to go into

the science here. It's one thing to just kind of say this in a sentence or two and say, hmm, I wonder what's the science showing? Is this possibility? It actually is showing quite a bit of this throughout the literature. It's not just a basic hypothesis of one researcher somewhere, some conspiracy theorists. So what are you talking about? IGG4. These are immunoglobulins, and these are just antibodies. They're the most basic, abundant, and common form our immune system comes in. They're in the blood, the lymphatic system, cerebral spinal fluid, and there are classes of these, IGG 1 through 4. And they're the workhorses of our immune system. They're the ones that do the job. And so we look at the paper as early as 2022, we started seeing papers like this.

They're calling this a class switch towards non-inflammatory IgG isotypes after repeated SARS-CoV-2MRNA vaccination. Now it says in here, shortly after the first or second MRNA vaccine dose, the IgG response mainly consists of the pro-inflammatory isotopes, IGB1 and IgG3. This is good and is driven by T-helper TH-T-H1 cells. Here, we report that several months after the second vaccination, SARS-CoB2 specific antibodies were increasingly composed of non-inflammatory IGG-2 and particularly IGG-4, which were further boosted by a third MRNA vaccination and or SARS-CoV2 variant breakthrough infections. You know those infections years not supposed to get because you got the vaccine, that's the breakthrough. So we don't want

IGG4 switch, that class switch. You do not want that. The IgG4, the immunoglobins, do not have a big potential for immune activation. They only make up about 5% of all of that class of antibodies. They're very subset class. They usually deal with like allergic responses and things like that. So you don't want that out of whack. You don't want that to supercharge. And why is that a problem? Well, we had Dr. William Macchus on our show talking about... Do we know what percentage, you know, as you say, in the body that we want? I mean, is IGG4 always there? I mean, when we say it's just a small part of it, do they have a number on that?

Yeah, and healthy people, it's about 5%. That's the rough... A 5% of your advisor, IGG4. The rest are IGG1 and IG3. Yeah, one is one of the most common, one and two. Three makes up a smaller subsection, and then five is the smallest. that's the one you really want to keep at bay, if you will. That's the balance. And it's kind of like the gut biome. You want these imbalance. So Dr. William Macchus went on the show. He spoke to you,

and he said this. Take a listen. Okay. The problem with rolling out this technology, this lipid nanoparticle, MRNA technology with these COVID vaccines was that there were no modifications to the lipid nanoparticles. And they told us that it would stay in the arm and this goes systemic. And I think that really is where all the injuries, vaccine injuries that we're seeing stem from, including the cancers, is that this goes systemic. And then you've got tremendous effects on the immune system. You know, another mechanism, possible mechanism of cancer arising is this what we call antibody shift, this IGG4 antibody shift.

And that, again, is a feature of our immune system where if you're getting repeatedly exposed to the same antigen, Then your body starts to produce a different kind of antibody called IGG4 that actually gives you tolerance to that antigen. So it kind of gives up on killing it. It's just like I just want to live and let live. I'm just going to let it hang out in the body now and not fight anymore. Exactly. So another discovery a few months ago, there was a discovery that if you've had two COVID vaccines, you start to produce a little bit of this new antibody, this IGG4. But if you've had three vaccines, if you had the booster shot, your IGG4 levels go up 500 fold.

Wow. And then suddenly it goes from 0.04% to 20% of the antibodies you're producing. And that shifts your immune system completely. You're not producing IGG 1 and 3 anymore, and these are the antibodies that actually handle the viral infections, but they also handle cancer surveillance. So you're more likely now to get infected, not just with COVID-19. So you see people who've had their booster shot, three vaccines. four vaccines, five vaccines, they keep getting reinfected with COVID-19 over and over,

or they get sick very often with influenza. But you're also reducing cancer surveillance as well, because you don't have those IGG-1 and 3 anymore, so you're impairing cancer surveillance. That could be another mechanism by which all these turbo cancers are arising in people who've had three or more shots. So it's down-regulating the whole immune system, So not just downreguling for seeing COVID, but as Brett seems to be hypothesizing, it's why we're seeing all these crazy West Nile outbreaks and things because people just have weakened immune system that's just making them vulnerable. We're seeing the turbo cancers like crazy.

It's wild just to think, Jeffrey, you know, that that was almost exactly a year ago that we had Dr. MacKitts on. And, you know, and it was mind-blowing when he said it. But as we get more signs, you see Brett, and it all starts coming. together, you just start seeing this horrific, this horrific outcome worldwide. And they are still just the kids and the people and the bam, bam, bam, bam. What is this world going to look like? I don't know. But I think this is where science could really step up and is stepping up where people are communicating in kind of non-traditional formats on podcasts, on things like that, and

not taking to the corporate media with this message, because corporate media probably won't even relay this message, and experts and regulatory agencies won't carry this message as well. But this is where this is where this message can go and can live, and researchers can do this. And Dr. Maccas is a co-author on this paper where he explains, he shows a lot of the evidence and the mechanisms that this may be happening. And people can look at this paper. This is in 2023, just a year ago. And IGG4 antibodies induced by repeated vaccination, talking about immune and tolerance. And it says, overall, there are three critical factors determining the class switch to IgG4 antibodies, excessive antigen concentration, repeated vaccination, and the type of vaccine

used. Unfortunately, the COVID vaccine checks off all those boxes. And then he goes on to say, however, emerging evidence suggests that the reported increase in IGG4 levels detected after repeated vaccination with the MRNA vaccine may not be a protective mechanism. Rather, it constitutes an immune tolerance mechanism to the spike protein that could promote unobstance oppose SARS-CoV-2 infection and replication by suppressing natural antiviral responses. Not a good thing. And we saw this in the HIV vaccine trials. Someone put together, a substack author put together, looking at all of the vaccine trials about class switching to the IGG4. Lessons learned, they call it from the failed HIV vaccine trials. And they write,

antibodies are not a correlative immunity, but studies have shown that the presence of relatively low levels of IGG4 can cause impaired FC mediated effector functionality. It's a big word. That just is kind of like the business end when these antibodies start to kill the cells. That's the complex that does that. B-cell imprinting may be implicated and the effects appeared to persist for at least six to eight years. So that B-cell imprinting is basically focusing on just one antigen. So you get the COVID virus and it mutates. Well, they can't really see that. Your system can't see that. It's imprinting on just the one you've been printed it with with the vaccine. So they're saying those are two problems they saw in the HIV trials, but it goes on

and say this, the recommendation, he writes, after looking at all this, according to these studies, boosting more than three to four times is not recommended, and the gap between boosters should be one to two years minimum to minimize the risk of class switching and imprinting. So these are kind of the hypothetical, well, this is what we've seen. This may be happening like this, but Now we're starting to see case studies. So we're starting to see that the first kind of crop of this new phenomenon, if you will. And I'm going to run through.

These are just a couple. We could spend probably an hour going through these titles and looking at these. Here's one, IgG4-related disease emerging after COVID-19 mRNA vaccination. There's another one, IgG-4-related membranus, nephropathy after COVID-19 vaccination, a case report. Another one, relapse of IgG-4-related nephritis following MRNA, COVID-19 vaccine. Oh, my God. an acute liver injury and IGG4 related autoimmune pancreatitis following a

minority vaccine so again you're seeing when this when this hyperreaction this allergic autoimmune reaction it does target it seems to target the organs in this IGG response so you're seeing these these organ systems that are being targeted but it's not just that you know it's we're talking about the vaccine has been given to stop the spread you know you're not going to get the you're not going to get the virus you won't get sick you get this but even articles like this is epoch times new science shows vaccine help vaccines help amacron spread. So you're not going to be, these new variants are not going to be recognized if you're downgrading this immune system, if you're imprinting this one antigen.

And that's what was shown in the Cleveland Clinic study of just this year, looking at the workers at the Cleveland Clinic that were taking part in this study, looking at the effectiveness of last year's formulation, they call it the 2023, 2024 formulation. I think that was booster six, if you're counting. But it says conclusions. The 2020, 34 formulated COVID-19 vaccine given to working age adults afforded a low level of protection against the JN.1 lineage of SARS-CoV-2, but a higher number of prior vaccine doses was associated with a higher risk of COVID-19. So there you go. It goes on and say, consistent with similar findings in many prior studies, a higher number of prior vaccine doses was

associated with a higher risk of COVID-19. The exact reason for this finding is not clear. Of course, they don't go into the IGG in this, but it definitely explains that. And it says, It is possible that this may be related to the fact that vaccine-induced immunity is weaker and less durable than natural immunity. We've known that since the beginning. But there's a lot of people that are kind of trying to sidestep this idea of what if it really down regulated the immune system of an unknown amount of people in the United States? I mean, it's really, I mean, we're sitting here thinking, you know, almost everyone in the world. Like how much of the country got three vaccines, about 50, 60 percent maybe somewhere in that zone? to think that all these people, and if they keep going,

they're raising their risk of becoming a, you know, a totally deficient immune system, an immune system incapable of fighting off cancer or any other disease. We are not talking about tiny numbers. We're not talking about somebody that took a drug that, you know, a thousand people got because they had a rare disease. They gave this thing to everybody, and they're still giving it to more and more people every single day,

knowing as, as Brett pointed out, knowing that the vaccine is doing the exact opposite of anything you would ever want it to do, which is lowering your immune system to be able to fight anything you're coming in contact with now in the world. Right. And so yet still, we have the new formulation of the COVID vaccine has just been released. It's being marketed. We're seeing headlines about it as kids go back to school. And the CDC is recommending it to infants. Here's the CDC's actual schedule from zero to 15 months, birth to 15 months. And you can see here at six months, as early as six months, they start recommending right at there on the bottom right, one or more doses of the updated COVID vaccine formulation. You can get that at six months, nine months,

12 months, wherever you want to get that. If you're a child or a parent, you give it to your child, that's what they're recommending. And so this is the insanity here of what it's so important to not rely on five four or five year old information saying safe and effective stops COVID in 95% of the cases. This is new information the CDC has not folded into the recommendations, clearly. And guaranteed these studies they're doing are on adults. We have no idea how quickly you could downregulate a child's immune system. You imagine welcome to the world. Let's destroy your immune system and see how you do. What is that generation of kids going to do? And then you think about these dystopian movies, you know, handmaids tailing things where nobody can give birth or nobody, you know, you can't

have a child that can't seem to fight any disease. And then what happens to diseases that are inside of people that they have no immune system fighting it. So it just multiplies. They just pass it on to everybody else. So even those that didn't get the vaccine, you've got these walking incubators for, you know, virus mutation. It's outrageous. It's outrageous that nobody is, nobody inside the government currently right now is throwing up a red flag. They're doing the opposite to just wolfweed ahead. Before I go, I want to hit some breaking news that broke right before we went on air. And, you know, just a couple weeks ago, we saw Andrew Cuomo testifying because of the nursing home debacle. He was putting people in the nursing homes in New York City. And that caused

just massive outbreaks. You have obviously a crack team there of leadership during the COVID response. And to add to that team, we have doctor. Dr. J. Varma, former senior advisor for public health, New York City mayor's office. He was just caught, thanks to Stephen Crowder's undercover journalist on tape, talking about what he did during the COVID response because he was leading. He was New York City's COVID czar. Take a listen from his own words. I actually was the one who convinced the mayor to make it a man good.

Like New York City found out that you're having sex partings during COVID? Yeah. We went to be a big joke. Yeah, it would have been a real barren. We went to some, like, underground, like, dance party, like, underneath the bank and Wall Street. And we were all rolling. We're all taking Molly, and everybody's high.

And I was so happy, because it hadn't done that in, like, a year and a half. Like, a year or whatever. And I was looking around being like, I wonder if we see this is, they didn't know. Because this was not COVID-12. When one? When we could do this job for the city was if I had some way to blow off steam everything. You're kind of sneaky about because hotels and want people gathering there. Because I was like running the entire film was like my wife and I like had one with our friends

Like in August of like that first summer so we rented a hotel it was fun we all like took like you know molly and it was like It was like 10 or 9 of us in a 10 or 8 to 10 of us in our room and everybody was like so pet up yeah Oh I bet yeah yeah yeah and it seemed so much about like like It's something about like bodies being close to each other, right? Just being like naked with friends. It was like the summer of 2020. So like walk around the streets and eat outdoors.

Did you have like any mandates in place? There wasn't any restrictions on gathering, like we'd gather people. The hotels didn't want to have parties but they weren't gonna like. Yeah. It's so funny it's like because I did all this like deviant like central stuff. I was like on TV and all this stuff. And people like, aren't you afraid? Aren't you embarrassed?

And I was like, no, actually. I'm like really like, I love being my authentic side. So the way we do it in public health is we'll make it very uncomfortable to be unvaccinated. I don't expect the education to change your behavior. I'm just to make it really hard for you to do your job. You can't get a job. You can't go to a restaurant.

You can't go to school. It's like, I'm just gonna get vaccinated. So was it technically, like, kind of forcing people? Yeah. You force people by making it really uncomfortable. Outrageous. I mean, Gavin Newsom, French Laundry Restaurant. You have Nancy Pelosi getting her hair done.

You have the party gate, the UK officials, all partying just like this guy was. But they got nothing on this guy. They got nothing on this guy. This guy's going wild. I'm going to force facts like going to lock you down, but because I can't stand being locked down, sex parties for everybody. Drug fuel.

Drug-fueled sex parties. Drug-fueled. Good for the record here. So that's New York City for you. They party hard. They sure do. I want to send that video to some friends in New York that we're running around buying into all this stuff

saying this is what the people that were writing the laws were doing. What a bunch of hypocrites. What a bunch of liars. And I sit there going, I mean, it's so debauchrous the government officials that we see now. But I guess, you know, I was just asking myself, you know, were they always like that? And now it's just you're allowed to just let your freak flag fly. I got nothing against, by the way, I got nothing against what you do behind closed doors.

As long as you're not writing laws that tell me I'm not allowed to do anything, only to hear that you were just going hog wild. I mean, amazing. Okay. Well, that cheered me up. At least I'm sure he's not having a very good day today. I doubt that's. I think he nuked his ex account. He's going to be on social media for a very long time.

Jeffrey, amazing reporting, as always. Thank you so much. I know I asked you, can we get deeper inside a G4 thing? I knew we'd cover it, but it's just one of the beauties of the work that we do is you put on a different lens. You hear some things a bunch of times, but then you start seeing the tuberculosis. You start, I mean, seeing these nurses online saying, I've never seen so many sick people in the hospital in my life. People and every nurse around me that got vaccinated, they're sick. I mean, and you see why.

I mean, you see why. And I keep saying it. It's just we're living in a horror movie. It's like, you know, this government that will not stop, no matter how bad this thing is. It's really scary. Yeah, we always have to hold out hope. And putting out this information, independent voices, real people, not AI generated stuff. I think this is how we get through this and just keep sounding the alarm because there are a lot of good thinkers, doctors, researchers, writers out there that can change us if we all.

put our minds together. And they are. And as you said, UN is, you know, down at a 17% success level. When it comes to this vaccine program, we need to get it down to zero immediately. Right. All right, Jeffrey. Great work. Thank you so much. Thank you. You know, again, this is, you know, how many people reporting in the type of detail that we are here, you're only getting it here, you're only on top of it, they're going to do this. You got monkey pox. What happens with monkey pox? How many people start catching monkey pox? where they have no immune system.

And then suddenly their crisis becomes our crisis. Is that possible? Is that where this goes? You better have a good legal team out there fighting to make sure that you have your rights, that you get to control your body, that you get to go to school, that you get to go to work. That's what we're doing here. For all of you that are sponsoring and making this happen, we want to give you a gift back. We're going to keep talking about this because so many of you are taking us up on this,

which is, look, we want to bless you with more information, more detail. The high wire is never going anywhere. This show will be free into the end of time. I will do this till the day I die. I love what we do here on the high wire. But we really want to incentivize those of you that are helping us make a difference in the world. That's why we created Highwire Plus so that you can sign up. Let's go ahead and run the commercial on Highwire Plus in case you missed it last time.

Take a look at this. Welcome to High Wire Plus, the space beyond the High Wire, where we're going to explore content made just. for you. Highwire Plus is our gift to monthly donors to I Can. That will have news, entertainment, reality programming, all designed for people who care more about the truth than just another story. We're also going to be curating documentaries and films from some of our favorite filmmakers who deliver the truth just the way that we do. Highwire Plus is your place to experience and explore truth like you've never seen it before. And look out for new content coming soon, from Highwire Plus.

So if you want some extra content, we got Off the Record. I'm going to have an amazing off the record with Cheryl Atkinson. So many of you ranted and raved about the after off the record. For those of you that the two hours and 20 minutes that I had with Brett Weinstein, we really got into raising kids in this world super fascinating. And by the way, if you are, you know, donating to us, you can go and watch last week's Brett Weinstein. You have to do it right away.

You can watch the off the record any time you want, along with all the other things we're putting up there. Jeffrey Jackson investigates is right around the corner. We're just starting to button up those episodes. Really, really exciting dives into, what about polio? You're going to be able to answer that question the way you've never seen it before. So go ahead and sign up. Really, you're our test group. Do you like it? Write in. Tell us what you think. What type of programming would you like to see in the future? We're looking at new thoughts and ideas. Here's how you sign up. Go to the highwire.com. Just click on go to Highwire Plus up there. Sign up. sign up and the rest of it is self-explanatory. We'll let you take it from there.

You know, in many ways it feels like journalism is dead, that the job of the press is over. We're watching, you know, debates on television where everyone's saying, boy, it felt like it was one side, it didn't feel like objective. We're seeing reporting, just depending on what news agency you're tuning into, it's like you're in a thought bubble where they're just telling you what they want you to believe it doesn't seem to be reporting on the truth. We know the censorship is real. No one on mainstream media is talking about, hey, have you heard of IGG4? Is it possible that maybe you don't? We've done a special, can imagine, can you imagine? Can you imagine if you turn on your television today and CNN said, special report today, we've now discovered that the COVID booster,

if you're on your third or fourth COVID booster, it appears that it's downregulating your immune system and make you vulnerable for cancer and perhaps other diseases like monkeypox or or or bird flu or you name it and special report here we go you know brett take it from here you imagine you're like oh my god the world's back we're back in order they're reporting on this stuff well the reporters that have throughout the years have been losing their jobs one that was the forefront of all of it someone that I've respected really through my whole career. I still look up to her. There's moments I ask myself when I'm reporting. Am I really being objective enough? Am I really looking this? Am I, you know, am I deluding myself? What would Cheryl Atkisson do right now? I swear that thought runs

through my mind. She's that dynamic. I'm about to talk to her, or at least I just did a couple days ago. But if you don't know who Cheryl Atkinson is, take a look at this. CBS News investigative correspondent Cheryl Atkinson. Cheryl Atkinson on Capitol Hill. Cheryl Atkinson has the story. CBS News investigative correspondent, Cheryl Atkison, who hasn't been just covering the Benghazi story, but has been out front most of the time.

Hi, I'm CBS Evening News Correspondent Cheryl Akison on Capitol Hill. I'm Cheryl Ackison with first look from our CBS News, Washington Bureau. Our story tonight is on veterans' charities, and it's full of outrage. Today we're looking at a very important story here on Capitol Hill, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is taking up a resolution that opposes the president's troop surge. When you found out the last two teams were being pulled from Libya, what was your feeling

about that? I felt like we were being asked to play the piano with two fingers. Congress wants to hear from Secretary of State Clinton, who said she'll be available after the State Department review board's investigation. CBS News has confirmed that someone has been breaking into the computer of our investigative correspondent Cheryl Atkinson. The unauthorized party accessed the CBS computer in my home on multiple occasions, and specifically in December they used sophisticated methods to cover their tracks, meaning they tried to remove

the indications of their previous unauthorized activity. Subsequent forensics unearthed government-controlled IP addresses used in the intrusions and proved that not only did the guilty parties monitor my work in real time, they also accessed my fast and furious files, got into the larger CBS system, and were able to listen in on conversations by action. activating Skype audio. I have a lawsuit pending against the government. We just want them to tell us.

Who had control and access of the IP government-owned IP address that's been found forensically in my computer? Let us know. You still don't know. No. Department of Justice is blocking us from finding that information to date. Former CBS News investigative correspondent Cheryl Atkinson left the network this year after two decades.

Atkinson departed CBS News and made criticism over her reporting on Benghazi, Fast and Furious, and other alleged scandals being pursued by conservative. and Republicans. Primarily in the last couple of years, there was a declining appetite on the broadcast for original and investigative reporting, at least the kind that I was offering. And it did get to the point where it didn't seem like there was a lot left for me to do. As an investigative journalist, I found myself with a few questions about the emergence of fake news as a phrase and as a fad.

I've investigated the shadowy, multi-billion dollar industry that seeks to manipulate all of us through news, social media, and online. Cheryl Ackinson joins us now, the host of Full Measure, the very successful TV series. Welcome to Full Measure. I'm Cheryl Ackison. Welcome to a special Full Measure town hall, the COVID clots. We begin today with illegal immigration and the border crisis. Green energy transition ambitions aren't quite ready for prime time. New cases of cancer in the U.S. are expected to surpass two million.

For the last nine years on my TV show Full Measure, I broke countless news stories, congressional oversight, congressional fundraising. prescription drug and vaccine dangers, green energy failures, waste and fraud at the Red Cross, Firestone tires, Benghazi, and Fast and Furious. If the press doesn't do its job, then all you're going to get primarily is the world that powers that be want you to see, propaganda, things that make them look good and perpetuate their interests, not necessarily yours, regardless of the truth. And I don't think that's what we ought to be doing.

All right, well, her name is Cheryl Atkison, and she's got a brand new book for, follow the science which is completely and totally amazing and it is my honor and pleasure in fact one of those other bucket list moments to be here right now with Cheryl Addison thank you for having me appreciate thank you for coming in this is actually something i've wanted to do for many many years um because as you know i think you might my dive into the whole vaccine space really started with vaxed uh the film that i made and And I think the first time we met was at the VAC screening, I believe, in New York. I think so.

That's right. Yeah. Boy, what a nightmare that whole thing was. It was really, it was after getting kicked out of Tribeca and just so many crazy things that had happened. But I just remembered I knew you from CBS. And I was just happy that any reporter had really shown up to add. And you were asking, you know, legitimate questions. And of course, I learned more and more about you.

in that space as time went on. But you've really, in many ways, I sort of started out in daytime talk with Dr. Phil and the doctors, but when I really started thinking about being a journal, like, how am I going to tell the story? You've really been a guiding light on that. And I would say one of the last living, surviving

journalists in the world. Thank you. Well, you know, I covered this story when I was assigned to look into vaccines originally at CBS as an investigative reporter, like any other story. Yeah. And then I found similar components talking about corruption and whistleblowers and cover-ups,

fascinating. But it was treated so differently, so different over time than all the others. Yeah. Where there were these forces that acted as though the rational questions were irrational or not to be discussed. And that became a story of interest to me, the fact of this culture surrounding the reasonable questions. Yeah.

I mean, when I got involved with Bax, I mean, I left CBS and the doctors to, you get involved with it, but I was looking at all this evidence from Dr. William Thompson, who you fully know. Have you ever met with him, by the way? No, no, okay. Just the more I looked at the story, the media cover-up, the government involvement, and just as a journalist, you realize, I mean, I just thought, this is like the greatest story of all times. And when I was working with Andy at the time, I just would say, all right, I just want to make one thing clear. You're sure you're the only one telling this story, because I'm going to destroy my career. by doing it. I'm fine, as long as there's just not like a sea of competition all fighting for this.

It's like, no one's covering it. And said, all right, then, you know, I'm all over this. And clearly, you have been too. So, I mean, this book is amazing. It's a journey in many ways, I think, through your career around specifically a lot of the medical things that you've covered, all the coverups, all the lies, what it was like to be in media and sort of go through a real changed, as you said, at one moment. We love you doing these stories, and then slowly, that sort of disappeared, but it really starts with a smallpox. It does. You know, I think that was super fascinating.

Well, do you want to talk a little bit about that? Yes, please. Yeah. One of my first assignments after 9-11, the government wanted to restart its smallpox vaccine program under the thought that maybe terrorists would now use smallpox as a biological weapon. Right. So I just approached like any other story and began to develop sources that would be. very valuable decades later in understanding vaccines in medicine and the internal mechanisms. But I came to understand that vaccines have side effects.

I mean, like a lot of people, I think it never occurred to me. As silly as it sounds now in retrospect, never questioned them. But doctors were openly talking and public health officials at the time about this is a careful calculus with smallpox vaccine because there are so many side effects. It's more problematic than other vaccines, by the way, in terms of the same. side effects. They ultimately stopped the smallpox vaccine restart because of a handful of deaths, which imply many more I also learned. A handful of deaths could mean that there are 10,000 to 100,000 more not reported. That's why they care so much about what seems like a small number. But I learned, again,

the mechanisms, you know, people were dying of the smallpox vaccine, myocarditis, or getting myocarditis, blood clots, deep vein thrombosis, all these things that sound familiar today. Especially from COVID, right? Almost a very identical side effects. Certain things that can happen to your system when challenged with, I guess, the immune challenge and the ingredients of these vaccines. When I was reading it, I don't, and maybe I wasn't, so we were talking, 2003? Is that? That was 2000, after 9-11, 2001, so yeah, 2002, 2003-time period. I don't remember a smallpox. Like, I mean, they were literally planning on vaccinating and everyone in America with smallpox.

Was it getting a lot of press and I was just too busy, you know, focus somewhere else? If you weren't, if you weren't where we are now in this space, you probably wouldn't really pay much attention to it at all. But everybody was covering it on the news because first the smallpox vaccine was tested or given to, supposed to be given to a half million first responders and military people. Yeah. The first responders wouldn't take it. You know, after some time on the program, they had already identified that they didn't

want it. They thought the risk was too high. And then there were some military sicknesses and deaths and the death of my colleague at NBC David Bloom of deep pain thrombosis, which was a known suspected side effect of smallpox vaccine and anthrax vaccine. And I broke the story that the government didn't properly report his death as a potential adverse event. Right, but you're watching, all they were saying is we lost a reporter, unfortunately, got sick while overseas in Iraq or something like that. Yeah, in Iraq, young and healthy.

How old was he? I think he was in his 40s. And you were sitting going, wait a minute, I've just done a story on this and deep vein thrombosis is a side effect of this vaccine. Why is no one talking about that? And I was able to confirm through my sources that he had anthrax shot, smallpox shot, and should have been reported. and then a government advisor even acknowledged on camera that he should have been reported. NBC correspondent David Bloom. He died of an apparent blood clot several weeks after getting both smallpox and anthrax vaccines. If someone dies within a matter of weeks of getting the smallpox and anthrax vaccination, should that be reported?

Yes. As a result of my reporting, he did go into the database and ultimately they pulled the smallpox vaccine from the program they were trying to do as a restart. But nobody, this is, I guess, what got me going down the rabbit hole. I'm the only one that reported that about David Bloom. Why weren't the medical reporters, this is their job? Why weren't they looking at this? Why weren't they intuitively asking the questions? Why weren't other people paying attention?

And then as I uncovered the news, which did get attention at the time at CBS and globally, why weren't others picking up on it and taking it from there and saying, well, was this a cover-up that they didn't report his case? you know, what are the implications? Nobody seemed to care. How did you get into the side effects? I mean, was it, was that something that you thought, well, if I'm going to tell this story, what are the side effects? Was that just a natural question to you? It's the first thing the advisors for the government brought up. They said. I mean, I remember being kind of surprised on camera when they would say, we have to be careful. This is a toxic vaccine. One of them used that phrase.

This is a toxic vaccine. We should only use it in people who need it. This is a pro-vaccine person who was on the committee that thought we should, start the program back up again. But to hear him say, this is a toxic vaccine, got me going, toxic vaccine, what is that? I thought, you know, smallpox vaccine saved the world. And as a result of covering that whole what vaccines can do and military vaccines, I remember having this moment, which sounds so obvious in retrospect, well, if occasionally a healthy 18-year-old guy goes in the military and drops dead after his boot camp battery of vaccines, what might it do to a baby? Maybe there's something to all that stuff that sounded crazy.

And I asked someone in the government, what are my sources? And he said, I'm not touching that. That's a third rail. I actually had to look up what third rail meant at the time. And I'm like, why is that the third rail? Like it's so defied logic. But it really piqued my interest as a reporter. And, of course, I had to go down the path.

You know, one of the things that when I was first traveling to the country with Vaxed, I think it was in Atlanta. This guy came up to me after a screening. We were doing Q&As. And he said, you know, I work with the CIA. And I don't have no idea if it was real or a lunate. But he said, you see those two guys across over there in the suits? And there was like two guys across women suits.

It was like there with the FBI, you know, just so you know you're being watched as you're doing this tour. We actually support you. Most of us think what you're doing is important work, but I just want to warn you one thing, just don't ever get into military vaccines. Don't take this into talking about the military and vaccines that's gonna get you in a lot of trouble. And so I have no idea, you know,

but what's interesting, because you started with military vaccines are like, no, the third rail is don't go into the childhood. Right. We got opposite messaging, probably at different times. And so that's quite a bit of time. And that's a year, you're a good 10 years before I really start looking into this issue. So you were at it quite some time. Now there's other, what I love about

this book is how you just show so many different things that start popping up that grab your attention, whether it's drugs. And, you know, we know all these drugs that end up being pulled from the market. Why did we not have the information up front? How did it get through the safety studies? but I didn't know about this premature baby oxygen study. That was pretty horrific. How did, so tell me a little bit about that. Public Citizen, watchdog group that does great work in the health space, had been following the controversy over a federally funded study,

being done at organizations like Duke, you know, very famous hospitals, that in retrospect, according to the own, the government's own watchdog, was unethical. It put babies in extremely fragile, premature babies, in a study that manipulated their oxygen levels, not for their own good, but for some kind of test purposes, without, according to the parents, telling the parents that they were doing this. So the parents didn't get, according to them, informed consent. The ethics watchdogs said they didn't get informed consent. They were told, according to the parents, and multiple ones had the same story. as they're being rushed in to have a premature baby,

they're handed a piece of paper and said, this will help provide support for you. So it was their understanding. So get into this study and you'll get extra support for you. They didn't use the word study. They just thought they were signing to have their babies' weight and height measured and get emotional support for how hard it was going to be. So it turns out they had signed away the right to have their babies put in an experiment,

the role of a dice, flip of a coin, put them in either a high oxygen or low oxygen group, according to watchdogs caused the death of some babies that might not have otherwise died. And the women didn't know till some years later when this came exposed through kind of happenstance. And what surprised me is the pressure from the establishment medical community came down on their watchdog that worked for the government, not to apologize for what they'd done, but to try to get him to back off enforcement action. story broke. It was like unethical. They did a hit job really on the person that came forward. And just to be clear, they were using these babies to test my, if I remember correctly, like low oxygen levels could cause death.

And too high would cause blindness and it was it swelling in the eyes or some sort of. Or vice versa. I don't remember which. One causes blindness. It causes death. And they wanted to know where the sweet spot was. But here's the kicker. By keeping a baby in the oxygen level that they were assigned, normally it's adjusted depending on how the baby's doing. Yeah. The oxygen monitors were disabled to provide false readings on purpose. Parents weren't told this, so that the medical personnel caring for the babies

wouldn't be tempted to put them in the right range for them. This is how horrific that was. So that they go, well, it's at a good level. They don't realize it's high because they're in a study that they don't know about or low. And so blindness occurs, deaths occurred, all of these things. And it was really just, let's just monitor these kids and see which one does what to me. For future babies, because then we'll be able to see what happened to these babies. So it's that greater good argument.

Well, we'll be helping babies in the future, but at the expense of the ones who were in the study that the parents said they didn't know about. It's really, so one of the defenders of the study at the time is now head of FDA. You know, that was years ago. Is it Caleb? Yes. Yeah. I know that, like early chapters, wait a minute. I know that Robert Caleb, that's the guy, you know, and then later,

Later on, you bring up. And how ironic is this, they had a look back at what they'd done wrong, because there was sort of an up for. There was a lot going on. I go to the meeting where they're having this look back, thinking they're gonna say, this is what needs to happen,

informed consent has to be stricter, this was horrible. Instead, about half of the researchers argued, why do we have informed consent anyway? Because people aren't getting in studies because we're telling them all these scary things. And would you believe that maybe you know this? In the past year, their dream came true the FDA changes rules where they no longer have to give informed consent to everybody in a study.

So they can enroll you in a study and if they determine that they think the risks are minimal, they don't have to tell you about it. It's stunning. Same people that said this is minimal risk to COVID vaccine, minimal risk to all these drugs, everything's been approved. So their idea of risk, I think, is questionable. You put it in their hands. It is we've reported on how scary that really is.

So probably, I mean, you have, I think the most important interview ever done, I would say. If there's one video I use more than anything else, is your interview of Bernadine Healy. I use it in PowerPoints to this day. I have from day one. I use it in testimony. I mean, everywhere I go, I've had private meetings with politicians. I'm like, just watch this. This says it all.

Let's watch it really quickly because I have. some questions about this. This is the time when we do have the opportunity to understand whether or not there are susceptible children, perhaps genetically, perhaps they have a metabolic issue, mitochondrial disorder, immunological issue that makes them more susceptible to vaccines plural or to one particular vaccine or to a component of vaccine like mercury. So we now, in these times, have to, I think take another look at that hypothesis, not deny it. And I think we have the tools today that we didn't have 10 years ago, that we didn't have 20 years ago, to try and tease that out and find out

if indeed there is that susceptible group. Why is this important? A susceptible group does not mean that vaccines aren't good. What a susceptible group will tell us is that maybe there is a group of individuals or a group of children that shouldn't have a particular vaccine or shouldn't have vaccine on the same schedule. It is the job of the public health community and of physicians to be out there and to say, yes, we can make it safer because we are able to say this is a subset. We're going to deliver it in a way that we think is safer. Do you feel the government was too quick to dismiss out of hand that there was this possibility of a link between vaccines and autism?

I think the government or certain public health officials in the government have been too quick to dismiss the concerns of these families without studying the population that got sick. I haven't seen major studies that focus on 300 kids who got autistic symptoms within a period of a few weeks of a vaccine. The reason why they didn't want to look for those susceptibility groups was because they're afraid that if they found them, however big or small they were, that that would scare the public away. The fact that there is concern that you don't want to know that susceptible group is a real disappointment to me.

If you know that susceptible group, you can save those children. It sounds like you don't think the hypothesis of a link between vaccines and autism is completely irrational. So when I first heard about it, I thought, well, that doesn't make sense to me. The more you delve into it, if you look at the basic science, if you look at the research that's been done in animals. If you also look at some of these individual cases, and if you look at the evidence that there is no link, what I come away with is the question has not been answered. That's just, it's an amazing interview, former head of the NIH, so arguably one of the top scientists in the world, or at least over one of the biggest scientific institutions we have in the world, making statements like that.

I think, you know, there's a lot to that. But number one saying, I've never seen a study where we took, say, 300 kids that have been affected by a vaccine that ended up being autistic and studied them. I mean, that is a shock. That is like, everywhere I go, you know, people like, oh, it's misinformation. You know, there's mountains of studies. Like, there really, there's, there are no, there's not even a molehill of studies. There's nothing there. It is such a shocking statement because Sanjay Gupta and big, you know, you know, we hear it all the time.

This has been thoroughly studied. Did you realize at that moment when she was saying that just really how perhaps dangerous but profound those statements were? I mean, where were you at in this investigation when you got that interview? By the time she was willing to say that on camera, I knew that stuff. And she had talked about it off camera with me. And I had come to similar realizations by looking at the data. You know, those of us who dig in, you include it, I'm sure, you go through a problem. process. You think this is crazy talk at first because that's what we've been manipulated to believe.

Then you start talking to whistleblowers and looking at data and studies and realize, wait, studies do exist that they say don't exist. And you go on and on. She went through the same process. By that point, I understood that what she was saying to be reasonable and logical and made perfect sense. And when she said there's nobody studying the population at risk, I thought, wow, vaccine court has a self-identified population of thousands of people who say their children got autism from vaccines and have documentation that they could if they wanted to clearly they don't want the data they could study those kids so easily and determine if they have common factors that have made them susceptible to injury I've asked why they haven't done it they don't have a good

answer they just say well somebody should do a study or that's private medical information we have the full charts and I'm thinking any of those parents would be delighted to have someone call them and say if someone they trusted give us your records and let us look for common factors to see if we can identify no one's interested in doing it because I think as dr. Healy suggested they know the answer they don't want to ask the question yeah I mean I think that that's I brought this up with I was once in a radio interview with this guy out of New York who had a huge following he was really was one of the few I got where he was really on the other side challenging me, which I actually love those interviews.

But at one point, I said, let me get this straight. So he was out, he was irate, it was right, now that remember, it was right about the time Donald Trump was suggesting that Bobby Kennedy back in 2017 might write a vaccine safety commission. He's like, I mean, that'd be the end of the rules we know, I was like, why? I mean, are you under some impression

that like whoever's doing the studies, that that bias can affect the outcome of the study? He said, absolutely. I mean, this guy's a no. known antivaccess. But don't we want people that want the car to fail in a crash test doing the crash test, not the ones that own the car? Like, I mean, if a study can be manipulated, as you're saying, based on bias, then you are in my wheelhouse. This is exactly my problem. Everyone studying vaccines has got pom-poms on, is telling me before the thing even releases, it's the greatest thing ever created. I don't want them doing the safety trials. I want someone that actually, you know, is skeptical. And he didn't really have much. to say but what I get to and I've been doing a talk lately I've like the unequivocal argument against vaccines and I use this video to say that's your motive I mean people say why would they do it why would the CDC why would all of these people be behind this cover up and you know it's not

that they all know that there's a problem but she makes the point we don't want to do a single study to look for some group some susceptibility group because no matter how small that group would end up being. No matter how small it is, if we found one, it would mean people might self-identify as maybe that could be my kid. And then your vaccine program falls apart. And the problem with the vaccine program falling apart

is that, of course, they argue, and they'll tell reporters, and this is pretty powerful until you start dissecting their arguments, they'll say, if you report these things and keep reporting it, you will be responsible for babies dying. I was told that. Yeah. Because the theory is people will lose.

faith in the vaccine program, infectious diseases will return and everybody dies. And at first that's a powerful argument. As a reporter, I don't want people to die. Oh my goodness. And then I started thinking logically about it and understanding some of the factors at play. And I came to conclude, it's not my job as a journalist to figure out how people are going to process the truth and therefore withhold the truth from them. CDC will have to deal with the mess if there is vaccine hesitancy or lack of confidence in

the program, it's not up to me to anticipate that and therefore cover up the truth on their behalf. There was an argument in some public documents that were released, they weren't public, were released some years later, I believe it was late 90s. Someone from the Public Health Service was arguing with somebody from another federal agency about the mercury in vaccines. And the argument was, we should come clean, said the woman, we should tell people. And the one who didn't want to come clean said, he

made the argument. If people wonder why we didn't do the eighth grade math to add up the cumulative load we were giving kids as we tripled the vaccine schedule, people will lose confidence. This was in the email. She argued, and I think she's right. We may have a momentary blip in vaccination because of this, but we'll have overall confidence that the blip will not last long enough to impact hurt immunity or whatever you want to call it. But people then know we're taking care of business. You know, we're looking out for their safety. She argued if we continue to cover it up, that's going to create lack of confidence in the vaccine program because people know something's going on. And I think that's exactly

what's happened today. I agree. And it's really, it's really shocking. It's hard to imagine how many kids were now talking about COVID comes along. You know, I know for us, and it had to be for you. I mean, you had been at this, as I said, 10 years longer than I have. CBS, I would, I mean, I would argue you probably lost your job at CBS for doing too many of these vaccine stories. I mean, we could get into that. But at the point that you realize you've been dancing on a third rail, not just that. I mean, your career is stunning and how many third rails you've stepped on and seemed to be fearlessly moving forward. But as COVID was hitting and we saw Donald Trump saying, we're going to warp speed this vaccine at this point. I have a nonprofit. I have this show,

the high wire, we're winning lawsuits against government agencies. We have uncovered, I'm sure, everything that you had already uncovered. There are no studies. There's no placebo studies. There's no randomized control trials being done prior to licensure. This entire thing is, you know, how a castle built on sand, but we're being told it's misinformation and we're lying to the public. And I remember when the vaccine is going to be warped speeded, I just sat my team down and I said, this is that moment we've been waiting for. I've been saying all along, no one will understand this until they have an adult mandate. Because adults, suddenly, you're going to see the injury after it happens. And they're going to say, I was jogging last week. I was fine. Now I can't

get out of bed. A baby could never do that. The parents are crazy. I said, this is going, and they're going to show the world how they rush a vaccine on the market, which they've done every time. Did you have a similar thought as you were watching this unfold? Like, here we go. In the beginning of any new story, people ask me, what do you think? What are you going to I don't know the truth and I try not to advise or discuss something I haven't been able to research. And so I was hopeful on the front end, maybe there will be an answer. I thought the vaccine was way down the road. But COVID sounded bad and if it was going to be that maybe they could get a vaccine that could help.

But pretty early on, I interviewed the guys, I'll call them, at Fort Dietrich, who were part of helping develop the vaccines. And one of them said, I believe I have this on camera, I put on my show full measure. RNA vaccines don't last very long and don't work very well. Stuck in my head. You said very early on before the vaccines were out

that you anticipated they would not work for all that long or they would not last for all that long and boosters would be needed. And yet it seemed like everybody was surprised when it was reported that after a certain period of months, immunity was waning for people. So I think scientists weren't sure, but when I looked at the immune responses

that were being generated by the vaccines. They were very impressive short term, but that long-lasting immunity was not generated with just one shot. So needing multiple shots was, in my opinion, what would be needed to actually achieve some sort of long-lasting effect. And he said if they did,

we'd have a vaccine for AIDS, which is an RNA virus, and we've been trying for 50 years. So he also, he said a lot of things that I took to heart that he proved to be correct about in retrospect. for those who would choose to get a vaccine when it ultimately came out, they would need a booster quickly because they don't last very long,

don't work very well. He said he anticipated healthy people wouldn't need the vaccine. Children don't need the vaccine. He said all of these things, and it really stuck in my mind. You know, that proved guidance for me and how I handled my treatment of COVID, which my treatment was I lived my normal life, which he advised. So one little sub-story. We're at Fort Dietrich, which is the biodefense head of the military and all that.

And my producer notices they're not masking or social distancing on the front end when everybody was starting to do this. And at the end, my producer says to him, the head virologist there, I notice you're not masking or social distancing. Why? And he said, well, I assume I've already had it. And if I haven't, I'm not concerned. I'm healthy. My kids are healthy. He said, I wouldn't want my father to get it.

My father's elderly and not, he's in frail health. But that said a lot to me. And I said a lot of stuff to him off camera. Like, people are washing their groceries. Shouldn't we get a little exposure? He's like, yes, absolutely. So that was my guidance. So, yeah, I was cautious based on that guidance

that when the vaccine came out, how effective would it really be, what would be the side effects? Because you have to balance, do I really need it? And what is the risk? And, yeah, the calculus. seem to be off from the start.

People don't understand. Just because you don't have a side effect that day, some people do. Or within a week, side effects from medicine scientists say can happen months or years later. We don't know the full extent of what the side effects of the COVID vaccines are. Yeah. So, yeah, that was my thought. As it, you know, as it turns out, the vaccine's, I think, a disaster. I had Brett Weinstein on last week, who's bringing up the fact that,

Now, by three vaccines in, we're triggering IGG4 creation, which is going to downregulate your immune system would be the exact most catastrophic outcome of a vaccine. And yet they're still pushing it. They're still, I mean, they're still recommending it for children. There's going to be kindergartners being. One of the few countries that's doing that. Yeah, I mean, what is that? I mean, what does that say about our country? Our information is so controlled and manipulated that even in the face of the COVID disaster,

that was, nothing's been done to take care of it. And everybody knows, let's say at least half of America, and I think more, understands the disaster that happened and the nightmare that happened, and that there was misinformation, the government was the biggest misinformation that existed, and nothing has been done and nobody's been held accountable, because the establishment, whatever that is, has taken on a life of its own, doesn't work for us. They think they lured over us, and the people are now at a point they wonder,

how they can get anything done, how they can get responsiveness, even Congress. There are well-meaning members of Congress, but both parties are controlled at the highest levels so that they don't attack these vexing problems in a consequential way. You think just recently interviewed, I mean, released these phone calls that Thomas Massey had recorded. Let's just take a listen to these because I mean it's really, it's to this point. If you can't even fix a problem that you know you have, then where are we going to be? going to be at. Just give me a setup here. What was Thomas's concern? He'd had COVID.

When the vaccines came out, he wondered, would he benefit from getting vaccinated on top of it? He looked at the studies and saw there was no benefit. And yet he saw the CDC putting out false information under the guise of their scientific committee that said there is a benefit shown in the studies, which he knew wasn't true. Right. So he's calling them and recording the conversation surreptitiously, getting this typical double speak from the government, they act like you're kind of stupid when you do this. Oh, you're so smart that you found this mistake in our work that nobody else found. We're going to call you Eagle Eye Massey, they said.

From now on, admitted ultimately that it wasn't true, kept trying to argue that it would confuse the public if they put the real information out there. And he's pressing and pressing them as they're admitting it's wrong. With an addendum people should listen to, after admitting to him on the phone that they knew this information was false, the next day, the same scientist and CDC officials did a webinar for doctors that repeated the misinformation. So now you have proof positive. It's no accident that they're pretending the vaccine proved effective for people who'd already had COVID.

At a time when, let's say you do, at the time we thought the vaccine might work, and there was a shortage. So Massey's argument was, you're telling people who've already had COVID. COVID to go get a precious resource, there's not enough of instead of saving it for the old people who may need it. So that's what the conversation was about. All right. This is great. This call with CDC's Washington, D.C. Director Anstice Brand. If there's a they who is refusing to fix something that is factually and provably wrong, I want to know who they is. Because this is going to result and it's already resulting in misallocation of the vaccine. Let me check that.

Okay. Massey also argued the point in a call with Dr. Sarah Oliver, the CDC scientist who gave the misinformation on the web video. Hi, this is Congressman Thomas Massey. Is this Dr. Oliver? Yes. There was an error and I noticed you're an author on it and I wondered if I could get your help in getting this error corrected.

You can't say it's efficacious for people. with prior infection. That's an absolutely untrue sentence. Yeah, I mean, we're still recommending that individuals who had prior infection received the vaccine, but we wouldn't want to put out that if you had COVID before, you shouldn't get the vaccine. Actually, if you've had COVID before and there's a 75-year-old person who can't get the vaccine and you're 30 years old, you are, you should not get the vaccine because you are wasting resource. It will lead to people who die or have medical complications

because we have a limitation of the vaccine. That's why I think it's important that that document get fixed. Okay, I can talk with MMWR and with Dr. Cohen and see if we can tweak that language a little bit. We ask CDC, Dr. Oliver and Dr. Cohn for interviews, but they decline. Some of the agency's response was summed up during Congressman Massey's final call with CDC this past week. It was with CDC principal deputy director, Ann shook it. I feel like right now we have the tail wagging the dog, that the folks who want to do the messaging, the folks who want everybody to get the vaccine, have pressured the folks who are doing the science,

i.e. reviewing the phase three trial from Pfizer not to correct the document, but the document is false. So the CDC can do whatever messaging they want. That's the CDC's job, not my job, but they cannot propagate false and incorrect science. So that's my position. And I'm really disappointed. It's gone on a month without being fixed, like really disappointed. As you note correctly, there is not sufficient analysis to show that in the subset of only the people with prior infection, there's efficacy. So you're correct that that sentence is wrong and that we need to make a correction of it. I apologize for the delay.

But in terms of a large scale, you know, trying to mislead people, I'll just give you my word that that was not the intent. So really apologize about the confusion that we apparently caused. And perhaps the, as you say, you know, people who are fairly low risk rushing to get vaccine at people who are higher risk. CDC has now issued a correction. But Massey and other scientists we ask say the new wording still wrongly implies studies show vaccines work in people who've had coronavirus.

And instead of fixing it, they proposed repeating it and just phrasing their mistake differently. So at that point, right now, I consider it a lie. It's amazing when you catch them, you know, that sort of red-handed. But from the very beginning, as you point out in your book, the denial of the immunity given by an infection. Rand Paul found himself in the middle of this. and we're like, you know, you know, why aren't you wearing a mask? Why aren't you getting vaccines? Like, I've already had COVID, right?

And then you had Fauci, you know, saying that basically you need the vaccine, that there was no proof that the immunity from having an infection, which, I mean, as a journalist that's done any research at all, but you didn't even have to have that much. I mean, the known science is the entire purpose of vaccines to try and mirror what is achieved from a natural infection. It has never done, I would say, on my show. To date, there's never been a vaccine. that's as effective as having caught the illness and survived it.

And there's never been a case. It's my understanding of a disease like that not giving immunity some kind. So it would be a historic turn in science as we know it if it didn't happen after a COVID infection. How do we, I mean, how do you as a journalist in the United States of America, these are supposed to be the top scientists of the world and they lead the world. I mean, every, you know, most of the decisions made by CDC, NIH, FDA, FDA affect. most countries aren't re-studying what we're saying. They're going, if America's on it, they have all the money.

Our government's lying to us. Well, you have to understand. So that false information we referred to was signed off by something like nine or 12 scientists on the vaccine advisory committee. Yeah. So they didn't read the studies and or they didn't read the paper they signed their names to. Shocking. Which tells me, because the claim was fabricated.

out of thin air. It wasn't like a typo. It tells me that the vaccine makers write those papers, and I'm extrapolating from past experience. The vaccine and pharmaceutical industry will write press releases and announcement and guidance for FDA and CDC, not the people who work, the experts who work on it. So I suspect that paper was written by Pfizer or someone in the interest of Pfizer, and that those people who sign off on those things just, whoever, for whatever reason, take their word for it and don't really do their due diligence as a scientist. And then we see the officials that know better, even when it's proven they know better, still go out and put disinformation to the public that pumps up the vaccine industry. One of the things Brett Weinstein said is he was, I mean, he and I got in an argument I've talked about last week on the show, several years ago, where he just thought it was a COVID vaccine.

He's like, you've got to look at the whole vaccine program. what you're just seeing, you've just dipped your toe in, there's a rabbit hole that's gonna blow your mind. Eventually he's come around now. And he said to me, we met again in Switzerland a few months ago, he said, it's just so improbable, Del. Like, I don't know what to do with it. It is, yeah.

How do you convince people that they're always like, oh, so you're telling me every doctor's just poisoning me? You know, and I was like, well, I will tell you that every doctor doesn't read the science. They don't have any information. They really don't know what they're talking about. That was exemplified by a WHO meeting. You've probably covered right before COVID,

where they stood up at the meeting, I think it was in Geneva, and said, our doctors were having a hard time defending these vaccine, this vaccine hesitancy, because as we all know, they're lucky if they get a half a day education on vaccines and immunology. I mean, it was finally stated by the WHO. We have a very wobbly health professional front line that is starting to question vaccines and the safety of vaccines. That's a huge problem. I mean, most medical school curriculums, even nursing curriculums, I mean, in medical school, you're lucky if you have a half day on vaccines,

never mind keeping up to date with all this. But do you get this where people say, I mean, Cheryl, you're telling me I'm supposed to trust you more than my doctor? All the time. And I explain in the book why that's a fallacy. I try to bring people along the journey from me, believe it or not, in 2000, thinking doctors know the best, scientific studies are pure and to be believed, and there's no corruption in the federal agencies when it comes to health.

From going from there with my brother and my doctor, my brother and my father doctors, good doctors, to understanding where we are today, where there's really, should be skepticism at every level because of what's happened to the system. I try to bring people along on the journey. Which you do brilliantly, by the way, I think it's the best book that I've ever read. It's too much. I've learned when people ask a question, if you lay everything on them at once, they shut down. Because it is improbable. I thought it was improbable too. As a reporter, I didn't believe any of it. I studied this stuff for a year on the vaccines and autism blank. I studied that for a year and purposely talk to no advocate parents to try to figure out

what was really going on before I reported because it was so improbable compared to what I've been told. The science I was reading was so contrary. So I understand it's a lot for people. I tell one story that seems to make sense to people that when my daughter got polio vaccine before I covered any of these stories, I was asked at the doctor's office,

does your daughter want sugar, water, or a shot choice, or a polio vaccine or the injection? I said sugar water because why would you want your kid to have a shot if you can have sugar water. I only learn through covering these stories that sugar water, the oral vaccine can give your kid a slight chance of getting polio, where the injectable version carries no chance. That's what I should have been told.

I would never have given her something when there was a choice that could possibly give her polio. And all the last cases of polio in this country were caused by the vaccine. When I tell that to people, which has now been pulled from the market, the oral version in the United States. But that's a story that makes sense to people they can hang on to and go, how can that be? I wasn't told that information either, you know, at the doctors. Do you get into, I mean,

because you get into the book, all the stories of drugs, because people, we see the side effects and the commercials, right? We are all aware, the jokes about everyone jokes about, oh, my God, who would want restless leg syndrome and, you know, anal leakage and whatever has just been mentioned for, you know I mean I guess if you're suffering from the illness you're going to consider it but you talk about the fact it's like shiny happy people while they're giving this horrid uh line of disclaimers but so many drugs have been recalled and you've done some work looking at that and it's something that people know I was like how do you think I mean first of oxycontin's the most recent one I mean if your doctors are so great and they're so brilliant then why were they prescribing oxyconin

you know are they bad people did they want to create one of the greatest epidemics we've ever seen of now 100,000 deaths, you know, if you include, you know, fentanyl and where that drug addiction leads to. They're like, well, I can't explain this. Like, I can. They go to the CDC's website and they go to the FDA and it says non-habit forming perfectly safe. And even in the middle of this epidemic, FDA is like, why don't we do a study seeing kids can take it? Oh, lo and behold, kids can take it too. I said once the regulatory agencies are corrupted, a doctor has no, they're what information they have. It's all that they know. So I think this corruption starts in med school,

whereby I'm able to show here one of the most popular reference books doctors learn from is the Merck Manual, written by, believe it or not, the pharmaceutical company, Merck. Is it called the Merck Manual? Yes. And it's online because they're so generous, they give consumers a version for free as well. So we can all consult the Merck Manual for all of our problems. A pediatrician I spoke two years ago called to the pediatric biopiatric, Bible as in follow religiously. That's how I took it. Yeah. So Mark claims there's a firewall

between its pharmaceutical side which has paid hundreds of millions of dollars in fines for paying kickbacks to doctors, for bribery, for dangerous medicine marketing and all these things. But there's a firewall between them and the editorial side that writes for the doctors, which at CBS, even if you'd have told me there was a firewall between news and the advertising division, and we all know there's self-censorship. You understand where the bread is buttered. There's pressure. So I don't feel like that holds a lot of water.

So I look to see, well, what are doctors taught? I mean, they're shaped so very early to not look at adverse events that vaccines are the best invention since clean drinking water. You'll hear them parrot these kind of like cultish lines about things. And on its face, it's so silly. Vaccines are safest inventions in drinking water. Well, which vaccine? For which people?

Certainly the ones that are pulled from the market for safety reasons aren't safe. So they're making these crazy blanket statements they're taught to parrot in med school. So I look in the Merck Manual. What does Merck tell doctors about their controversial Gardasil vaccine? Nothing of consequence. In fact, it says in there when I looked online, no serious adverse events have been reported. False on its face because the label Mark includes with the vaccine that nobody sees. but that's FDA approved lists dozens upon dozens of serious adverse events from paralysis to death.

But doctors, they're taught in the Merck Manual. There's no serious adverse events. And that's repeated over and over again throughout medical school whereby they're carefully aimed away from looking at root causes, looking at adverse events, reporting adverse events. And so by the time you get to your doctor, they're not listening if you're not looking or listening to these things that we're talking about because they've been conditioned not to. Right. Yeah, it's really incredible. I once asked Suzanne Humphreys, what is it in the education system that sort of seems to take away critical thinking from doctors? Like somehow they come through it and they just can't like read a study or say, we look at this, it's peer reviewed. No, I already know vaccines are safe. And she said, she's like, actually it's on the contrary. I don't think it's that it takes away critical thinking. I think it selects for people that don't lean towards critical thinking. It selects for people. people that will just cut and paste,

a really good cut and pasting information from a textbook onto a test, they can memorize it really well. That's who we want. We don't want someone like raising her hands, but hold on a second, how does that make any sense? So that, again, I argue that's taught in med school by the pharmaceutical industry influence.

They don't want to teach a doctor. Your job is to do critical thinking and put two and two together. They're teaching doctors, your job is to stovepipe, this malady, and here's a treatment or a pill. So there's a reason, I believe, that the system is, the way it is.

Of all of the stories that you've done, I mean, you've sort of always been on the cutting edge. Is there one that stands out as the most shocking revelation? The vaccines and autism link and cover up. Yeah, that's one of the biggest stories of our time. And let me be clear, based on my research and my sources, I don't believe vaccines alone are the only cause of autism. I believe there is a combination of factors,

which makes it easy to, try to pretend it's not because genetics can come in play if your kid has a genetic predisposition and then gets challenged with vaccines in a way the child can't handle or if the child has other toxic exposures that are individual to the child or is just getting over an infection that's why they tell you don't get vaccinated if your kid has a cold they used to yeah i don't know if they don't say that i know so many people in fact a lot of people in the autism community said my kid had a running nose ear infection they gave him the vaccine anyway.

Well, so there's so many factors that can be in play, but one clearly established by medicine and even by court cases where the government has secretly paid these cases and tried to have them sealed so nobody would know. But vaccines can be a trigger. It's been acknowledged by top officials if you know how to ask the question, which I did with a top CDC immunization official. He didn't want to say vaccines cause autism and I said, well, can they trigger autism? which is one and the same to a parent perhaps,

but scientifically allows them some wiggle room. And he acknowledged that yes, and that somebody he said should study that. So I do think it's a factor, but the cover-up, the willful cover-up by people that I think most doctors trust and most parents' trust is pretty shocking. That's even maybe the bigger story.

I think so too. And I think once they seem to retreat into, I would say about five years ago, they really hit this. Autism's always been here. We're just diagnosing it better, which is why the increase is happening. So once that's your default position, you've run out of road on your lie. I mean, as Bobby Kennedy puts, where's the old, where the guy's my age with autism? Where are they? Forget about like any theoretical or hypothetical. Where are they? What building has one in 24, 75-year-old men with autism? Where are they? Yeah. You've got, there's nowhere to

go with that. And so, and to think the number as you've been reporting on this, let's see, if you start in this early 2000, so you were probably in the, what, one in 2,500 or? Yeah, it was alarming, but big compared to now one in 36 something, eight-year-olds. So one-and-36 eight-year-olds implies bigger as you get younger. They're only looking at the eight-year-olds and it's increasing. So what other thing can you think of? Well, now there's probably a few. But when autism exploded, was an epidemic that occurred in such a short time, a visible epidemic, that there's been no public health emergency declared over, that nobody has an action plan. And the best the medical establishment can say is, we don't know what's causing it,

but it can't be the one thing that's implicated. Yeah. The one thing that's eyewitnesses across the world pointing to it. It's really phenomenal. I mean, I agree. I think it's the biggest cover of people say, Del, just why don't you leave autism alone this? We've got COVID. and I have all these other issues, aluminum and things that we can talk about.

That kind of gets it sidelined. And I've said over and over again, I'm never letting that story go. It's what got me into this. I think it will go down as one of the greatest lies ever told. Journalism is behind it, governments behind it, farmers behind it, doctors are going to be implicated. And I think that we're getting very, very close to that reality finally coming through, especially with Stanley Plotkin, I think finally admitting after. We've had him under oath.

I think you've seen some of the videos Aaron, Siri, putting him under oath, but this incredible paper that he just put out, the funding post-authorization vaccine safety science. Progress in vaccine safety science has understandably been slow, often depending on epidemiologic evidence that is delayed or is inadequate to support causal conclusions and on an understanding of biological mechanisms

that's incomplete, which has adversely affected vaccine acceptance. It is critical to examine adverse events following immunization that have not been detected in clinical trials to ascertain, whether they causally are coincidentally related to vaccination, no duh. Currently in the United States, when the advisory committee on immunization practices recommends a new routine vaccine, the only automatic statutory resource allocations that follow are for vaccine procurement by vaccines for children, which you talk about. Is it billions of dollars?

Hundreds of millions, like $500 million spent on purchasing vaccines? Over time, billions. Yeah, billions. I mean, the government is the biggest purchaser. Yeah. and make sure that poor children particularly are vaccinated, vaccinated, vaccinated, vaccinated, vaccinated, early and often, and reaching out and basically marketing for the vaccine makers. And ultimately he ends up, you know, really saying that because they've done such a poor job

that they've never actually tested for safety prior to licensure, and maybe we should start doing that since so many people are becoming hesitant. It's an easy problem if somebody wanted the answer to the question. Yeah. If doctors were simply told by their medical associations or directed by the federal health agencies to start monitoring and reporting diligently for adverse events every time a child comes to the for the checkup, note what vaccines they had when, what's happening with the child, what the parents are reporting. You have a database with millions of data points that could be looked at for patterns that would answer these questions. It's already, it doesn't, it wouldn't even take a ton of money. So the whole idea that, oh, we have to set up this big system, that would be nice to do all of those things.

But it's within our grasp now if we wanted to do it. I went with Robert Kennedy, Jr., to the NIH meeting set up by Donald Trump. In your book, you say nothing ever came out of the Vaccine Safety Commission. That meeting actually did. I mean, it wasn't the whole deal, but President Trump at the time did say to Robert Kennedy, why don't you go bring all of your questions to NIH, and I'll have... someone from our administration, Reed Cordes, was sent over to sort of referee between us. Kennedy told me nothing came up. I think whatever came up was not what he hoped, but I didn't know they had that meeting.

Yeah, that meeting was, and it was super fascinating. They ended up admitting they had no placebo trials prior to licensure, which was amazing. And then the big question was, well, then, and they said it would be unethical. It would be unethical for us to do, you know, a double-blind placebo study, you know, and keep kids. from getting the vaccine and being a placebo group. But we said to your point, but you sit on the VSD, the vaccine safety data links, there's 10 million people in there. You have over tens of thousands of unvaccinated individuals

just do a comparative study. They do a survey every year, CDC. They call parents and they ask if they're vaccinating or not. And then they put out how many parents are vaccinated or not. In that phone call, they could ask the parents who have vaccinated the status of their kids. I mean, it'd be so easy to expand the survey they're already paying money to do. And I suspect, I keep suspecting, they know the answers to the questions, so they're not going to ask them.

Certainly the vaccine makers, they do all this stuff behind the scenes. They've done all the studies, believe me. The studies are not going to be published when they're negative, as I discuss in the book. That's a really important point, though, that you bring up there, that what people don't understand. Not to block you, but I'm glad you brought it up. In the book, you mentioned the fact that what people don't understand is the pharmaceuticals, industry will hire an outside university professor or group to do research on a product, on a drug or something, you know, as the sort of the independent research.

But in the contract it says if we don't like the outcome, we can keep it from being published. Absolutely. So this started in the early 2000s when there were negative outcomes for drugs and researchers used to publish either way because that's how science was. There's knowledge to be gained. Right. And then, you know, drugs were being pulled from the market. there was negative publicity, and the drug companies started tightening up their contracts

to keep researchers from reporting stuff if it wasn't positive or if it didn't come out right. So a big challenge in the early 2000s was a scientist research group at a university in California that an AIDS vaccine candidate was stopped because it was going to be futile. They could tell early on it wasn't going to help. And the researchers went to publish and were told by the vaccine maker, you can't. And it was unheard of at the time. This was sort of as things were changing. They published anyway with the data that they had.

And the journals at the time, which were less compromised, the medical journals, stood behind them and said, we have to stop the drug companies from calling the shots on science like this. Well, the company sued that top researcher for $7 million. This is to spank them and to let everybody in public know, if you're a researcher and you don't do what the sponsor wants, here's what can happen to you. Amazing. Ultimately, they dropped the lawsuit because they were so shamed by the uproar over it. But after that, these contracts have been so buttoned down.

The researchers have no control over the what happens. I mean, you talk about that, like that shame. They were shamed because people like you, we used to call them journalists, would shame them. Like, this is outrageous. This is public information. Sort of just to sort of wrap this up. And I want people to read the book because you have so many deep. that I think would be great for anyone that wants to hand to a friend that is maybe really

they're having trouble with the conversation because you approach it from such a great unbiased reporter's position just this is what I found and here's all the places I found it you just see this incredible pattern but the state of journalism today the fact that this COVID vaccine is being promoted and everyone in media the way the media jumped on you get into hydroxychloric and Ivermectin, making fun of people that have taken, Joe Rogans and things like that, even though you and I both know there's so much science showing that these are and would have been incredibly effective products, could have saved half a million people or more, but instead they were ridiculed. But now we have censorship. Now people, you know, you get some of your

reports get shut down online and others that never see the time of day because you've dealt with executive producers I have that- That clip that you showed with Congressman Massey, there's nothing to argue with. There's nothing factually incorrect in there. And that got banned on TikTok for community, violating community standards. There's nobody to appeal that to. It's just not going to be seen. Right, right. A lot of people think, oh, they're trying to keep us from getting misinformation, the fact is they're trying to keep you from getting real information. So they don't want a fair hearing. They don't want you to hear all sides because they believe you'll form the conclusion that's not in their best interest. Were you different than other

reporters around you? Is there something that you're just wired differently? Totally, wired differently. I like being on the outside. I like throwing jabs at the establishment myself. I would go down in the newsroom when I would hear this incredible group thing going on, which kind of always surprised. me at a network, everybody's thinking alike. And I would take an opposing view and just say something, not because I believed necessarily, but to start the conversation or make them realize, why are we all in agreement?

When I first came to CBS, and I didn't cover politics or care about politics until around 2016. When I first got hired at CBS, it was the year that Republicans took over Congress for the first time in a bazillion years. And I'm walking around the newsroom. I didn't even know there was an election. I was covering the overnight news.

And everybody's all depressed. I could just tell the air was thick and I said, what's wrong? And someone said to me, didn't you hear we lost the election? And I'm like, we, we, what election? And then I realized they meant we as Democrats lost this congressional election. And I was like, wow. So that just really became sort of a pulse point for me to understand how newsrooms are, but you're going to find the better stories.

Sometimes the group think covers something accurately, and there are a lot of great reporters at CBS, and I had great bosses. But a lot of times you're going to go down the wrong road, and because of the group think, not open your mind to the facts that may prove accurate or at least worthy of considering, and I've thought long and hard about how that's a big part of my job.

I'm sure I didn't do it well when I was 22 years old. I hope I do it very well today, because I put so much thought into it. I think it's important. When we watch the news right now, I mean, some of these people, you know, you would arguably be probably a news anchor at this point with the way your career had been on a trajectory before you did too many probably controversial stories as you seem to be addicted to. But like when we watch Rachel Maddow, you know, talk about ivermectin or say things like this vaccine that's going to stop with you, the infection stops with you. Does a person like that have any thought once the vaccine stops working or a concern like,

oh my God, I didn't give correct information or I was even used as a pawn or like what? I guess not. I mean, in the cases where that's happened, like with doctors, some of them have broken away and spoken out and stood up. But for commentators whose purpose is, I think today may be more entertainment. and distributing narratives. So if you understand news today, to be about, it's been so wholly taken over by special interests, even inside the newsroom,

not just being influenced from outside. It explains why when they get something wrong, they're not sorry, because they were happy, whoever's pulling the strings, that the false narrative got out there, because that was the goal. That's why Maggie Haberman was promoted to the New York Times from Politico,

even after being shamed for the biased reporting that she was doing. I mean, there's many examples. What they want is the biased reporting now because the industry has changed. So I'm not sure they feel shamed or do that critical thinking exercise. They're being patted on the back

when they have those programs that say these things or when they report these stories, even if they're wrong, their bosses and their colleagues and the awards are being given for this kind of reporting. So they're perfectly happy unless you're like me and like you.

They're perfectly happy to do that. So then do they just, see it as a sales job, then I have a sales job and I'm good at it. I sell what I'm told, I have to sell it to the public. I think a lot of people have an incredible ability to rationalize what they think is good for them in a way that they may tell themselves this other talk is dangerous and they may believe it. They're not informing themselves. They're not opening their minds to the facts that are contrary to what their bosses want them to conclude or what they would like to believe. If we have a bad person out there, they must be censored and therefore

or there's a time and place where First Amendment, we really have this question now, well, First Amendment has to be controlled by the government, I think. The fact we're even discussing that the press is cheering on censorship in some cases, or debating the terms of which censorship is okay. We're debating the fine points

when the whole discussion is unconstitutional, in my view. I agree. Do you fear that we could lose our First Amendment rights? I mean, certainly they were, temporarily sidelined through COVID. Absolutely. Absolutely. What's happened with the press failing to be the watchdog on these issues, at least we used to say,

well, if corporations have to make money and that's their job, I get that. And if Congress is compromised and doesn't do their job and overseeing them, at least the media is there to be sort of an equalizer and hold the feet to the fire of the political figures. We're not doing that now. So who's left in the equation that's there to unearth the corruption and make sure these things don't happen? I like to say the truth finds a way to be told. It may take time. I think these little veins of truth are finding ways to be told, whether it's substack or podcasts or alternate programs. Do you think that's really the future now?

Well, I don't know what it will end up being. We're in a transition now. But at least people are finding ways to get around the big tech censorship and the new. news media. It's becoming something else. News will become something else. I don't know what the end result will be, but there's a search, you know, like I say, with substack. That's not the end all. But that is an example of how people are looking for and finding alternate ways to get truth and facts and accurate, other alternate viewpoints even out to the public. That's amazing. Well, Cheryl, I want to thank you for joining me today. And thank you for really taking the time to write this

incredible book for everyone out there. Shill Atkinson, follow the science. I'm serious. I know I've had a lot of great books on here because I get the best of the best in the world to come and talk. But this book, for anyone that has a friend that's like really sort of pushing back, but you can sense, I mean, I've said before, don't waste your time with someone that's already poured the concrete around their feet jumped in the water. They're going, they're totally bought in. But for anyone that's questioning, this book is so great. you see her journey through all of the different stories, drugs that will remember, Vioxx and things like that, like, oh, yeah, I remember that.

And she lays out how she did that story. You remember seeing that story. And then you slowly watch how you see this pattern through so many different parts of journalism and the corruption in government and the pharmaceutical industry. It's so beautifully laid out. You want this book. You want to get everyone you know. And by the way, where are you at New York Times?

You're bestseller now? Well, we would be number nine our first week if they were going to list us, but we did make the other list. New York Times doesn't have to. First two books they listed, this one and the last one, which discussed the New York Times. I don't think we're going to see on the list. Isn't that amazing? So they don't let you on the list. So why don't we do this?

Why don't you help me make this number one? And they can go ahead and deal with the fact that they won't put it on the list. We don't need New York Times anymore. Let's make that happen really a great book. Anywhere where books are bound, I imagine. Absolutely. Cheryl, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks for what you do.

You bet. All right, well, as you know, we have added some programming for those of you that sponsor this program and make it happen. I actually have a very important conversation I want to have with Cheryl after on our show off the record. She actually had information in this whole chapter on Vaxed. I made that film. I was in the middle of getting kicked out of Tribeca Film Festival, but she was having conversations with Robert De Niro I knew nothing about and opportunities that I didn't know I had and got lost. to get in deep of that with Off the Record. We want to know what that's all about. Take a look at this.

And I'll see you next week. And that's the wrap. The viewers have spoken and we have listened. I'm Dell Big Tree and it's time to go off the record. This is what we couldn't talk about on the Highland. With a brand new show exclusively for our donors. I actually want to dive into a very sensitive topic. Guess we're getting right into it.

More personal questions. I'd like to bring up probably one of the most heated conversations if you don't mind that we had a germ or terrain theory. What the hell is this really about? To get the answers you won't find anywhere else. One last question. White privilege. Telling the truth that they don't want you to hear. We're pissing nature off.

Is anyone telling me the truth? No doctor wants to say that they're killing people. Yeah, but doesn't every doctor want to stop killing people? You have no freedom. You have no liberty. You're a slave. It's grotesque. It's nonsense. All of that's BS.

This guy came up to me in a suit, and he said, I'm with the CIA. You're being followed. Watch what happens when we go off the record. You are not going to want to miss this. Well, I really want to thank Cheryl Adkison just for being such an incredible pioneer and a light in journalism. And it really, you know, it's important to note that, as she said, there are great people at CBS. I know there are. I have two of them working right here. I had to drag one that was working up until a few months ago to work with me. He was doing great work. So they're there, but it's such an oppressive system that you're just leaking out information where you can. You can't do a big breaking story. You can't go on to the big third rails because you get away with like once.

It's sort of like fool me once. Right, Dell, let's not do that again. If you do it again, then you're really in heat and you start having all sorts of problems. So there's so many journalists out there. I am sure that are probably jealous. Like, I don't know how you do it. Del, you know, it's great that you get to talk about whatever you want. I wish I could do that. But, you know, there's a whole alternate universe now, alternate media that's happening

where, you know, really great journalists, Glenn Greenwald, one of them and others like them, Tucker Carlson, that are getting deeper into conversations that they could never do in mainstream news. what I really worry about is where, you know, when you think about the pharmaceutical industry owning the education system, I think it's affecting journalism, too. Journalists aren't being raised to ask the hard questions. I think they just see themselves as a part of a sales job now, which is really unfortunate. But, you know, there's always hope.

We've had a really great week, you know, and I just want sometimes we can get really intense about all that is wrong in the world, but let's look at what all is right. We still have a court system here in the United States of America that when you bring facts to trial and you pointed out how ridiculous a vaccine mandate is, you start seeing the judges say that's ridiculous. I'm going to keep, you know, having you lose case by case. And then, you know, by the way, down the road, this lawyer is about to depose all of your board members who are top pharma pseudical shills. Do they really want to go through that? So it's happening. We have a system here in the United States of America that's still working.

But we have work to do, you know. And I think one of the things I was just, you know, speaking the other day, a lot of people are coming up to me, you know, and saying, you know, what is it that I can do? You know, what is it that I can do? The truth is that I've said it before. We're all here for a reason. Every one of us has a different talent to bring to the table.

But this idea of free speech, it truly is, I think, the most important issue of this time. of an election in America, whether you're looking at state officials or even school boards, you know, are we allowed to speak our truth in a school board meeting? Can, do we have a voice? One of the things that I've been talking about, we're seeing the censorship over in Europe, you're seeing the censorship in other countries, you're seeing our own country and officials supporting that censorship and shutting X down and platforms in which we can freely communicate. But one of the things that really occurred to me is it's not just my problem, right? It's not just because I'm a journalist, I don't have free speech.

You have a problem. We all have a problem. And the truth is, is we are all the problem if we're not exercising our rights. This is what I just want to think about. Cheryl Atkinson, you know, exercises her right to free speech as a passion in her daily life. But are you doing that? You know, are we all doing our part to actually represent ourselves as Americans? I mean, what good is a right if you don't ever use it?

especially your right to free speech. Are you really sharing what you think with the people around you? Are you so afraid now that somehow speaking your truth will cause some form of unrest and not able to get around and say, whoa, whoa, whoa, hey, I'm not trying to have an argument here. Tell me your perspective. I'm curious. I'm going to stop talking here. I'd love to hear your ideas.

Why don't we try going back to back and forth? I'll say some thoughts, how I'm seeing it, maybe bring up a book I've read, see if you want to read it, and you do the same. You see, what is going to allow the takeover of our freedoms is not just a bad vote. It's stopping using our freedoms. In fact, for many of us, through COVID and up until this point, we're letting our right to free speech atrophy inside of us. We are self-censoring ourselves around the people that we work with, around the people that we love. and slowly but surely it's shrinking and it's shriveling and it's dying. We'd say, oh, that government took it from me or that person that got a let, I can't believe it.

No, really, you never, you weren't using it. And it died on the vine. So I really want you to look at yourself this week. As you go out, you don't have to be a journalist, but the most important tool for communication and truth is our day-to-day conversation. Reaches far more people. The grassroots movement of speech is what will save the United States. United States of America long before any politician or any reporter, any Cheryl Atkinson ever will. It's when you see a story and you talk about it with your friends. It is the oral language, the

history of speech. Ask yourself this week, if you catch yourself holding back, ask yourself why. Is this freedom? Am I living a free life? Am I holding things in? Am I holding back my truth? because if you are, then you are already giving up the right, the most important one the United States of America offers us. So think about it this week. Look how many times you do it. I'm not saying in every situation, don't rush in all the time. But there are moments to say, you know what? Actually, I should probably speak my mind right here. I think it's the right thing to do. Do that. We'll keep doing our research. Go out, get this book. It's more than just, I mean, it's really such a fun read. and it'll blow your mind how many things have gone wrong, how little you can trust in the medical system,

especially journalism. Best to Cheryl Agneson. I hope she hits number one this week. Love all of you. I'll see you next week on the high wire.