The Highwire with Del Bigtree - Episode 396: RIPPLE EFFECT

Episode Date: November 1, 2024

Jefferey Jaxen Guest Hosts! First, the continued demise of legacy media and the rise of new media delivering the truth; Jefferey reports on a massive Alzheimer’s fraud, and is the UK going to mandate weight loss injections?; Fluoride Win Attorney Walks through Video Depositions and Evidence Exposing Fluoridation as one of the most damaging public policies in American History.Guest: Michael Connett, Esq.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

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

Yeah. Action. Good morning. Good afternoon. Good evening. Wherever you are in the world, it's time to step out on the high wire. Ladies and gentlemen, we're live. It's Thursday, October 31st, and that means it's Halloween.

And no, this isn't Del Bigtree dressed up as Jeffrey Jackson for Halloween. This is actually Jeffrey. I'm here. I'm here in the studio. And Dell's out on the road right now. He's obviously not here. Some of you guys may have even seen him out on the road. He's a little busy. But I'm so happy to be here right now and very excited for this show I have for you. One of the things I want to talk about, though, in all seriousness, is we have less than one week till the 2024 presidential election here in the United States. So it's a really big deal. If you're not in America right now, I can tell you the air is electric. I don't think anybody really knows where we're going to go in less than a week, but it is a crazy time here. There's excitement, there's trepidation, but there's hope.

So one of the things I really want to talk about, though, with this presidential election that's coming is there's a framing around it that no other presidential election has ever had in our lifetimes. And what am I mean by that? That is the corporate media's downfall of their narrative control. They no longer have it. It's over. And so people are thinking for themselves. And we can actually track this through the headlines. In 2021, the middle of the pandemic, we see this headline here.

Media trust hits new low. I know a lot of people celebrated for that, except people working in that industry. And you can see here, how low did it go? This chart, 46% percentage of Americans who trusted traditional media. That's less than a coin toss. You're less than 50% of the people. So you're losing the public at that point. And actually, that started.

I've been a journalist, independent journalist, since 2014, in this media space. And with the high wire since 2017, doing weekly reports every week since 2017, nearly. And I can tell you in that space that around 2015, 2016, journalism went from reporting the truth, really respecting free speech to a threat to democracy, a vehicle for spewing hate and conspiracy theories. And there was an attack on it. And the corporate media, rather than defend their own profession, actually jumped in on the attack. So I really do think that was part of it.

But now let's go through the headlines. So after the pandemic is coming to an end and people are going back to normal. And the corporate media is probably saying, boy, I hope our audience comes back. Maybe we can have some integrity. Nope. 2023, America's trust in media plummets to historic low. How low are we talking? Well, 32%.

That's the share who said they have a. a great deal or a fair amount of trust in mass media. Well, things I'm here to report are getting worse for mass corporate media. And this is the headline just this month here in October. Media Trust hits another historic low. And it says here, this is a Gallup survey. By the numbers, as of this year, only 31% of Americans say they have a great deal or a fair amount of trust in the mass media down from 32% last year, which tied the record low set

In 2016, at the same time, the percentage of Americans who say they have not very much trust in the media has risen from 27% in 2020 to 33% in 2024. And for historical perspective, prior to 2004, more than half of the American population consistently said they trusted the media. So people are trusting them less, and they're actually not liking them more. It's really bad for that industry. And as you've seen, I want to go through really just how historic this moment is in that context. Because as the corporate media has lost trust, no one in that industry publicly or, I don't know, maybe behind closed doors really did any self-reflection and said, why don't people trust us anymore? Maybe we should change our programming, switch things up a little bit. It seems like we're losing viewership.

They didn't do that. In fact, they did something that was a monumental mistake. they actually attacked kind of one-to-one. They attacked the people who their audiences were going to. And did they attack them with fact-based smears? No. They basically just call them conspiracy theorists and far-right propagandists and people that are spewing hate online.

Well, that didn't work because the people, what they're missing, what corporate media was missing was the entire paradigm shift that they were a part of. They're on the back end of it, obviously. But you have people now from all walks of life that are researchers, that are becoming writers in journalists and citizen journalists, and they're going out and they're creatively making their own media. And in doing that, the audience is actually having a bigger container to hold complex ideas.

They're not being spoken to. They're actually a part of this process. They're doing their own research. and they're not falling for these sound bites anymore. They're sitting through long format conversations and loving it. And in doing that, the world change. Now, you know, what's interesting about the attacks by corporate media is they kind of backed off a little bit and stopped calling their competitors names.

And you saw these organizations pop up, like the Center for Countering Digital Hate. And they're these shadowy organizations that popped up. And they started attacking those same media outlets like Joe Rogan and Russell Brand and Alex Jones and even us, strangely enough. And they started attacking us and trying to really shut the programming down. And famously, they had the dirty dozen. These were the vaccine misinformation spreaders. And they put out this gigantic report. And it was strangely picked up by corporate media outlets like Forbes and the Guardian and Independent. This is Forbes in 2021. Deplatform, the disinformation, the disinformation, doesn't. And everyone picked up this report by the Center for Countering Digital

hate, but unfortunately in August of 2024, they all had to issue a retraction because the report had some inaccuracies to it. Here's the retraction. Update, August 2024. In August 2021, Facebook meta issued a press release that argued that the disinformation doesn't

accounted for a much smaller fraction of vaccine misinformation that was claimed by the Center for Countering Digital Hate. So what does that mean? Well, this Center for Countering Digital Hate said, it's just these 12 people. If we can just stop them, if we can just shut their voice down, we'll stop. all vaccine disinformation. Well, it turns out that there was a lot bigger portion of the world

that was questioning vaccine safety than just those 12 people, as we all knew. But as it turns out, some journalists got a hold of some internal documents from CCDH and just published those. And it's looking from bad to worse for CCDH. So remember, that organization, Morgan McSweeney, Imran, Ahmed. These are British political operatives running an organization trying to shut down American media outlets, which is kind of strange. But let's look at these internal documents they received. So these are their meeting minutes. Their monthly meeting minutes. And you can see here at the top of their annual priorities, kill Musk's Twitter. So it says also down there, U.S. policy engagement, set up meeting with Klobuchar's team. Why would CCDH be setting up meetings?

with a senator in America's team. I thought they were trying to counter hate. Kill must Twitter seems pretty hateful to me. But hey, maybe someone writing that agenda just had an off day and maybe they were just mad at Elon Musk. Let's look back at some of the other agenda meeting notes that they had from this year. January 8th, kill must Twitter.

They really seem to not like them. Here's March 5th, 2024. Oops, kill must Twitter. Must kill must Twitter. And then here from this month, kill must Twitter. And that's what we're looking for. So there's your center for countering digital hate, a very loving, flowery organization that's trying to kill us Twitter. Well, it seems not to be working, and that's where we're at right now. So I want to shift gear just for a second because

we have a great show today. We have Michael Connett, attorney Michael Connett, lawyer, who just came off a historic win against the EPA to take fluoride out of the water. He has joined forces with Aaron Siri at Siri Glimbstat and now Connett to have kind of a dream team superhero organization of lawyers that's out there really trying to protect us. But first, I want to go to a part of the show that some people have told me is their favorite part. The Jackson Report. How you doing? I'm Jeffrey Jackson. So what I want to talk about with corporate media is the people in operating in corporate media, the anchors, the leads in those operations, a lot of them saw the writing on the wall. They saw what was.

coming. They saw the viewership plummeting to less than a coin toss and then 31%. And they made changes. So I want to talk about Megan Kelly for a second. Megan Kelly was with NBC News, Fox, lead anchor. And in 2017, she sat down to do, you know, as the history shows, a hit piece on conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and really trying to catch him in a gotcha moment. Well, that didn't work too well. It backfired a little bit. And here's the headline, one of them at the time. that was created from that. NBC is under pressure to pull Megan Kelly's controversial Alex Jones interview. It backfired on her because Alex Jones actually released all their phone calls leading up to the interview and all the raw tapes before Megan Kelly could release her interview. But Megan Kelly did something interesting. She left NBC just a couple of years later. She started

her own organization that she owns. She has editorial control. The Megan Kelly show, it's an independent organization, independent media. And it's interesting because she's doing some really great reporting. And on one of the topics that we've been reporting on for quite some time, she encapsulated it perfectly in just over a minute. Take a listen. Almost equally important. Maybe as important is what we're doing to our children with this trans insanity. I mean, this is almost my single issue. We are chopping off the healthy body parts of young children without 100 percent. We are doing that. Well, we are definitely doing that. Without any inquisition into what's happening. I don't know what the owing is about. I don't. I don't. I don't. I don't. I

I don't either. Pay attention. I'm about to give you a truth bomb. Kids who are suffering from bullying or who have been sexually assaulted or who are going through normal puberty and feel uncomfortable in their bodies will say to their parents, I'm not sure. Maybe I'm gender confused. They will send them into a psychiatrist or psychologist who are told by our organizations, the American Psychiatry Association and all the others that run their licensing. You must affirm. Affirm is the only standard. And so the child gets told, you're right, you are secretly a boy or vice versa. And the child gets told, you're right, you are secretly a boy or vice versa. And the child. And the child. child gets put on puberty blockers into cross-sex hormones, which sterilize a child and deprive the child of any chance of sexual pleasure for the rest of his or her life. We're talking about nine, ten, eleven-year-olds who cannot give informed consent. Then they have body parts chopped off by a medical establishment and by parents who mean well but believe in these doctors and they shouldn't. And when they inevitably get past the awkwardness of puberty or what have you and they want to turn around and detransition, those who love bomb them on Reddit saying, come on in, the water's fine, abandon them. They are depressed. They have changed

their bodies forever in a way that is irreversible. And we are all sitting back saying it's a remote issue. This remote issue is something we've covered on the show quite a bit. And let's pick up that story with the Cass report. This is Dr. Hillary Cass. She's a well-respected pediatrician in the UK. And she was tasked to do a report to look at all of the science that underpins hormone blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgery for children. And she found that the science wasn't quite there. So the NHS backed off all of this, and so did a lot of other countries. They'd already backed off a lot of the Nordic countries at that time.

But the United States has been an outlier pushing full steam ahead for transitioning children. And so here in the U.S., I guess we're waiting for the science to be done, but we're going to have to wait a little longer. Because here in the New York Times, U.S. study on puberty blockers goes unpublished, of politics, doctor says. The leader of the long-running study said that the drugs did not improve mental health and children with gender distress and that the finding might be weaponized by opponents of the care. So what are we talking about? Puberty blockers. They looked at almost 100 kids. They followed these kids for nine years. There's almost $10 million put into this study. Some of that by the NIH, which means our taxpayer dollars are being funded in a study that

won't be released because of politics. I thought it was about the science. But that's not the case. So I don't know when this study is going to come out, but it's not coming out right now. But what is coming right now is independent organizations are taking the ball and really exposing an industry that is unscientific, but makes a lot of money on the backs of these children by doing these surgeries and putting these kids on cross-puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones. And here's one of the headlines that came out just recently. Over 5,700 American children had trans surgery before 2019 and 23 medical grief. claims treated like guinea pigs. And it goes on to say researchers were able to identify a total of 13,994 minors across the United States who received medical treatment for gender dysphoria

over the course of four years. Shockingly, over 5,700 of those kids were operated on. And there's a group started by concerned citizens called Stop the Harm. They have a website here. You can go and check out any of your states. And when you click on there, you don't look at policy to see where it's legal. They're actually looking at how much money is being made. And Stop the Harm has their own dirty dozen list. And that lists consist of the hospitals that are the worst offending children's hospitals in promoting sex change treatments for minors.

Number one, the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Chop. Very interesting. And then Connecticut, we have Minnesota, Seattle, Boston's Children's Hospital. down there at number six. But now let's go to how much money people are making. These are the top billing providers, which means the individual doctors. So let's look at number one, some random doctor, probably driving a really nice car in Massachusetts, Boston Children's Hospital, is making over $5 million by doing this type of work, I guess you want to call it. Another doctor at Mount Sinai, Beth Israel, over $4,500,000. And it goes on and on. Multi-million

So this is what we're looking at here. To talk about this being a cottage industry is saying that lightly. So we need to keep hitting on this because it's not about the children. It's not about their mental health. It's about an industry enriching what can only be called a hospital or medical industrial complex. And that is what's happening. Doctors are getting very rich off this. And they have an incentive to keep this conversation going. And I know this is a hot button topic for this. presidential election coming up. But we're keeping an eye on this because this is about the health and well-being of the kids. And when you do this type of surgery, as Megan Kelly put it, very bluntly, these kids don't come back. Their fertility often does not come back. These surgeries, the long-term effects of these surgeries is not known. And when they say guinea pigs, they truly mean that.

This is what the experts in this field are saying. And this is why a lot of other countries have backed off on this. So I want to switch gears now into another story. This is Alzheimer's. And when people hear about the word Alzheimer's, it's pretty scary, as it should be. This is a devastating neurological disease. And it's right up there, I think if you ask anybody with cancer, these are the two things that no one wants to hear their loved one diagnosed with.

And for people out there watching, you may think if you're younger, well, this is about older people. So I can tune out now, I'll catch the next segment. Not really, unfortunately. Here's one of the recent headlines. More Americans are being diagnosed with early onset Alzheimer's. How early? It says here, in the past few years, there have been a 200% increase in the numbers of Americans

diagnosed in their 50s, 40s, and even in their 30s. And this is shocking. One of the things that has happened just over this past summer is there's this idea of what Alzheimer's is. The medical community tested a hypothesis, did some studies, and they said, We found it. We found what causes Alzheimer's, and now it's time to build the pharmaceutical drugs to defeat this crippling disease, and we will win, just like we won against polio, just like we won against all these other diseases. One problem, though, we have medical sleuths

using new imaging technology, went back to the papers, the founding papers of the Alzheimer's theory, the dominant Alzheimer's theory, of these amyloid beta plaques, these proteins, these misfolded proteins in the brains of people with Alzheimer's, they're saying that that is where the science pointed. They said people have these, and we need to get these misfolded proteins out of their brains, therefore curing Alzheimer's. 2006 was the paper, and it's been reviewed now, and we have this.

We have researchers, a neuroscience image sleuth, find signs of fabrication in scores of Alzheimer's articles threatening a reigning theory of the disease. And this was the 2006 paper. They had these blots on a field. This is exactly what they are. And these blots are pictures of these misfolded protein bands. They found them in rats.

And they said, well, this must be it, because they're misfolding in the brain. This is the beta amyloid protein. And when it folds, it disrupts the synapse. It disrupts the communication in the brain. And we found it in rats. And we have these images. You can't deny these images. But then when these sleuths looked at these images,

They said, wait a minute, these images look like they're fabricated. What's going on here? And so those papers, that paper is being retracted. What I mean by that? This is the headline right here. This is just in 24 here, the recent one. Researchers plan to retract landmark Alzheimer's paper containing doctored images. It goes on to say, the study has been cited nearly 2,500 times and would be the second most cited

paper ever to be retracted. according to Retraction Watch. This is huge. Have you ever played Djanga, where you pull out the block from the bottom and everything falls? The block from the bottom of Alzheimer's research, what we know about Alzheimer's, just was pulled out. Did you know about that? Did the corporate media tell you about that? We have no idea what Alzheimer's is, but we have a large grouping of drugs that are pointed at Alzheimer's

to look at these amyloid beta plaques and get those. out of the brain. Alzheimer shrinks the brain. Just turns out that these drugs focusing on those plaques also shrink the brain. No one ever talked about that. But it's interesting because let's go to the next layer in this in this Djanga analogy. So the bottom layer just was pulled out. The next layer of research goes on and looks like this. This is science.org again. And they've been doing a lot of great work on this, on this organization. Picture imperfect. This was just last month, 24. And it looks at Eliza Mislaia. He is a former head of the U.S. National Institute on Aging's Division of Neuroscience. And they chose this guy because of his extensive body of work with

neuroscience. He's published an enormous amount of scientific literature on several of the subjects relating to neuroscience and Alzheimer specifically. So what did they find? This is kind of the next guy up on the ladder, right? This is the underpinning of this theory. Let's let's They say in 2016, when the U.S. Congress unleashed a flood of new funding for Alzheimer's disease research, the National Institute on Aging tapped veteran brain researcher, Eliza Mislaia, as a key leader for the effort. He took the helm at the agency's Division of Neuroscience, whose budget $2.6 billion in the last fiscal year dwarfs the rest of NIA combined. Think about that. National Institute on Aging, what are they researching? Are they researching what exercise does to the brain? Are they researching what going on a walk with your children in the woods does the health of your brain?

No, 2.6 billion towards drug development. That's how they stop you from aging, apparently. Let's go on this article and continue. As a leading federal ambassador to the research community and a chief advisor to NIA, director Richard Hodes, Maslaia would gain tremendous influence over the study and treatment of neurological conditions in the United States and beyond. It goes further. because after science brought initial concerns about Ms. Lai's work to their attention, and neuroscientists in forensic analysis specializing in scientific work,

who had previously worked with science, produced a 300-page dossier, revealing a steady stream of suspect images between 1997 and 2003 and 132 of his published research papers. Think about that. So it goes on to say even further, 132 of his research papers. Not one, not two. 132 are under suspicion now for this gentleman that is at the head of this agency wielding billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars trying to find a cure for Alzheimer's. Seems like it might be a little bit of a problem. Well, it goes further now because they talk about other neuroscientists here.

The dossier challenges far more studies than the two cited in NIH's statement, including many of that underpin the development testing of experimental drugs. It goes on to say, the enormity of apparent problem described in Maslaas Dacia stunned 11 neuroscientists who agreed to review it for science. Breatthaking, says neuroscientist Christian Haas of the Lugwood Maximilian University of Munich. People will, of course, be shocked as I was. I was falling from a chair, basically. And here's another guy. He says, I'm floored, said Samuel Gandhi, a prominent neurologist at the Mount Sinai Alzheimer's Disease Research Center, who is visibly shaken during a video interview.

hundreds of images. There had to have been ongoing manipulation for years. Let's look at Maslayas' actual body of work here. So when other papers are cited, that's a big deal. And he has some of the king of cited papers in the Alzheimer's area. Look at nerve generation, world rank, world rank citation tally, two and six, looking at amyloid, looking at the neuropathology, mouse models. These papers are some of the top cited papers by this guy. And they are now in the United States. question, 132 images of paper, 132 papers are in question. And why is this a big deal? So we have this idea that all these drug companies are developing drugs for it to get this amyloid beta out of the brain. This is now in question. But we don't hear any of this. Did you hear this on corporate media?

Did they sound the alarm on this? No, they didn't. In fact, all we get as the public are these grandstanding news reports of new drugs that are going to save the world like they. this. The new medication is offering hope. All eyes right now on this new drug. Tonight, there's a new weapon in the fight against Alzheimer's disease. The first new FDA approved Alzheimer's drug in almost two decades. It's the first drug for Alzheimer's approved in nearly two decades. The FDA saying it is urgently needed to treat the devastating disease affecting more than six million Americans. The drug is a monoclonal antibody. It's called adycanumab, or or Agahelm, and it's designed to remove the clumps of beta amyloid proteins that accumulate

in the brains of people with Alzheimer's. This treatment ushers in a new era in Alzheimer's treatments, going beyond just that symptom treatment to underlying biology. It has been granted conditional approval by the FDA after an accelerated approval process. The FDA granted approval with the agreement that biogen would conduct a new large clinical trial. The drug, of course, will be available to patients in the meantime, but if the trial fails to show that it actually improves symptoms, the FDA could rescind its approval. So the new drug that the FDA approved in June targets amyloid plaques very effectively. Unfortunately,

the drug doesn't seem to have any clear effect on the progression of Alzheimer's disease. In order for a drug to be approved by the FDA, it has to show substantial evidence that the drug actually does work. It's a major, major breakthrough. that has taken us from drugs that only deal with the symptoms to a drug that now can deal with one of the root causes of the disease. Possibly. Possibly. So interesting with that, and if you're watching,

this is where media literacy actually comes in. If you're watching those, or if you watch them originally in 2021 and 2023 when they approve these, you can see these drugs do a really good job in targeting this amyloid plaque, but it doesn't do much. There's Adja Helm, that was the first one in 2021, and La Quimby in 2023 were approved. Oh, my God, the first ones in two decades were going to save the world.

Well, what's interesting is in 2021, after they approved these for these fast track, three members of the FDA, three experts, resigned from an FDA committee over Alzheimer's drug approval. Think about how bad. What the heck did they see that made them jump ship? Remember during COVID when ASIP and the Verbat committee at the FDA was just, just rubber stamping, 12, 13 to zero, unanimous decisions to give COVID vaccines to infants and children, very, very low, minuscule risk of COVID, but give them the vaccine, it's experimental,

let's just get it out there. No one had a peep to say about that, but these drugs, three people quit the committee, come on. So what did they see? Well, a new study was just published looking at the adverse event reporting system for these type of drugs, and maybe they saw this. This is Laquimbi and Adjahelm, those two drugs. The excess mortality in Alzheimer's patients on anti-amilobata monoclonal antibodies. What did they conclude? Are you ready? Conclusion. These findings suggest a three-to-four-fold increase in mortality risk. It's going to kill you. These drugs will kill you three to four times faster than compared to untreated Alzheimer's disease population and a two-to-three-fold increase compared to the treated population in the clinical trials.

If you're not falling off your chair on this, you should be. And let's talk about those clinical trials for a second, because remember, this was the focus. These plaques in the brain, all pharmaceutical companies go. There is a product line you can make and there's market share to be had. The science supports it. Start developing drugs. And what happened was this mad rush. And in that mad rush, informed consent was skipped over.

The New York Times has just done a research. report. It's actually one of the authors is a Pulitzer Prize winning journalists, and it's, you got to give the hats off to when they write an actual good story. This was one of them. What drug makers did not tell volunteers in the Alzheimer's trial, and even they are saying it just nakedly, this is what they write. Lequimbi and Kasunla, this was the other drug now. It's in 2024. It was approved. Seek to remove a misshapen protein called beta amyloid that forms plaques in the brains of patients with Alzheimer's. To a large extent, the drugs have succeeded, kind of a remarkable scientific achievement.

Then it goes on to say this. It just lays it out there. Yet the drugs do not halt cognitive decline or reverse brain damage. La Quimby slows the decline for roughly five months, while Kassunla achieves a slightly longer delay. The evidence of their limited benefit is contributed to a growing realization that the dominant theory of Alzheimer's that sticky bands of amyloid trigger a cascade of toxic events leading to the disease is at best incomplete and perhaps simply wrong.

So what they did in these clinical trials, these drug manufacturers, is there is a genetic variant called APOE4, and if you test for that, this genetic variant that people have puts them at an extreme greater risk for developing Alzheimer's disease. And so these drug manufacturers really wanted people with that genetic variant in these trials and test this drug on. Well, it just so happens, it's widely known that if you have that genetic variant and you take these amyloid eliminating drugs you're at a huge risk for brain bleeds, microclots, and death. That's well known in the literature. So when the people signed onto these trials,

and you can read all about this in the New York Times story, it chronicles it in breathtaking, shocking, and sad detail. They signed onto these trials, and the informed consent said, we're going to genetically test you, but we're not going to tell you your own results for the test, because that might screw up the trials. So people walked in with these genetic variants and took the drug, we put them at greater risk. And some of them had a really hard time, some of them died.

And we don't know what happened to the rest of them because the drug companies won't release the raw data. But that's what these drug companies were doing. So you can see at every level, you know, even if government officials have the right intention, even if a president has the right intention to say, we're going to defeat Alzheimer's, we're going to defeat cancer. Underneath them, the capture regulatory agencies, the scientific, The scientific fraud, the issues with the peer review process is a handicap at every level trying to get to the truth. And so here we are. We have no idea what Alzheimer's really is. The deck has been reshuffled and we're starting from square one again.

So vitamins, minerals, physical activity, these don't have public relations departments, but we know physical activity and exercise has a great impact on the reduction of leading to Alzheimer's. This is obvious. What else? Well, heavy drinking leads to Alzheimer's progression. And what else? Well, we have a doctor, Chris Exley, who's been on this show before. He's the world's leading researcher in aluminum. And he said at the time in 2017, looking at the brains of Alzheimer's patients, no aluminum,

no Alzheimer's disease. This is what he said. came to a very strong conclusion that there was a, you know, strong connection between aluminum and... Well, I came to the conclusion that no aluminum, no Alzheimer's. No aluminum, no Alzheimer's. Wow. For that, for being this first mover, this really novel idea for being outside the box, he lost his lab, he's sitting on the sidelines as we speak right now,

wanting to get back into this fight. And this is his time. He should be there. People in the U.S. government, people in the National Institute of Aging should have brought him on in 2016 when the funding was there, but there's still hope he's still here and he's ready to go. So let's bring on some people that can really do some good work. Now, one of the things obviously we're doing on this show is we're deconstructing behind the headlines of these drugs because you're not going to see them. But unfortunately, it takes 10, sometimes 20 years, to learn about the harms of these drugs, to learn about the ineffectiveness of these drugs, and by then, it's already too late for a lot of people. Well, we have that opportunity right now with a new drug class,

and what am I talking about? These are the injectable weight loss drugs, the semi-glutides. You may know them by the names, Ozympic, Wagovi. Well, when you start seeing, we're in phase one right now of this, and the phase one is they can do no wrong, public relations, push multi-million dollars and this is what it looks like. And notice the words here. We're going to do a little educational session. OZIPIC is a game changer. Remember that word.

Here's how it works. Game changer. Let's see. It's such a game changer because this used to be a drug for diabetics, but then they use it off label and they found it can help people lose weight, so it shifted to a weight loss drug. It's such a game changer that people with diabetes that need insulin, diabetes patients worry about insulin shortages.

as ozimic use skyrockets because they're going to have to really rely on that at that point. But I seem to remember another game-changing drug. Just recently, we were told it was going to change the world. Oh, yeah, the COVID vaccine. COVID vaccine could be a drug industry game changer. 2020, there's Barron's. And so there's a couple other words here. Sometimes they go out of the analytical game changer,

and they go right to the supernatural. They say it's a miracle. It's coming down from on high to save the world. And this is what they're talking about with this New York Times opinion piece. This is what a miracle drug looks like. And it costs only $5 to make. This is Ozimic. Well, again, miracle.

I feel like we've been down this row before. What was a miracle? Oh, yeah, SSRIs, antidepressants. Antidepressants, once seen as a miracle drug, now risks are becoming evident. And this is what happens in the second phase. Uh-oh, once it was a miracle and game changer, Now we have some risks, just a couple risks popping up here and there. But with Ozympic, the reason I'm focusing on this story right now, these semi-glutites, is it's one thing for the pharmaceutical companies to maybe lie a little bit, to push their drug, have planted stories in the media because they're really doing bad right now and they need some a pop of some good stories people are going to read.

But it's another thing when governments see a drug as a game changer. And we're at a place right now. We've really really. never been and it's super dangerous. What do I mean by that? This is one of the headlines here. Why weight loss drugs like OZMPIC are a game changer for the global economy. So one thing politicians, I would probably say one of the main things politicians want to do is reduce costs, tighten the budget, put more money in the pockets of the government so they can do more things. So when a drug comes along that they think or they're told can do that, things get really dicey. And this looks like what may be happening over in the UK. Here's their Secretary of Health.

And he was just interviewed recently talking about these injectable weight loss drugs and what his plan may be for them. Check it out. Some research that you are backing is a trial looking at how weight loss drugs could potentially get obese people back to work. Is medicating the population more really the way to do it, do you think? Look, I don't think that the answer to obesity is simply weight loss jabs, but there is a lot of evidence to suggest already, and I'm really excited about the trial that we'll be doing with Lily. There's a lot of evidence already that these jabs combined with changes to diet and exercise

can help people to reduce their weight, but also prevent cardiovascular disease and also diabetes. which is game-changing. And for a lot of people, particularly people who are morbidly obese, they will tell you through bitter experience, even when they've tried to do the right thing, they find the challenge insurmountable. And these jabs can be a game-changer on that. They're not the only solution, and I don't want to create a dependency culture. I also, by the way, you should say, because there's been a lot of reaction to some of the things I've said this week, I'm also not interested in some dystopian future where I wander around kind of involuntarily

jabbing unemployed people who are overweight. That is not the agenda. Well, first of all, basic public relations right here. When you're trying to really roll out a plan for the public to make it palatable, you don't want to start backtracking in the very next sentence saying, I don't want this to be like some dystopian future where we're jabbing people indiscriminately. No, it'll probably be very focused these jabs on people. And so here's where it's incumbent, for a leader of a country to step up and say, okay, you know, sometimes politicians say some crazy stuff every once in a while in a soundbite here or there. Sometimes, you know, you'll have a health secretary or, you know, here in the U.S. in the past, like someone like a Fauci go on TV and say,

these jabs are going to stop the virus and you will never pass it on if you give it to somebody or something like that. But it's important for the leader of the country to come out and say, hey, look, it's not going to be a dystopian future. We're actually not going to try this. This is a crazy idea. We were just floating it. This is what Kier Starrmer, the PM of the UK, should have came out and said, but it sounded like this. Is it your view, like the health secretaries, that weight loss drugs could play a big role in solving worklessness and economic inactivity? I think these drugs could be very important for our economy and for health. Again, the story behind this is really interesting.

Here's one of the biggest pharmaceutical businesses, pharma companies, that's decided now's the time to put the investment into our country. This is consistent with our pitch, which is, you know, now's the time to invest in Britain. Doing their research here, this drug will be very helpful to people who want to lose weight, need to lose weight. Very important for the economy so that people can get back into work. Very important for the NHS because, as I've said time and again, yes, we need more money for our NHS, but we've got to think differently. We've got to reduce the pressure on the NHS. So this will help in all of those areas. We need to reduce the pressure on the NHS.

We need to more money for the NHS. So we're going to jab obese, unemployed people and use them as a canary in the coal mine for pharmaceutical behavior modification. Do I have that right, Keir, Starmor? It seems kind of crazy. You want to reduce the pressure on the NHS. How about rehiring all the nurses that you fired

because they did not take the COVID jab? There's an idea. So there's where we are. in the UK, this is going to be a drug trial. You know, obviously they're not doing this in the entire population yet, but this is a drug trial. They're going to, it looks like they may, they may start to save money because it's such a game changer. So for the people in the UK, if this ever rolls out, this is the broadcast that you want to send a friends and family because nowhere in any of those did you hear, we're going to try this, but this drug,

these injectable drugs do have a couple things that people should watch out for if they take them or if they're being told to take them to get their unemployment benefits. And this is what we're going to do right now. So in the FDA's own press release for these drugs, you have the start of, you have the start of these side effects, these things to look out for. And you can check them out right here. This was FDA approves new drug treatment for chronic weight management first since 2014. Wow, what a game changer. But it goes on to say in here, Wagovi also contains warnings for inflammation of the pancreas. Pancreatitis, gall bladder problem, galls, stones. Those are super painful, I'm told. Low blood sugar, acute kidney injury, damage to the

eyes retina, increased heart rate, and suicidal behavior or thinking. What? Okay. Well, as we know, phase four of drug trials are the rollout on the general population. That is a fact. So there's kind of their little black box warning at the bottom of their press release for the FDA. But once the drug rolls out, then we really get to see the nuts and bolts of this. And these, These are the headlines we're seeing right now. These popular weight loss drugs linked to rare but severe stomach problems, study fines. A couple people actually died from those. Ozympic may be linked to condition that causes blindness, but more research is needed.

Well, I hope someone jumps on that more research because it looks like the UK government might start jabbing people in a dystopian future. And those are my words. That's from the health secretary himself. So this is what we're looking at here, and I know these drugs are extremely, popular, you go on TikTok, you go on Instagram, everyone's sharing these, and it's not just, you know, people that have a really bad medical condition that desperately need to lose weight. These are boutique drugs now. These are kids are taking these drugs. In fact, the American Academy

of Pediatrics themselves say that this should be the first top-line therapy for kids 12 and older for weight loss medications. You can see there, 12 years and older should really check. this out. And remember the American Pediatrics is the same people that said kids should be able to consent to their own vaccines without parental consent or knowledge. They're also the ones in America that are fully behind the full transitioning of children without parental knowledge if need be. So that's an American Academy of Pediatrics for you. So that's where we're at with OZIMPIC. We have a chance here to really put some science behind this miracle game-changing kind of media blitz that has everyone lost their minds on this. So this, this is.

This is what we're talking about. So please share this with everybody if they're taking this so they can look out for those side effects and talk to their doctor because I'm sure a lot of doctors are just giving this stuff out like candy, literally two kids, 12 and older. So I want to switch gears here. What if I told you that there may be some emails out there showing top officials at the NIH, top officials of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and some of the heads of pharmaceutical companies colluding right before the COVID vaccine came out to, I don't know, make money, influence,

control, power. Well, this is exactly what our legal team has discovered. They're in Siri and our legal team at the informed consent action network has uncovered via FOIA some shocking emails. Take a look at this. Within Dr. Fauci's Institute, Dr. Fauci's agency included something called the vaccine research center. That's the center that had basically developed. the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine. This morning, we went into the labs of biotech company, Moderna, which is working with the NIH, to learn more about their approach.

Together with the NIH, they've identified the proteins on the virus that they'll target with their vaccine. Back in September of 2019, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation bought a lot of shares in Bioentech. Many of you might recall, partnered with Pfizer to create their COVID-19 vaccine. The FDA on Monday granted four

approval to the Pfizer-BionTec COVID-19 vaccine, making it the first to secure a formal okay from the U.S. drug regulator. Well, when we see the National Institute of Health to get copies of documents they didn't want us to get, one of the things we found was that back in February 2nd of 2020, there's an email exchange where the CEO of Bioentech is introduced to Barney Grant, who is the deputy director of the vaccine research center within Fauci's agency. To discuss development of a COVID-19 vaccine, they immediately set up a call,

and we know what happens from there. It's really interesting that when it comes to the heads of these pharma companies, our public, quote-unquote, health officials are at the ready to have phone calls and talk and exchange ideas and help them get very, very rich. But when it comes to members of the public, the nonprofits, for example, that are working tirelessly to make sure that the products that come out of the public

products that come out of these agencies are safe and effective, you can't even get these people on the phone. Incredible. And I want to talk to the audience here because it's your continued funding that allows these things to happen, allows these foias to be produced. And we're doing something really rare here because not only do we have the high wire, which is a fast-paced running gun media arm, who has been very effective, but also we have ICANN. And ICANN is the world's leading legal team, we have had some of the biggest victories in the world against the CDC, the NIH, even we're focusing on the EPA now. And it's because of your continued support that we can do this. We don't have to take on sponsors because they have editorial control in a lot of ways. And also,

sponsors can be leaned on, as we've seen, to influence editorial control or actually just get people off air. So thank you for our independence. You are the reason we can be courageous and hard charging. And this is why I want to ask you right now, if you have the means, we need your support. We have a lot of things in the can that we're going to be moving forward, a lot of things that we're going to be pushing. We have our free the five initiative. These are the five holdouts that have taken away religious exemptions to vaccines. We have New York, Maine, Connecticut, West Virginia, and California. And if you remember, our lawyers and our legal team marched into Mississippi and changed that law. It was over 40 years on the book. This is unheard of. This is

historical. And the corporate media lost their mind. Through the work we're doing with ICANN, we're giving the public another chance. And this is what I want to talk about. And also, too, America's public watchdog has received V-Safe information. I want to go back to one of our victories because it was huge. The CDC put out this app on your iPhone. And remember, the CDC said, We're monitoring the COVID vaccine with robust monitoring system. We have a V-Safe app, and all these millions of people that are taking this vaccine are reporting what kind of issues they're having with the vaccine. And sure enough, it's hunky-dory.

Everything's okay, but don't ask to see the data. Well, we asked to see the data. And we actually FOIA'd and then took them to court, and they were forced to release the data. And what does it show? Almost 8% of people out of the millions that took this vaccine had to have one in two and three, doctor's visits. And because of that, that really kicked off a lot of what people were starting to question these side effects saying it's not just a sore arm anymore. We helped release also the Pfizer documents, the Moderna documents. The judge was trying to hold those back for 75 years with the

timeline. We made them do it even earlier. So here's how you can help us now. We're moving forward. We're doing it. We're journalists. We're lawyers. We're combined at the hip. And we have 20, 24 for 2024. This is how you can support us so we know what we're working with. We know how hard we can push, how fast we can push, and we're going to change the world. And this is something we can make it really easy right now. You can donate using your phone. All you have to do is go to text the word, donate to 72022. It's super easy. It's fast.

It's like DoorDash, but you're actually helping to change the world instead of just eating some food. And one of the things I'm super excited about, I can't believe I actually almost forgot about this, is High Wire Plus. This is something we were working on for years. We have off the record. That's Dell's show. He sits down with guests.

He goes in depth with them and really talks about, you know, just get behind the scenes. You can see what type of people are that we have on their show beyond, you know, their research or beyond what they do legally. You can see who is leading the charge, who are the activists and the parents. But one of the things I've been working on, and I haven't talked about it for over a year. I've been working on this is a really independent deep dive series into the topics of our time. This is Jeffrey Jackson Investigates. And this series is intended to rock the very foundations of the historical assumptions and the modern day narratives we've been led to believe.

I look at the whole history of polio. I look at the push to net zero green economy. I look at the 86 Act vaccine injury. And going behind the scenes with a lot of these people and sitting down with them for hours on end and meeting them, guests from around the world, meeting them where they are. You know, one of the stories I just want to share with you, a Native American elder from the Shoshonee Paiute tribe in Nevada. And what they're doing is this push for green energy. They're actually putting up lithium mines on Nevada sacred Indian ground. And this is a burial ground.

And so why that's happening is because both Biden and Trump, this was like a bipartisan issue, both when they were in office as president, they pushed for this because we wanted to be independent of China. for these rare earth minerals. So sitting down with these elders, they told the real story because they don't have electric cars on their reservations, so this doesn't benefit them. And it's really shocking and fascinating and it's heartfelt, and I want to share that with you. It's going to be a one-stop shop for the best experts on these topics,

and we're going to change the world, I think, together. So I want to thank you for your support as once independent journalists and now with the Highwire, I joined this team and I joined Dell because I saw the integrity and I saw what they were trying to do. and I trusted them, and I thank you for trusting us and trusting me, because together we've helped a lot of people, and I do believe we've saved lives. I've been told that by people everywhere I go in public. So let's keep moving. Let's keep going strong. And I want to say this too, no matter what the outcome is of this presidential election, we will be here. We will be here next week. We are the

steady ship in the storm that continues to go straight as an arrow. So I want to just reassure you, It doesn't matter what's going to happen here in America. We're going strong. Now, one of the biggest stories that came across my desk is this fluoride trial that just recently ended. And remember, fluoride was one of the, if not, greatest public health achievements of all time. And now it's not so much because of a court ruling. And this is what it looked like in the news. New concerns about fluoride and drinking water.

A federal ruling is questioning how much of it is safe. A federal judge in California has ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to address. the potential impacts of fluoride in drinking water. Researchers with the Department of Health and Human Services analyzed previously published research and said they determined, quote, with moderate confidence that there is a link between higher levels of fluoride exposure and lower IQ in kids. The Environmental Protection Agency could challenge that ruling,

which could send the case to the Supreme Court. Lawmakers in some states aren't waiting for the courts. It's time to update this law. Let's take this law. Let's take this out. The city of Monroe is considering removing fluoride it puts into its drinking water. The city of Babylon isn't taking any chances. As of right now, I've directed the utility department to stop adding fluoride to the city's drinking supply until the EPA makes a final ruling on what they're going to do. 200 million Americans living communities that put fluoride in its tap water and almost every

toothpaste has fluoride in it. Unfortunately, the CDC and the American Dental Association have ignored really decades worth of studies indicating harm from fluoride and chosen to work on the health of the tooth over the health of children's brains. And that is just some of the media coverage by a world-changing ruling by Judge Edward Chen. And this ruling came down just recently. We're looking at about a month ago. And if we look at this ruling, I want to go into this ruling here because a lot of times judges err on the side and they're sometimes liberal. They don't want to take a hard stance on their judgment, but we look at this ruling, and here's just one excerpt of this. I encourage everyone to go

read this ruling, and he says the court finds that fluoridation of water at 0.7 milligrams per liter, the level presently considered optimal in the United States, poses an unreasonable risk of reduced IQ in children. The court finds there is an unreasonable risk of such injury, a risk sufficient to require the EPA to engage with a regulatory response. He goes on to say One thing the EPA cannot do, however, in the face of this court's finding, is to ignore that risk. I'm here with the attorney, Michael Conant, who is responsible for having this ruling come down and arguing all of the facts. Michael, thank you for joining me today. Jeffrey, thank you.

It's a pleasure to be here. It's wonderful. So public health has been rocked to the core. A lot of the public's assumptions of what they thought fluoride was and wasn't. has really become very clear. Obviously, fluoride is one of the top 10 greatest public health achievements, according to the CDC. They're probably going to have to go back to the drawing board on this one. And the ruling itself, as you saw there where I was reading,

it dealt with lowering children's IQ. So I think a lot of the people watching may say, well, I'm not a child. My children are grown up. We got past that moment, so we don't have to worry about that lowering IQ business. But one of the reasons I wanted to talk to you is there's a lot of other issues with water fluoridation with fluoride in the human body than just lowering children's IQ. So let's lay this out because, you know, we've spoken over the past couple weeks and you've sent me to say loads of data, emails upon emails of the robust science surrounding this. So I want to lay this out in a fashion that someone could take this and just send it to a family member and say, oh, by the way, you may want to check into this. So let's take a historical perspective on this really quick.

So we look at the Manhattan Project. We have a gentleman named Harold Hodge. And a lot of people know the Manhattan Project from maybe the film Oppenheimer. You have Los Alamos. They were working on kind of the physical part of the Manhattan Project. But there is also other people in the University of Rochester, New York that were working on the kind of the toxicological effects

of uranium, of fluorine, and things like that. And coming out of that, Coming out of that, you have this document, this research that Harold Hodge did, and he was looking at the effects of fluoride exposure on people that have kidneys that aren't functioning optimally, which means they can't really get this stuff out of their body, get these toxicants out of their body. And this is what he found. I'm going to read just a quote here. This is declassified in 1995. And he looks, he's talking about renal dysfunction. He looked at two patients here. And he's basically saying one patient with kidney disease was only able to excrete 20% of the ingested fluoride. The second patient with a bacterial kidney issue with hypertension could excrete none of the fluoride. So that's a huge problem.

And so what he does there, does he tell the world he goes on less than 10 years later in 1956 to write this. And I'm going to give you the floor. But I just want people to show you this is kind of the first instance of government, purposeful government, misinformation around this topic. And he writes this. Sometimes the question is raised. What would happen if there were a mechanical breakdown at the fluoridation plant and all of one day's supply of sodium fluoride or sodium silica fluoride was suddenly dumped into the water? If this large weight of fluoride could be dissolved, mixed, and distributed within an hour, there would still be a factor of safety sufficient to predict that the water could be drunk for

10 years or more without serious toxic consequences. It is clearly a positive. to produce acute fluoride poisoning by water fluoridation. He sticks the flag in the ground there and says this is safe. Take it from here. I'd like to really talk about this part with people with kidney problems. Right. Harold Hodge was a very significant figure in the promotion of water fluoridation. He was the chief toxicologist, among other things, for the bomb program, the Manhattan Project.

And that was where he started his work on fluoride toxicity. And as part of his work, as you mentioned, he was looking not just at humans with kidney disease, but animals with kidney disease. And his animal research and human research in the 40s consistently found that people with kidney disease have a very difficult time excreting fluoride from the body, which is a problem, because the more fluoride that builds up in the body, the more likely you are to have an adverse effect. So Harold Hodge was aware of that in the 40s,

but he never published those findings. Instead, what Dr. Hodge did is he told the public in that paper that you just showed. In that paper, he said, people with even severe kidney disease do not accumulate more fluoride than people with healthy kidney. And along with children, people with kidney issues are arguably the most vulnerable population to the ingestion of fluoride

because they can't clear it. Right. But Harold Hodge never told the public of the findings that he had for the bomb program. Instead, he goes and writes a paper for the Journal of the American Dental Association and says, people with kidney disease do not accumulate more fluoride.

There's no issue for the kidney. patients, right? And that had, it had significant consequences. And one of the consequences it had is on dialysis patients. And one of the things that's a little appreciated fact about water fluoridation is that in the 1970s, scientists discovered, you know, in a large number of studies, that dialysis patients were being poisoned by the fluoridated water that was getting into the dialysis. And fluoride was causing a severe bone disease in the kidney patients, an osteomalacia,

which is a softening of the bone, and other bone pathologies that was causing incapacitating pain in the dialysis patients. And as a result of those findings, In the early 1980s, dialysis centers began removing the fluoride that was added to the water so that it's not getting into the dialysis. And you can appreciate why dialysis centers and other members of the public wouldn't have considered fluoride in the water to be a problem when you have Dr. Hodge, the government's main expert, primary expert on the safety of fluoridation, saying that you can literally dump this stuff, the entire supply of fluoridation chemicals in the water plant. You can dump it into the

water every day for 10 plus years and nobody will suffer any adverse effect as a result. That's what the public was told about how safe this program was. So he's setting this standard saying you can dump it, don't worry about it, just dump it and you can drink it for 10 years, no problem. Were there any real world examples of that actually happening? Yes, there have been, period, fluorotic fluoridation accidents since the program began. And, you know, Harold Hodd said that you could have a fluoridation accident ongoing for 10 years, and you still wouldn't have poisoning. And just to show you how wrong that was,

within one day, within one day, you have poisoning going on in the community. And that's been documented dozens and dozens of times. With one accident and one day. One accident, one day. Harold Hodd said you could have an accident every day for 10 years and people would not be harmed. But what real life experience has shown is one accident, one day you have poisoning in the

community. We're talking about the dialysis patients. They have died when there have been fluoration accidents. In Annapolis, Maryland and in Chicago, you have actually had dialysis patients die when you have an overfeed of fluoridation chemicals into the drinking water. So I think that's really telling that. how fluoridation, the safety of fluoridation was presented in the 1950s, you know, and how wrong that was, like this notion that you could just dump it, uncontrolled every day for 10 years and

you won't have a problem. No wonder people thought this was an entirely, perfectly safe program, but reality has shown that that was just not the case. And I think people need to appreciate, too, the public has been drilled with this idea of misinformation and disinformation is a, you know, a threat to our way of life. But here we have literally the government's main expert, sending the signal out, sidelining doctors, sideline the intelligentsia of the medical community to even think about this being a problem. Dialysis units aren't even looking for it, aren't even filtering for it. Huge problem. And I want to go into also the standards, too. So surrounding this, moving through the 40s, 50s, 60s, and into the 80s, the standards around fluoride, you were able to depose one of the experts, one of the specialists at the NSF, the National Sanitation Foundation.

And just to give people, you know, like a fly on the wall view of what you were looking at and how you were speaking to these people in court, we have a video of this, and we're talking about the safety standards of fluoride. Let's take a look. So I'm moving now to topic seven of the deposition notice, which reads what NSF has done, if anything, to determine the potential for fluoridation chemicals to cause neurotoxic effects. So let me ask you, has NSF taken any steps to determine the potential for fluoridation chemicals to cause neurotoxic effects? No. Does NSF have any position on whether fluoridation chemicals can cause neurotoxic effects? Since we have not conducted our own risk assessment on the fluoridation chemicals, we do not have a position on whether they are able to cause neurotoxic effects. Okay.

Has NSF taken any steps to determine the upper tolerable daily dose of fluoride that will not cause neurotoxic effects in humans? We have not. Does the NSF have a position on what the upper tolerable daily dose of fluoride that will not cause neurotoxic effects is? Since we have not conducted risk assessments on any of the fluoridation chemicals, we do not have a position on a daily dose that would be appropriate to prevent or to reduce the risk for neurotoxic effects from fluoride exposure. Now, she was from the NSF, and that's kind of like a company. It's something outside of the government. This is something that regulates these chemicals in things like water. So did you find that astonishing when she answered like that?

Well, I didn't find it astonishing. It's what I expected, but it was good to have it confirmed. The NSF is a private organization that certifies the chemicals that are added to drinking water. EPA delegated that authority to them in the 1980s. But I asked those same questions to the EPA, to the EPA, to. the CDC and to the FDA, as well as to the three major companies in this country that sell fluoridation chemicals to water municipalities for fluoridation. I asked all of them, can you point me to any study that shows that adding fluoridated, adding fluoridation chemicals to drinking

water is safe for the brain. Just one. I wasn't asking for hundreds. I was just asking for one. And every one of those organizations came back and said, we are not aware of any safety data on that point. And to put that in perspective, in local debates on fluoridation, the proponents of this practice will often say there's thousands of studies. Thousands of studies that show that fluridation is safe, right? And here I had the opportunity under penalty of perjury to ask these organizations, I'm not asking you for thousands of studies, can you point me to one study on this particular issue of the effects on the brain, neurological effects? Can you point me to any study that shows that water fluoridation is safe? And every single one of those organizations came back and said,

no. Wow. This reminds me for our audience. I'll probably remember this. Can you show me a vaxed for a Zunvac study of chronic illness and children, the robust data, they really can't produce those. Let's talk about the EPA, because you sat down with Dr. Joyce Donahue, you didn't sit down with her, you deposed her, and you were kind of asking the same questions about these safety standards.

Surely the EPA, a top scientist at the EPA, would have some answer for you if a private company didn't. Here's what she had to say. You would agree that this study right here adds further reason why we need to do a reassessment assessment of the fluoride safety standards in the United States? I think it's a reason for doing not just the United States. I think it's a reason for doing an update to the fluoride assessment.

Everywhere. Well, for anybody who's interested in fluoride and the need for regulation of fluoride exposure. Right. And anyone interested in making sure that fluoride is safe for consumption? That people are not over-exposed. Right. Okay.

So obviously this is a problem now. You're picking up rocks and you're saying, well, does someone have an answer for me here? Because I'm really concerned. We have a lot of data showing this. This is lowering, it's hurting children. It's lowering their IQ. But no one seems to have a standard anywhere I can find.

Right. And so what I did there with Dr. Johnny Hughes is I showed her some of the new studies on IQ. you know, some of the birth cohort studies, high-quality studies funded by the NIH, which have found that prenatal fluoride exposure is significantly correlated with reductions in IQ. I showed her those studies, and she agreed that they're high-quality studies, and that they warrant a reassessment of all of the safety standards that we now have for fluoride. So, you know, the court took note of that testimony and found it significant. Right.

So let's go back to the kidney issues in fluoride because what was found also was it it wasn't just hurting these people on dialysis, but it was also causing it to accumulate, causing this fluoride toxin to accumulate in bones. And that brings us to the conversation of bone cancer, of accumulation of fluoride in the bones. And there's a long list of studies and epidemiological evidence showing this. So, yes, in the 1970s, Congress, based on some concerns at that time that fluoridation could be associated with increased cancer rates, Congress mandated the Department of Health and Human Services to do an animal study to look at whether fluoride causes cancer and animals. And the National Toxicology Program, NTP, completed that study in about 1990. And that study found that the male rats exposed to elevated fluoride had a dose-dependent increase in bone cancer, a particular type of bone cancer called osteosarcoma. And that then prompted some studies of human populations here in the United States, the National Cancer Institute in 1990, published an analysis of data which found that in fluoridated communities, that there was a correlation between floydid water and osteocircoma in boys, but not in girls, which was consistent with the NTP's animal study.

And then in 1992, a scientist at the New Jersey Department of Health, Perry Cohn, did a study in New Jersey, and found the same correlation, increased rates of osteosarcoma in young males but not in females. connected to fluoridated water. And there's been additional studies since that time. So there is a concern that fluoridated water could cause osteosarcoma, and particularly in young males. Right. It's accumulating in the bones.

So what's that doing to the integrity of the bones? Is that making them more susceptible to issues? Yes, there is a very large body of data that, shows that fluoride reduces the quality and the strength of the bone and thereby increases bone fracture rates. We know that through animal studies. Animal studies are consistent in showing that when you expose animals to elevated fluoride, their bone strength is lowered.

Their bones are fracture with less force. We have human clinical trials because fluoride was actually used in clinical trials as an experimental drug with the goal of potentially offsetting the impacts of osteoporosis by increasing the density of bone. That was the idea. Sure. And what those clinical trials showed is that fluoride increased bone fracture rates rather than reduced bone fracture rates.

In many of the clinical trials on fluoride, what's striking is it caused spontaneous hip fracture. Spontaneous hip fracture, meaning that the patient suffered hip fracture. fracture without force being applied to the hip. Oh, that's, that is devastating. I mean, hip fracture for an elderly person is akin almost, almost to a death sentence. If they have to go to a rehab facility and go into a home for rehab on that, this is a devastating situation.

It's a serious condition. And it's, and in addition to the clinical trials that we have, there have been studies of human populations exposed to fluoridated water and elevated. levels of fluoride in water. And while not all the studies have found in effect, there's mixed data, we have a number of studies finding that people in fluoridated areas have higher rates of bone fracture, including hip fracture. And this is at the level of fluoride that we add to water.

There are studies already showing that there are increased rates of hip fracture. So you have a considerable, consistent body of data in animals. You give them more fluoride, their bones are weaker. You have human clinical experiments where the patients exposed to fluoride for two years, three years, four years, at higher levels, right? Higher doses, but short periods of time. And you have consistent data showing bone fracture, hip fracture, right? So then the question is, okay, what about lower levels of fluoride over longer periods

of time? 60 years, 70 years, 80 years, because that's how long humans are exposed to fluoridated water. You're not just exposed to fluoridated water for two years, you're exposed for 70 years, right? And we have studies showing correlations between fluoridated water and bone fracture. So it is a significant, real, in my view, one of the most important issues with fluoridation is the impact on the integrity of the bone. Wow. And so clearly there's this accumulation in the bones. It almost seems, why do you think it's always being drawn to the calcified tissue, the bones,

and we know the teeth too. We're going to get in that in a second. We have dental fluorosis where there's these spots on the teeth, and it's almost like the entry-level window to see, like, okay, there may be some excess fluoride exposure in these individuals that have these spots. Why do you think it's being pulled into the bones? Right. So fluoride accumulates in mineralized tissue, which includes the teeth and the bone.

and so fluoride is very much attracted to calcium, and so the bones become a sink for fluoride. And that is, in part, that's the defense mechanism of the body to sequester fluoride into the mineralized tissue so that the fluoride, which is a very toxic ion, does not get into soft tissues where it would be a real problem. So it's partly a defense mechanism for the body. However, if you accumulate too much fluoride, you will start to see pathology and pathological effects in the bone and in the teeth. In teeth, you have a, fluoride causes a mineralization disorder called dental fluorosis. And this manifests sort of blotching of the teeth, white blotches, and then in more severe forms of dental fluorosis,

it increases the porosity of the enamel. It's an under-mineralization, which leads to pitting and crumbling of the enamel in its severe forms. One of the striking things today is when the most recent national statistics from the CDC shows that 68% of American children now have dental fluorescence.

68%. And now, mostly in the mild forms, so it's going to be white splotches and streaks, right? But that is, that shows you that you have a significant overexposure problem to fluoride today. And one of the concerns is the teeth have sometimes been called the shop window to the bones. And if fluoride is causing this mineralization disorder in the disease. teeth, what could it be doing to the bones? And we know that fluoride does cause bone disease, including a disease called skeletal fluorosis. And this is crazy because we're told, we're told that we need fluoride to lower cavities. But here we are, literally, there's these negative effects on the teeth. I mean, it's somewhat unsightly. I'm sure people that have it are,

they don't want to smile as much. And in fact, I think you deposed a couple people and asked them about dental fluorosis and what do they have, what do you have to do if you have that? What do you think you should do? This is one of the experts here we just saw. This is Joyce Donahue, I believe. In severe dental fluoresis, the porosity of the enamel is so severe that the enamel begins to pit and crumble. That's the definition that's been accepted as the definite, you know, that's when it becomes severe. When you agree that a child or adolescent, unless they had an adolescent in high school, if they had extensive black standing of their front two teeth,

that that could cause pretty severe embarrassment with their peers. Can you agree with that? What they would do would be avoid letting people see their teeth. All right, so that doesn't sound very scientific, and one of the things we spoke about is there's, you know, people that aren't smiling as much. If you avoid smiling and letting people see your teeth, that opens up a whole other issue of not being able to express yourself at the very least, but, you know, depression, we talked about this. EPA was aware in the 1980s that children with this disfiguring condition of severe dental

that that could have real impact on their emotional health. Because there is, you know, there's lots of research indicating that if a child is very embarrassed about their appearance, especially their teeth and their smile, that that can cause problems, mental health problems for kids. And EPA actually went to the National Institute of Mental Health and asked them to look at this issue and to advise the agency on whether severe dental floresis could be a mental health could cause mental health problems. And the National Institute of Mental Health came back and says, yes, it likely will because of

the embarrassment and the impact on self-esteem. But despite getting that conclusion, EPA said, yeah, we're still going to consider it a cosmetic effect only, not an adverse health effect, and EPA did not protect people from that condition. This next clip I want to show, I think if anybody, we're doing a deep dive into this conversation, obviously. And some people may, you know, hopefully they're with us this whole time, but I want people to remember this next clip here because this is Paul Price. He is literally responsible for creating, you can correct me if I'm wrong on this, creating the EPA's definition, the standard.

He wrote the standard. And you asked him that same question about dental fluorosis. Right. And just to put this in context, we're talking here about EPA safety standard for fluoride, which EPA created in the 1980s. The safety standard is the maximum level of fluoride in drinking water that EPA considers safe that communities do not have to remove from their water. And under that safety standard, severe dental fluorosis. So the type of fluorosis that causes crumbling of the enamel, it causes widespread black staining, brown staining of the enamel,

a very disfiguring condition. under the EPA safety standard, that is not an adverse effect. Children can have that condition and it's considered perfectly safe. So EPA did not protect people from that effect. And so here in this clip, I deposed Paul Price, who as you mentioned, he wrote the safety standard. But simultaneous to writing the safety standard, Dr. Price circulated at the EPA a mock press release where he discussed the safety standard and he called dental fluorosis teeth quote gross enough to gag a maggot.

In his press release that, you know, he circulated to his colleagues. He basically said, yeah, we've just created a standard that allows kids to have teeth gross enough to gag a maggie. Going back to the press release or the mock press release that you wrote, The last sentence of it reads, EPA selected this level based upon a cost-effectiveness study which showed that it is cheaper for people to keep their mouth shut than to remove the fluoride. That's what you wrote, right? That's correct.

And what did you mean by it's cheaper for people to keep their mouth shut than to remove the fluoride? I meant to be funny. I don't find anything funny about that, do you? Well, it certainly wouldn't be funny for a child who develops this disfiguring content. simply from drinking tap water. And, you know, but to be fair to Dr. Price, I think it reflects, his statements there reflected the discomfort that EPA scientists had in actually having to defend this safety standard. And in fact, Jeffrey, EPA scientists were so outraged by this that they tried to join a lawsuit

filed by an environmental group, the Natural Resources Defense Council, against the EPA. They tried to sue their bosses over the inadequacy of EPA's fluoride standard. A court did not allow them to join that lawsuit, but it shows you, like, that's very unprecedented for EPA scientists to go to court and try to sue their bosses about a safety standard. And they did that for fluoride. I don't think that's ever happened for any other chemical. Wow. So let's go back. 1942, Washington, D.C. doctors are convened to look at the toxic effects of fluoride.

1944. They have this meeting and they're presenting their findings. And one of the big findings they present is they find that fluoride causes debilitating, crippling joint damage, damage to the human skeleton, essentially. The spine and it softens the bones of the extremities. They're finding this. And you're starting to see this in the literature. And this is one of the biggest conversations that really a lot of people are talking about is fluoride's effect on the human skeletal system when it comes to osteoarthritis and joint damage.

Right. It is known today. There's no dispute that fluoride causes bone disease. It is proven through like a very large amount of data, animal data and human data. And the fluoride, the bone disease that fluoride causes includes arthritis, osteoarthritis, as well as bone fragility leading to bone fractures. And that's like, there's no dispute about that. The only question is, what is the dose and how does that dose vary based on an individual

susceptibility? But importantly here, in 1942, as you mentioned, the federal health officials were considering this notion of water fluoridation and whether we should add fluoride for dental health purposes. And there was a conference held, 1942, an H. Trendley Dean, who is considered the father of fluoridation, said, before we start fluoridation, we should do some studies to see if it's safe. Sure. Makes sense, right? And what he advised doing is looking at a community that has high levels of food.

fluoride in the water, higher than we add, that was proposed to be added to water, okay? And let's see if we can detect evidence of harm, okay? Because the idea is, if you look at a high level of fluoride exposure and you're not seeing harm, then we can have some comfort that the lower levels that we're going to add to water are safe. That was the thinking. That seems somewhat reasonable on face value. Right. So they go ahead in 1943, government scientists go down to Texas, Bartlett, Texas, which has eight parts per million fluoride in its water. So eight times more than was being proposed

to be added to water, okay? They do this study and what do they find? They find that the people living in Bartlett had elevated rates of bone disease, including this osteoarthritis-like condition, bony spurs, calcification of the ligaments, things like that. And this was a condition

that was found already in industrial workers exposed to elevated fluoride. Again, this is this condition called skeletal fluorosis. So the federal government goes and does the study and finds that, yes, we're seeing the same condition that we see in these industrially exposed workers, this osteoarthritis type condition, we're seeing it in the fluoride community. But the important thing here is they never published a study. They never disclosed those findings to the public. Why do you think they didn't do that?

Well, that's a good question. You know, I think they ultimately, the federal government ultimately saw its role as promoting fluoridation, this idea of fluoridation, and didn't want sort of the ugly facts, the inconvenient facts, to get in the way of their promotion. But, you know, essentially, this was the safety test that the government set forth to determine whether water fluorination was going to be safe. It failed this government's own standard. The standard that the government set, like, let's look at a high-flood community, see if we can detect harm. If we can't detect harm, it's okay. If we can detect harm, it's a problem. They detected harm, and then they just scrapped the test.

And I only got, I was only able to find out about the findings of that. that study by doing extensive research at the National Archives where I was able to get a presentation that H. Trendley Dean gave internally to the FDA where he summarized those findings. I have tried for years to actually get the manuscript of the study, right? But I have not been able to access it. I did Freedom of Information Act requests and other things. So no one has ever actually seen the underlying study, but I have the the description of the findings, which from a document that I got at the National Archives.

Wow. I have to say, your amount of research is incredible here on this subject. Just how far you went to really get to the, just take every stone and turn it over. So we have some of the experts that you depose on skeletal fluorosis, crippling, it's called skeletal fluorescence. Right. Well, so here's, so skeletal fluorosis is something that I spent a lot of time researching. And here's one of the. I think really astounding facts about our fluoride safety standard that EPA established in 1980s. Skeletal fluorosis is a bone disease that has various stages of severity.

So in the early stages, you can't really see anything on x-rays going on in your bones, but you can have joint pain, joint stiffness, right? Most people are just thinking, I'm getting older, I have arthritis. Right, and then as you get, as you ingest more fluorides, and as the condition advances, it becomes more and more apparent on x-rays, and the calcification of the ligaments becomes more and more severe, and you ultimately end up with this condition in its most advanced degree called crippling skeletal fluorosis.

Now, as the name implies, this is. is a crippling condition where the spine is completely fused, okay? You have muscle wasting, you have nerve compression, and it's extremely painful, I would imagine. It's a very painful condition, and it's an overt systemic poisoning of the body. Now, that condition, Jeffrey, crippling fluorosis was selected by EPA as the only health effect of, fluoride to protect against. And so under EPA safety standard,

which is still in effect as we sit here today, under EPA safety standard, until you develop crippling skeletal fluorosis, you are not harmed by

fluoride. Until you are crippled, you have not been harmed by fluoride. I think people should hear it from the actual expert's mouth as well. Take a look. So according to EPA, the first adverse effect that can occur to the human organism from fluoride exposure is crippling skeletal fluorosis. Correct. Okay. There it is. This should be absolutely shocking to everybody. This is the high bar, the low bar they set.

This is the anything below that? You're good to go. And I want to talk about, People listening to this are probably thinking, oh my God, you know, I hope a lot of people are having a realization that this is beyond lowering children's IQ. And that's not the only clip you sent over. We have Joyce Donahue once again talking about this. Let's take a look. The EPA did not believe it would be an adverse health effect for a person to suffer chronic joint pain from fluoride exposure so long as they were not crippled, right? By the definition of crippling skeletal fluorosis, one can

again, based on what was written, it would appear they did not. Now, I can react to this, but what's going through your mind, as these people are saying to that? Well, I knew that going into that deposition, that that is in fact the case. Now, EPA never, they don't like to say that. They don't sort of promote that point on their website. Why not? But I was able to, you know, elicit those admissions from EPA scientists because that is, in fact, the case. Fluoride causes chronic joint pain.

There's no dispute about it. And fluoride causes chronic joint pain well before you are crippled. So you don't have to be crippled by fluoride exposure to get chronic joint pain. And as Dr. Donahue admitted right there, EPA's safety standard does not. does not consider chronic joint pain to be an adverse effect, and EPA did not protect against that condition. So people watching this are probably going, oh my God, I need to get myself tested.

Is there a test that I can figure out what kind of fluoride exposure I've had throughout my life, what my levels are in my body? What happens if they go into a doctor's office, your average doctor's office, how do they test for that? Is it a sufficient test? This is something that should be of significant concern because the only, the sort of test that doctors have that was established many, many years ago to look whether you have a skeletal fluorosis, okay? The only thing they really know how to do is they look at your spot, they take an x-ray of your pelvis and your spine, okay? And they look to see if there's a hyperdense bone, osteoschlorosis of the lower spine and the pelvis region, okay?

And that is considered under sort of the current diagnostic standard for skeletal fluorosis. If you don't have that on your x-rays, then doctors in the United States will say you don't have skeletal fluorosis. Okay, you need to have at least that for doctors to say you have skeletal fluorosis. or may have skeletal fluorosis. So the final physical manifestation when it's doing that to your bones is the level that, I mean, yeah. It's not the final manifestation. That osteoschlorosis of the spine is not the final manifestation, but it's part of that clinical

spectrum. But what research shows over the past 40 plus years is that the people with skeletal fluorosis manifests very different radiological signs. Some people will have the osteoschlorosis in the spine early on. Some people won't have it at all. Some people, the primary manifestation of skeletal fluorosis will be osteoarthritis of the knees or, you know, and there won't be this osteoschlorosis of the spine. So the problem that we have is we have a diagnostic standard that we know will not

identify skeletal fluorosis in many people who have the condition. You cannot rely on that test to accurately identify people who have skeletal fluorosis. So we essentially have no idea, as we sit here today, we have no idea how many people in the United States have some form of skeletal fluorosis. I mean, by the EPA standard, this crippling skeletal It's almost like saying, it's almost like you take alcohol. Unless you are passed out in your car in a ditch, then anything before that, if you're swerving the lines, if you're firing shots with your friends at the bar, if you can't walk straight, you're good, but that's the standard there.

It seems absolutely ridiculous that this is the standard of safety science in America today. Right. I mean, if you're only protecting against the most severe form of chronic poisoning, then by definition you are not protecting people from the adverse effects of the substance. And a similar situation used to apply with lead, okay, another toxic substance. And in the 60s and 70s, the view of the medical establishment, and our safety standards were this, until you have overt lead poisoning,

like where you, like often the gums would turn blue, but overt lead poisoning, you're not, you're nothing to worry about. Right, you're good, yeah. And so it's a very crude way of assessing the safety of, of a chemical and again that safety standard for fluoride so with lead we now have much more refined much more sophisticated safety standards to protect people against the subtler effects

of lead exposure like reduced IQ. We have safety standards now that do that for lead. And it's almost like a PR thing. Lead is a buzzword. Oh don't have your kids get any type of lead exposure but fluoride it's like well maybe we'll get around to get in a filter in the house honey. Right and with so with fluoride we still still have the safety standard based on crippling skeletal fluorosis. That is the government safety standard for fluoride, still in 2024.

And in 2006, the National Research Council, which is part of the National Academies of Science, did a comprehensive review on the science of the toxicology of fluoride. And the NRC concluded in 2006 that this safety standard, basically, on crippling fluorosis is unsafe. The safety center is too high, and it needs to be lowered. It's currently four parks per million. The NRC told the EPA you need to lower this standard, and 18 years later, EPA has still not done anything about it.

I want to read something from the 80s. You had the NIH, they convened, and they talked about that standard. And it was, again, a candid discussion. you have this talk, and this is a jaw-dropping admission. Someone says in here, I believe it's Dr. Wallach, he says, you would have to have rocks in your head, in my opinion, to allow your child much more than two parts per million. What did they do after that?

Right. So Dr. Wallach was part of a committee of doctors that the Surgeon General's Office convened at the request of the EPA to advise EPA on what they're. the safety standard should be. And after Dr. Wallach said that statement right there, Dr. Roe, another doctor on the committee, said, I think we would all agree with that. So Dr. Wallach says, you need to have rocks in your head

to allow your kid much more than two parts per million. Dr. Roe responds, yeah, I think we'd all agree with that. And yet the EPA set the standard at twice that level, at four parts per million. So Dr. Wallach, the expert that EPA is consulting with to advise the agency says you need to have rocks in your head to you to have a standard higher than two parts per million. And EPA goes, okay, we'll make it four parts per million twice as high. This is reckless.

I mean, it's just regulatory recklessness is the only way to describe this. I want to talk about something that you had sent over as well some information. As I was preparing for this entire show, I just did a segment on Alzheimer's. And the dominant theory of Alzheimer's, this amyloid beta plaque is in the brains of people with Alzheimer's, and that's where all the drug development is going towards. And they're finding out that this may not be the direction we thought it was. So it's back to square one, really, for Alzheimer's. And you sent over a clip, and I watched it, it really set off a light bulb in my head.

And I want to show the viewers that. This is during your deposition. And you ask about the brain effects of fluoride exposure. I want people to take a look at this. The next paragraph begins, fluorides also increase their production of free radicals in the brain through several different biological pathways. These changes have a bearing on the possibility

that fluorides act to increase the risk of developing Alzheimer's disease. Did I read that correctly? Yes. And CDC agrees with that finding of the toxicologic literature. Yes. Now, this is Casey Hannon, the director of the Division of Oral Health at the CDC. That's right.

So that's the director of the oral health division at the CDC, which is the division of the CDC, which aggressively promotes fluoridation, what I did there is I read for him one of the findings from the National Research Council's 2006 report. And as you can see, he agreed with that finding that in animal studies, fluoride causes changes in the brain that parallel and sort of mimic some of the changes that we see in the human brain with dementia. And there is, you know, on this issue, you know, a lot of the

focus at our trial was on early life exposures to fluoride, prenatal exposures and infant exposures to fluoride. And there's a lot of concern with that because of the vulnerability of the developing brain. But we also had evidence at trial that the elderly brain is also vulnerable to fluoride's impact on the brain. Well, this, when I hear that, my question is, why aren't kids coming up with Alzheimer's? Why Why aren't we seeing these problems in kids? Why is it the elderly? Well, I would say that there's various mechanisms and various reasons why the elderly brain has a unique vulnerability to fluoride's effects.

And I'll talk about a couple of those. The first is, you know, we've been talking about the bone. We've been talking about how fluoride can cause various bone effects because it accumulates. in the bone. And as I mentioned earlier, that is in part, the bone sequestering fluoride is in part of defense mechanism. Yeah, it's a sponge. And it even looks like a sponge, too. Right. But one of the problems we have is, as you get older for women after menopause, the bones start to break down. Okay, we start losing some of our density in our bones. And as part of that process, the fluoride that has been sequestered over time, the fluoride that has accumulated in the bone for decades starts to get released back into the blood.

So you start to see an increase in your blood fluoride levels in your 50s, 60s, and later. So you start to have more systemically available fluoride in your body. And sort of during that same time frame, you also start to see declining kidney function. Declining ability to filter. Right. So then you lose some of the efficiency at removing fluoride from your body, which again contributes to higher circulating levels of fluoride in your body. So there's a double negative there.

It's coming out of the bones and you can't get it out. Right. And then we also see that there is an increased permeability of the blood-brain barrier. Now, the blood-brain barrier plays a very important role in keeping toxicants out of the brain. It blocks most chemicals from getting into the brain, which is a really good thing. We don't want toxic chemicals getting to the brain. But as you age, and in the elderly years, that barrier starts to degrade. And so the chemicals that are circulating in your body start to have more access to the brain.

So with fluoride, what's concerning is we know that in animal studies, if you give fluoride to animals in well-controlled laboratory conditions, you absolutely see damage to the brain cells. No question about it. the studies are voluminous, no question. And some of the changes that you see in the brains of animals look a lot like changes in the brain that you see with patients with dementia. And so, you know, there's an increased access to the brain in the elderly years. And so I think there is a reason for concern on that point, the neurological potential.

I want to ask you about the thyroid, too, because a lot of people present day are struggling with thyroid issues. And it was known in 1968 in the Merck Manual that given fluoride to people actually lower the functioning of their fluoride. So people with hyperthyroidism, overactive thyroid, you give people fluoride and it slows it down. So why, obviously, I'm asking a loaded question here, but is there effects of fluoride when it's given to the water and we can't control the dose to people? Right. So when people think about fluoride, we typically think of it as a drug for preventing tooth decay or treating tooth decay. And what's not as well known is what you just pointed to, which is back in the 30s, 40s, 50s, and 60s, there were doctors in Europe and South America who used fluoride as a drug to lower thyroid activity in patients with hyper,

thyroidism. So these are people whose thyroid is like in overdrive. And so in patients with hyperthyroidism, you want to therapeutically lower thyroid function. That will provide a medical benefit to those patients. And fluoride was prescribed for that purpose. Now, the concern with fluoride has long been. Well, if fluoride lowers thyroid function in patients with hyperthyroidism, Could it also be lowering thyroid function in people with normal thyroid or people with low hypothyroid, right? And we now have studies, animal studies, as well as studies in human populations, linking fluoride exposure, including at low levels with hypothyroidism, underactive thyroid. I think most compelling is a study published last year in Canada, which found that there was a significant correlation between fluoridated water and hypothyroidism in pregnant moms. And hypothyroidism is a particular problem if you have it during pregnancy.

because it's known that that can affect the child's mental development. It can cause permanent deficits in the child's IQ. It can also cause other neurological problems. So that's not the only study that has linked fluoridation with hypothyroidism. There was another large study from UK in 2015 by Peckham at all, which found a significant association between fluoridated water and hypothyroidism in England. So it's a major red flag today

that we should be concerned about, which is fluoride's impact on the thyroid gland. Michael, it's wonderful to see your passion on this topic. I wish all voyeurs could be as passionate as you are with topics of health that are affecting the public the way fluoride is. I wish we had an army of people And I know you have joined with Aaron Siri,

you were part of the partner on that law firm. And I want to share with you an early book I purchased around, I think, 2011 or so. It actually brought it with me here, just to bring it out, is it's the case against fluoride. And I looked at the author, and I saw someone name Paul Connett, Ph.D. And is there any relation there to yourself? Yes, Paul Conant is my father. and we have worked very closely together for quite some time on the fluoride issue.

Yeah, yeah. And I want to just show people a clip of your father was out there, you know, over a decade ago, really trying to champion this issue. And a lot of pushback at that time, a lot of people weren't ready to hear it. So take a look at this. Fluoride is a part of a compound. The element is fluorine when it combines with other elements becomes fluoride. And the thing that got me going 20 years and

ago on this issue is the fact that the level of fluoride in mother's milk is extremely low, so much so that a bottle-fed infant today in a fluoridated community is getting 250 times more fluoride than nature intended. We have 43 studies, Ken, which shows a lowering of IQ associated with fairly modest exposure to fluoride. Those studies were done in communities with high natural levels of fluoride in China, India, Iran and Mexico. It's a topical mechanism. It works on the outside of the tooth, not from inside the body. In fact, in 1999, the center of disease control admitted that they thought

that the fluoride had to be ingested before the tooth had erupted. So babies needed it early to protect the enamel under the gums. But they said in 1999, not enough fluoride actually gets into the enamel that way. And the predominant mechanism of action is topical. It works on the outside of the tooth, not from inside the body. And that removed the whole rationale for water fluoridation because if it works on the outside of the tooth, we've got fluoridated toothpaste, mouthwashes, readily available. You could use that and spit it out. This way you avoid exposing all the other tissues in the body, including the brain,

the bone, the thyroid system, and so on, and you're not forcing it on people that don't want it. And that's the real problem with fluoridation. It's a violation of the individual's right to inform consent to treatment. Growing up in the 80s, my dad had this big metal water distiller, and it was just known. You just drink the water that comes out of there if you're going to drink water. And I really understand why, but how was it growing up in your household? What was the conversations around the dinner table like?

Well, we didn't, the fluoride issue didn't come into our lives until somewhat later. It was when I was in college in our town of Canton, New York, was considering whether we should stop our fluoridation program. And my father, at that time, my father's an environmental toxicologist, and he's worked for many years on the adverse effects of certain chemicals like dioxin and furens and heavy metals. He was skeptical that fluoride is a problem. He always thought that the people opposed to fluoridation were kind of like, you know,

kind of nuts. And he thought that they were making. some basic elemental mistakes about fluorine and fluoride. So he was very skeptical. But when he started looking at the literature at the request of my mom, who is also an environmental health researcher, he was concerned by what he was seeing at that time. And so it was, you know, in my college years when I started to become aware of it myself. But if I could follow up on a point that my dad made there, which, you know, became part

of our lawsuit, which I think is significant. As my dad mentioned there, when we started fluoridation back in the 40s, we believed we needed to swallow fluoride to get the benefit for dental health, okay, systemic effect. And then in 1999, the CDC acknowledged that it's predominantly a topical effect, meaning you don't actually need to swallow this to get the purported benefit. Well, in the court case, I deposed Dr. Casey Hannon, who's the director of CDC's oral health division, and I asked about some of the implications of that. And I said, okay, let's look at a pregnant mom. And is there any benefit to the baby in the womb? Is there any benefit to the baby, to the baby's teeth from the mom drinking fluoridated water? And his answer was, no, there's no evidence of any benefit of that, right?

So no benefit from the prenatal exposure. And then I asked, is there any benefit when the young, you know, the young infant is drinking Floyd? Is there any benefit from that? He says, no, there's no benefit there. And what's really important about that is this is a period of life in the womb and early infancy when there's a heightened vulnerability to fluoride's impact on the brain. Absolutely.

And we have now high-quality data linking early life fluoride exposure to reductions in IQ. And at that period of life, which is where you have that vulnerability, there is no benefit, no benefit. So what you have is a situation where you have a risk, a clearly identified risk to the brain from prenatal exposure and early infant exposure, and you have no. benefit, even according to the CDC's director of oral health, right? And so that to me, because we could sit around and talk about fluoride and teeth, you know, all day, but we now know that for a very vulnerable population in our society,

there is no benefit from having this in the water, but there is a risk. So I think it really raises a pretty serious question about this whole program of water floor. You know, the conversation does center around dental health, obviously. So what would you say to those people that say, okay, there may be some toxic effects, but if we take it out, we're going to create another problem with dental health? Well, the first thing I would say is that the vast majority of Western Europe has rejected water fluoridation. They don't add fluoride chemicals to their drinking water.

They make fluoride available in toothpaste and other dental products, so people in Europe have ready access to fluoride toothpaste and whatnot. And what's important there is that World Health Organization data, the World Health Organization compiles tooth decay data for each country. Okay? And when you look at the World Health Organization's data, you see that Europe generally has lower tooth decay rates than we do here in the U.S. And Europe has seen the same decline in tooth decay over the past 50 or 60 years that dentists

here in the U.S. attribute to water fluoridation. So you talk to dentists in the U.S. in the U.S., and they say, well, we had high rates of cavities in the 50s, and now we have low rates, and that's because we added fluoride to the water. Well, go to Europe where they didn't add fluoride to the water, and you see the same decline in cavities. So I think that's the first point I would make. The second point is a couple weeks ago, the Cochran collaboration in the UK, which is the

sort of gold standard. One of the most respected collaborations. of almost a lot of independent scientists coming together as well. Right. And so the Cochran Center, they do systematic reviews on the efficacy of medical treatments. And they just did a systematic review on the efficacy of water fluoridation. And they concluded that the evidence today is so weak that they cannot exclude water fluoridation having no benefit at all. Wow.

And, you know, one of the reasons they point to for that is that, you know, kids, and we all have so much fluoride through our dental products and whatnot, that, like, actually getting a benefit from adding more to your water is, you know, it's very questionable whether you get any additional benefit adding it to your water. And I think there's no benefit from adding it to the water when you consider that it's not a systemic benefit. It's a topical benefit, right? And so, and those are some of the considerations. Yeah, it seems like just a historic blunder at this point. As I sit here and listen to you, and it's not for me to decide that, but I think it's the court of public opinion at this point. Yeah, and hopefully with the court's ruling,

finding that water fluoridation poses an unreasonable risk, that EPA will issue a rule that will follow the path of Europe and end water fluoridation. Because we have fluoride in toothpaste for those people who want it. There's no need to be adding it to drinking water anymore, and it's certainly plenty of reason to be concerned about what it could be doing to people's overall health. Michael, how do people follow your work and what do you have planned next?

If people want to really get into this issue, where do they go? Well, I encourage people to check out the Fluoride Action Network's website and Twitter page. Fan is very active in following the latest developments with fluoride, Moms Against Fluidation is another organization working to raise awareness about the impacts of fluoride exposure. Moms Against Flordation was also a plaintiff in our court case. So certainly, you know, those are organizations that provide a lot of information. All right. Michael, I'm really excited about the hype and the enthusiasm that this court case,

all of the work that you've done has generated throughout the world. I don't, please don't underestimate the impact that you. you had and keep up the good work. We're looking forward to the next steps on this and what you have next. So thank you so much for joining me. Thank you, Jeffrey. I appreciate it. All right. I had a chance to sit down with Professor of Sociology for the University of Illinois, Alana Redstone, and she has written a book called The Certainty Trap. And we talked about the idea of extreme polarization of ideas where the actual truth may lie in the center path of the nuance. I interviewed her in Las Vegas at the Freedom Fest.

And this is the next installment of our series of the Freedom Files. I'm here with Ilana Redstone. You have written a book called The Certainty Trap. What kind of breakdown are you seeing right now with how people are relating to each other? A lot of what I'm seeing is just the way we treat all kinds of questions on all kinds of heated issues,

as though they're obvious and that there's nothing to be sort of explored or questioned or asked about. It paves the way for us to really be quite judgmental, contemptuous and disdainful of one another. People talk about threats to democracy. If we think about kind of the machinery of democracy, which it depends on, it's a commitment to political pluralism. What you need in order for the commitment to political pluralism to work

is in the absence of contempt for people who disagree. Most of us are not very good at recognizing when we lack things like intellectual humility or curiosity. So I would say that when you think the answers are easy, obvious, Anyone who disagrees is an idiot, hateful, stupid, that's your cue to start questioning or challenging or clarifying your own thinking. Freedom Files Las Vegas, our newest series on High Wire Plus exclusively for monthly donors. All right, my head is still spinning from all the information that Michael Connett just laid on us. I hope you found the information informative, and I hope it actually informs your actions for yourself and your family moving forward.

You know, they say there's a quote, never underestimate the power of a small group of people to change the world. And if you're still with me after this whole show, this is perhaps the most important part because we're going to talk about something that's absolutely inspiring. Now, I want to bring people back. Remember during the COVID response, the failed COVID response, outside of China, Australia treated its citizens, their government treated and disrespected their citizens. worse than any other country in the world, lockdowns, mandates, and the people of Australia in one town in Western Australia, Port Headland, have now done something that no other place in the world has done. They have voted five to two at their local city council to pause the Moderna and Pfizer COVID vaccines. Why?

Because of DNA contamination within these vaccines. within these vaccines. We know about this information, and one of the reasons we know about this information is not from the Australian government. It's not from our own FDA or CDC or Pfizer saying, hey, you know what? We kind of screwed up.

There's a little bit of contamination in here. It's because of independent scientists and whistleblowers doing the hard work and communicating that through free and open media to people like the City Council of Port Headland. So let's listen in to what that sounded like. these vaccines were pushed onto us in Headland. Actually, and it's a lot of people would know that,

you know, 68% of people in Headland didn't want to take the vaccine. The reasons they took it is because they didn't have a job if they didn't take it. So a lot of people were pushed into taking it. We're going to have problems getting answers. But I think, you know, with a council putting this forward and then giving the information to other councils and then getting support across WA and then Australia, I think the time will come when they can't block this information anymore. And that's what we're really trying to achieve here. This motion is about informing other local governments with the research that we've got

and getting answers to the new expert findings. How can we say no to that? I just feel that in the position as being a nurse for over 47 years now, that within the last two years there's actually been a very significant rise in cancers, AF, which is called atrial fibrillation post having COVID vaccines, also with paracarditis and myocarditis, also with other medical issues with bleeding and cancers. So I am going to be for the motion, as it's actually been quite significant in the last 18 months. I'd like to think that this motion tonight will be the report.

that creates a bigger wave across the country and perhaps across the world. Not only did they stop that there, but they sent out all of the information, all of the science. This was part of that vote to 537 other counties across Australia. Those counties have now been put on notice. Their prime minister, their health minister have been put on notice. They have the information they no longer can say, we didn't know. And this is what can happen. with free and open exchange of information.

When aligned with the truth, open information and an open internet, if we can keep it, can give every single person the ability, like he said in that city council, to be the pebble that drops in the water and creates a ripple effect that could possibly change the world. Now, I want to thank our supporters. I want to thank our longtime viewers, and I want to welcome people finding this show perhaps for the first time today. And here in America, we have less than a week till the 20th

presidential election. And it is really a civil right. Some say it's a sacred right to vote. And I want to encourage everyone, if you want to be a part of the direction of this country, the simplest thing you can do right now is cast a vote. All you have to do is throw a paper ballot into a box or push a button on a voting machine. We don't know what's going to happen after next week in this country. But I want to say, no matter what happens, no matter what events occur from now till then, the Highwire will be here on air next week and every week after that to give you the information and the real truth. So this is Jeffrey Jackson, signing off for the Highwire. Thanks again.