The Highwire with Del Bigtree - Episode 399: FACE THE FACTS

Episode Date: November 22, 2024

Impact of RFK Jr.’s Nomination To Head HHS; Jefferey Jaxen Reports on Climate Lockdown in Spain, Fact-Checkers Face the Facts, UFO’s Garnering Attention on Capitol Hill; ICAN Lead Attorney Shocks with Hep B Vaccine Facts and ICAN Launches Campaign to End Hep B Vaccination without Consent; To Support This Campaign, Go To icandecide.org/legalmatchGuest: Aaron Siri, 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 ICan Decide.org and donate now. All right, everyone, we ready?

Yes. Action. Good morning, good afternoon, good evening. Wherever you are out there in the world, it's time to step out onto the high wire. Well, I have to say this, maybe probably the most exciting week here at the high wire since we began in the beginning of 2000. 17. Really, all of this is started because of an investigation I began into vaccines while I was working at CBS on the daytime talk show of the doctors. Of course, many of you know, I stumbled upon the story of Dr. William Thompson at the CDC who came forward as a whistleblower saying they were committing

scientific fraud on the vaccine safety studies. I ended up making a documentary with one of the most controversial doctors in the world named Dr. Andrew Wakefield. That film was called called Vaxed. And once we got kicked out of Tribeca Film Festival before we even launched, it became the biggest media story in the world. That film swept the world. Some are saying ignited a movement for medical freedom and ultimately cast me into a totally different life. Suddenly I was in front of the cameras talking about vaccines, discussing the issues, where was the science? Were they safe? Were they efficacious? And of course, I wanted answers to all those. questions. Vaxed only covered one vaccine, the MMR vaccine. I wanted to know more, so I started

this nonprofit, the informed consent action network. I teamed up with the attorney Aaron Siri, who you will be seeing later on in the show, and we came up with a strategy to get around the fact that one of the only protections for any product of the world is around vaccines, liability protection that was given in 1986, so that no one can sue any manufacturer, any doctor, and any hospital, any gymnasium, anything that has to do with delivering a vaccine is completely free of any losses, no matter how many people it ends up killing, how many people it ends up injuring, anything that happens totally gets off scot-free. I set out to say, we need to change this conversation. We need to have accountability just like we have with every other drug we take

and virtually every other product on the market. I come from media, so I thought the only way we'll ever get there is we've got to change the narrative. One day, I thought, we will see a discussion happening on mainstream news, and it will be talking about how maybe we should look at these things. Maybe we should start asking questions. Maybe we should actually do the science. I knew on that day, we had made it. And that has been the goal. Well, this week, one of the most spectacular things that has ever happened in political history finally happened. Now, of course, two weeks ago, I talked about my journey with Robert Kennedy Jr. as his director of communications. He was, you know, teamed up with President Donald Trump, but the big question was,

will Trump actually do anything for Robert Kennedy Jr.? Is it all just a giant game of cat and mouse? Well, all that changed just after the show last Thursday when Donald Trump tweeted this. I am thrilled to announce Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as the United States Secretary of Health and human services. For too long, Americans have been crushed by the industrial food complex and drug companies who have engaged in deception, misinformation, and disinformation when it comes to public health. The safety and health of all Americans is the most important role of any administration, and HHS will play a big role in helping ensure that everybody will be protected from harmful chemicals, pollutants, pesticides, pharmaceutical products, and food additives

that have contributed to the overwhelming health crisis in this country. Mr. Kennedy will restore these agencies to the traditions of gold standard scientific research and beacons of transparency to end the chronic disease epidemic and to make America great and healthy again. Well, there you have it. Now the die has been cast and the world has been changed. And if you are questioning any longer what value, I mean, even if it ended, right here. Even this conversation ended right here. Did you ever think you would see people

like this saying this in the news? Do you think we should be worried at all? Like if he gets confirmed that he could sort of start a real no vaccine culture and put that into public policy? No, Brian, I don't think that. I mean, I'm probably one of the biggest advocates for vaccine. You mentioned that I, when I was CDC director, I would say that I think vaccines are the greatest gift of science to modern medicine, and I still believe that. Kennedy's not anti-vaccine. What Kennedy is about is transparency about vaccine, honest discussion about vaccines, asking for the data to show that these vaccines are safe and they're efficacious. And the mere question of asking, what's the data for safety? many of his detractors say, okay, well, you're anti-vax.

No, just show me the safety data, show me the efficacy data. I have high confidence that Kennedy is going to be a strong suborder of transparency on vaccines. And where the vaccine data shows that they're efficacious and a benefit to the American public, he will promote them. When he talks about transparency, I'm actually excited that, in a sense, Senate hearing, he would bring forward his data and the questions that come from the senators would bring force their data. What I know for sure is he's a very smart man who can bring his data and his evidence base forward and we can have a discussion that Mary the Americans believe already is a problem.

So until we can have that transparency and that open discussion from both sides, I know the members have incredible staffers who will bring great questions from their constituents and that hearing would be a way for Americans to really see the data that you're talking about, that we can't see that causation right now. But what is causing it? And so you're absolutely right. Addressing what the cause is will be critical. What? Are you kidding me? All right, look, I'm not kidding myself and neither should you. Let's recognize that the two people you just saw, Robert Redfield and Deborah Birx, probably both would love a job back in government. So maybe they're just saying what they think they need to say to get a job.

I don't know. Or maybe all the way through the pandemic they were holding some deep down, you know, profound concern about the safety of vaccines. I'll let you decide that. All I know is that this is now being said on television, that in order to try and go, you know, that in order to try and get a job in government, you've got to start sounding like you're willing to question the safety of vaccines. I mean, can you believe this is happening? Honestly, honestly ask yourself, you know, over the last several years, how long did you imagine it would take to get to this point we are in right now? So for all of you that have been working at transparency, that, you know, the integrity

of science as President Trump elect is now told. talking about, you know, you've been talking about for years. Some of you long before me, as I've said before, we're standing on the shoulders of giants, some of them like Jenny McCarthy or Dr. Andrew Wakefield or Sherry Tenpenny, some of these doctors out there that were all alone when they first started asking questions. But no one in science moved. And we were never able to get any of these databases opened up inside the government. Sure, you'd get some outside studies here and there saying what we thought was true, but you never had the study from the CDC, you never got it from the FDA, and most of the world's like, well, I mean, we really got to see

what they have to say. Well, now, I believe we're on the precipice of finding out what is hidden in their databases, which is all that really needs to happen. And whether or not you're saying, well, Robert Redfield still likes vaccines, who knows what he does or does not know? Here's what I know. People have said from the beginning, you know, Del, how are you so courageous? I mean, you get attacked, you get slandered in the media. And I've watched the same question asked of Robert Kennedy Jr. as I've traveled around with him for the last year and a half. Why don't you walk away? Why are you still in this? You know, every New York Times article, Washington Post, all the attacks asking him, what are you doing this for? I'm going to try and make this as simple

as I can. For those of you that maybe have not done the same work and research that I know we have done. Let's say, let's just look at this as a card game, right? You walk into a poker house, Maybe you're in Las Vegas with the family. You don't really play poker that often. Remember playing some in college, some quarter poker, you know, a couple of beers and that kind of thing. I'm just, honey, I'm going to go play some cards. Now you sit down, you throw some money to the table, and as it turns out, I don't know what this table is, or if everyone's bored, but Phil Ivey shows up. You got a couple of sultans and kings that sit down on the table.

Now you're completely outmanned. But you're looking down at your cards, and you're just thinking, well, I guess I'll stay in the hand. And friends around you would be saying, why aren't you walking out? Why aren't you folding that hand? There's no way you were ever going to win this hand. These are the best in the world. Some of them may even be cheating. But you look down at your cards and you look at them in the eye and you look at all the money and here's the truth.

After all the smears, all the jokes, all the attacks, all the pressure, all the name calling, all the bluffing, if you will, someone's eventually going to have to turn over their cards. And that's what I've known the whole time. It's what Robert Kennedy Jr. has known the entire time. That it doesn't matter how long it takes, really. It's going to be difficult. But the day we have to turn over our cards is the day that it all changes. When the world realizes this is what you were holding the whole time.

No one ever is going to get you to fold this hand. Here it I can, we have read every single. single study and trial ever done on vaccines with a team of incredible scientists from around the world. And what we discovered is you cannot say that they're safe and that you need to do studies right away. And anyone that tells you those studies have been done is bluffing. They're lying. They're not holding this hand. So when people ask you, what is Robert Kennedy Jr. going to do as Secretary of HHS? What's his plan? I'll tell you. I'll tell you, you what his plan is. His plan is to finally call this hand and say, I have a royal flush. CDC, please

turn over your cards. FDA, please turn over your cards. NIH, please turn over your cards. And let the world see the hand you've been holding the whole time. This is an incredible moment in the world right now that's happened. We didn't run away, maybe not because we're brave, because we're smart. We know what a good hand looks like. We know what an unbeatable hand looks like. And that's what you're about to see played in one of the most powerful institutions in the world. All right, we have a huge show coming up. I have Aaron Siri, the attorney that has made so much of what we've done here possible. One of the people that made sure and ensured me, Aaron, you're sure this is the hand? I think it is. That's the hand, Del. I'm seeing the same thing. He's going to be in a little bit

later talk about some of the most important legal cases we've ever had on the books. But first is time for the Jackson Report. All right, Jeffrey. How are we doing? It's fascinating watching the media rehash these talking points and then jump to our side like Birx is doing and Redfield's doing and really start to try to play both sides of the fence here. It's really interesting to watch this after seven years of debunking all the arguments they're

trying to come to the table with right now to defend their positions. It's really fascinating to watch us. Yeah, it really is. It's so amazing. You know, how quickly a narrative changes, right? I mean, from absolute vitriol and attack to surely some, if you can't beat them, join them going on right here, you know?

Right, right. Let's jump into the headlines here. Let's examine some more narratives going on so we can really see what's going on. So in Spain, in Valencia, Spain, they've had catastrophic flooding. Over 200 people have died so far. for the last couple weeks, they're really trying to just dig their way out of this.

It's been a complete tragedy. You can see some of the images here, just completely shocking. But in the headline here, Spain hit with deadliest floods in decades. So this is being called a really big deal. Of course, they're blaming on climate change. But something that we've seen, perhaps a first, were cars driving down the road in Spain. I'm just going to show you the clip, and then we'll talk about it.

Take a look at this. All right. What you're seeing there is a police car driving down the road. driving down the road during a very light rain. And what you're also seeing there is what appears to be the first climate lockdown that we've experienced in the world. And so let's talk about this because this was a conspiracy theory for so long. And we go into the actual reporting in Spain.

This is a translated article, but it said list of municipalities without classes and with traffic restrictions this Wednesday due to the new Dana in Valencia. The Dana is a weather phenomenon in the Mediterranean. It's like an isolated depression. And it says, the integrated operational coordinated center has announced that due to the new storm on Wednesday, and as a preventative measure, the circulation of private vehicles is restricted from 6 p.m. on Wednesday until 6 p.m. on Thursday and 20 municipalities in Valencia, including those most affected by the Dana on 29 October, but also other localities. So it shows here the list of them, obviously very exhaustive.

But it says now exceptions to this measure. So you can't go out of your house. You can't drive your car, period. Exceptions to this measure are those urgent trips that are duly justified and that occur for any of the following reasons. So you got to go to the doctor. You're returning home. You have minors or elderly dependents or disabilities. And so that's basically why you can go on the road. Otherwise, you're stuck. Now, why this is interesting is these are the headlines we've been greeted to of the corporate media making kind of fun of this idea, how climate lockdowns became the new battleground for conspiracy-driven protest movement. And it's interesting because those same corporate media, they gave us these headlines. This is the Hill in 2022, coming soon, climate lockdowns.

And then here's a Financial Times interview with Emmanuel Macron, the president of France. He says, if people could do the unthinkable to their economies to slow a pandemic, they could do the same to arrest catastrophic climate change. People have come to understand that no one hesitates to make very profound, brutal choices when it's a matter of saving lives. It's the same for climate risk. So let's look on both sides of the fence of this because, yes, okay, the lockdown was only for 24 hours. But it was imposed by the government. People could not go on the streets. They could not drive their cars.

there was exceptions of why they could do that, and they were very, very limited. And so technically, that is what happened. Now, did it happen for a long time like the pandemic? No. But as we know, the boot comes into the door and what follows it is what we have to watch out. It's clearly just testing humanity now. What are we willing to put up with? I mean, the fact, I mean, can you imagine if we start getting locked down for every

rainstorm, for every potential tornado or hurt? hurricane, you know, every, you know, possible flood. I mean, it's just, if those are the parameters by which the government now decides, you know, how they're going to protect me, right? I mean, I don't even see what difference does it make if I'm out of them about? How would that hurt anybody else? If I want to risk and go to my job or go on with my life or go to my church and I'm going to put up with the rain coming down and deal with the fact that there

maybe a once in a decade, you know, flood that comes rushing through the streets, Certainly that should be my prerogative. But it is scary. And frankly, there's some people on our team, on our research team, that have been saying, I'm telling you, they're going to do the same thing they do with COVID, but they're going to take the pandemic and disease. It's going to be lockdowns. I mean, they're going to do lockdowns over climate. It's going to be about climate.

And I'm one of the people saying, I don't see how they pull that off. And let's be clear, they haven't pulled it off yet in the United States of America. But the fact that they're attempting it anywhere. And I don't see anyone out there protesting it or stopping it in Spain. It is very, very scary to imagine. I mean, and that's the dystopian novel, right? That you're just always fighting. You know, we got to keep you locked down because of a war with the weather that's going on and we're protecting you.

And it's just a side note to this story. The corporate media will say, oh, it's climate change. Oh, my gosh. Well, we have a data analyst here looking at the torrential rain downpour in Valencia since 1940. And we have this graph here, and it shows on the far right side is what? what those municipalities just went through. You have those big red lines, pretty big. But you see in 1987, it was even bigger.

In 82, it was even bigger than in the 50s. You saw a big spike there in the red as well. So it certainly wasn't the worst 24-hour torrential rainfall records by this municipality looking at the official numbers. And so why did this happen? What's going on? Well, Matt Ridley at The Spectator, wrote an incredible article, and it's titled, Damn Shame, What really caused Valencia's floods?

He said in the past few years, the Spanish government has been removing dams at a furious rate under the European Union program to encourage the restoration of rivers to their wild state for the benefit of fish migration. Spain set about dismantling barriers of all kinds. In 2021, it got rid of 108 dams and weirs. In 2022, another 133. That year, it was Europe's proud league champion at dismantling them. Last year, it was second only to France. So that's the other side narrative going on to this story. is this country is the grand champion at removing all of their dams that are, you know,

some of them potentially blocking the flows of these waters. And then when these trenchal rains come down, maybe not the worst they've ever seen in 20, 30 years, but is this the reason why this is happening? This is a novel idea, but this is an idea that we really should explore as well instead of just blaming climate change and locking people down. Yeah, I mean, because the dams really essentially are like block points. I mean, here even in Texas, we have a release system because we do get big rains and I happen to live on one of the waterways. And so you see one dam spills the other, but they block the water from just rushing all at one time. You take them out of the way, then everything that flows down out of the hills just smashes into a city and wipes it out as we saw.

But what I find, I mean, I think what we're so tired of, right? And I want to say this again, I'm an environmentalist, but by the old school standards, not by I'm not into carbon credit scores. I am totally mystified by this whole damn removal thing. I thought hydroelectric plants were like the cleanest energy you have. I mean, literally it's just flowing water and turbines giving you energy. And now all of a sudden we're saying, no, no, no, that's not clean enough. We've got to go to windmills where whales are dying. I mean, just show, like, no matter what you do, you're never going to be on the right side of this.

I guess till we're all back in a wigwam somewhere, you know, eating over a fire pit. if you're allowed to start a fire. It's, you know, I just don't know where this ends, and they keep, you know, moving the bar. If you look at fracking and natural gas, I remember as a Democrat, which I was years ago, most of my life until recently, really, fracking and natural gas was the clean energy. It was pushed by the Obama administration and everything. Now it's the big bad guy. Oh, no, no, that's the worst thing ever.

Well, that was your clean energy idea. I know we're going to see the same thing around batteries that are piling. and solar panels that are piling up. I mean, in the end, it seems to me it's sort of like how your diet should be, right? Just diversification, a little bit of everything, try a little bit of everything, let's be reasonable. But it is amazing that you wonder, you know, did they have, you know, when we saw those lines back in 1987, the other times they had those rains, I don't remember seeing flooding like that, or here, maybe we did, or maybe back then, did they have dams?

I mean, it's amazing to think, because dams go back like thousands of years. You know, people have been using this as a technology to protect a city. And no, no, we got to get rid of those things. I don't know. Hopefully we're returning to some sanity around all these issues. Well, there's definitely sanity coming back. Let's hit on a spot of good news or hopeful news, I should say, before we get into a real investigation here.

And that is advertisers are coming back to the platform X. That's Elon Musk platform. Comcast, Disney, IBM are among advertisers returning to X after ad freeze. Now, people need to understand that advertising revenue is the low. lifeblood of like social media and even media organizations, but it's also a choke point and vulnerability that can be used to leverage to shut down those organizations when people pull their advertisers. So that's what happened in 2023. People remember companies boycotted X, Apple, Disney Comcast, they pulled ads from Elon Musk platform. Well, we're finding out that that was something,

it was a silencing campaign. And this is nothing new. People like Glenn Beck, Alex Jones, they've all received this treatment of this silencing campaign where they go after the advertisers. There's an organization called Garm, and this is in the New York Post. Garm's silencing of conservative media could potentially be devastating. That's a global alliance for responsible media. And they were able to leverage their power because they had some of the top advertising companies that were giving money to those organizations. They could boycotts and really hurt the bottom line and hurt these news agencies

because they didn't like what they were reporting. So we're seeing kind of a shift in that. People are now flocking back. These big advertisers are now flacking back onto X. But there's a huge sea change coming and it's already here. Remember, Mark Zuckerberg came out of nowhere. It's a handful of months ago and apologize. I'm so sorry, Zuckerberg says.

He regrets caving the White House pressure on contact. Sorry I censored you. I'm so sorry. Well, maybe he saw this coming. Incoming FCC chair, Brendan Carr vows to dismantle big tech censorship cartel. Brendan Carr took to X. and posted this letter. This was a letter that he sent to Google, Microsoft, Meta, and Apple. And it was an start of an investigation. He said congressional investigations, press reports,

and other evidence show that in many cases, you did not act alone in your censorship. Rather, you participated in a censorship cartel that included not only technology and social media companies, gut advertising, marketing, and so-called fact-checking organizations as well as the Biden administration itself. So he's saying, look, this is all a big problem, but what he was really going after was NewsGuard. And how bad did this really get before all of this really started to turn? Remember, the Pentagon, this was New York Post again. It says Pentagon and other agencies funded potential agent of censorship campaigns,

House Committee reveals. So what's happening now is NewsGuard is in the sites. This is a reporting here at the Highwire headline House Oversight investigates NewsGuard's government contracts and censorship allegations. And so NewsGuard, which once was this back-checking. I can't tell you how happy I am about this. You know NewsGuard was constantly up my butt. I kept having to respond to their ridiculous claims saying we're spreading misinformation.

I think my last interaction with them, I said, we're past COVID now. You're claiming my organization spreads misinformation. You've never been able to name a single thing that we got wrong. Meanwhile, you were pushing a narrative that mass work, that social distancing was science, that the vaccine would stop transmission, that the vaccine was safe, that the virus came from a natural origin, all of which you're wrong. When are you going to hang it up? When am I going to get an apology letter from you instead of you saying, we're going to stamp you

with the monitor misinformation? Newsguard, there you go. It's called karma. I love it. Exactly. So they are in the sites and they're not the only ones. The Center for Countering Digital Hate is also in the sites. So you're seeing these agencies, in that case, shadowy agency kind of floundering at this point. This is a headline here. Seven reasons why CCDH faces collapse from anti-hate group to foreign influence and NATO black ops. They're experiencing intensifying congressional investigations. Multiple legal challenges are converging. And Elon Musk himself, his lawsuit just went. through and now proceeding through an appeal. So they're going full steam ahead against this organization to find out what's really what their contracts consisted of, what their minutes consisted of, what they're talking about, how they did they influence the U.S. election. These are big, big deals at this point because

we have full media is really opening up to the people and these impediments. Obviously the Biden administration that is going away. We have these impediments like NewsGuard and CCDH. That is really, you know, they're really being investigated hard and being pressed on hard. So it's a new day for media. And what we're going to find out in the days and years and perhaps decades ahead, if we're lucky, we'll probably reshape this world completely. I mean, these are essentially like the KGB of the internet. That's what it has felt like, right? What am I being? Like, they would literally say you're under an investigation as though they have any power whatsoever. And I don't know who tunes into NewsGuard and decides what websites are going to look at because of NewsGuard.

they should probably have their head checked. But, I mean, it really is. I hope the end of a really disgusting period of time here in the United States of America and a complete and total attack on our First Amendment. Absolutely. All right, Del, I want to take this conversation into a direction that we don't normally talk about

on the show here. I've been doing investigations on this, and I want to present this here. And so just last week, we saw this headline. U.S. Congress will hold another, UFO hearing, here's how to watch. So this conversation's been in and out of the mainstream news cycle and beyond memes and like social media jokes, the public, it seems the public really doesn't know what to make of this conversation, but it's it's now in the news

cycle and it's now gaining sustained mainstream coverage. So I think it's time to look at it here. And where I want to start this conversation is with Bill and Hillary Clinton. In 1995, They were summoned, basically, to Lawrence Rockefeller's ranch in Jackson Hole, Wyoming for a week to have a conversation. And at the time, no one knew about that. But in retrospect, we have these headlines here. What really happened in when Hillary and Bill Clinton tried to open UFO Truth 21 years ago. So this is Lawrence Rockefeller's son of Standard Oil's John D. Rockefeller. And you can see there's an image that came from that meeting, that week-long meeting.

And here's Hillary Clinton walking with Lawrence Rockefeller. And she has a book here that circled. And that book is titled Are We Alone? And it's basically dealing with the philosophical implications of discovery of extraterrestrial life. So kind of a big deal. But after that point, there was really no conversation. And remember, up until that point, media wouldn't touch this conversation with a 10-foot pole. You couldn't get universities to touch any part of this conversation.

Governments were quiet at best, but there was a lot of accounts over the, decades of them covering up conversations, and even people who've had any type of experience, they're written off as crazy. All of the sudden, during the 2016 presidential election, we have Hillary Clinton, President Trump. This is obviously at the time was one of the biggest elections in the history of this country

to decide the direction. Hillary Clinton takes a turn in the months before the election is over and decides to hang her hat and her campaign on this topic. Take a look. We had your husband, President President Clinton on this show, he said, I asked him about UFOs in Area 51 and if you, if he looked in it, because if I was present, that's the first thing I do.

I go right into those files and see what was going on. Right. And he said that he did do that. Yes. And that he didn't find anything. Well, I'm going to, I'm going to do it again. Yeah, why not? Right.

And you know, there's a new name. It's unexplained aerial phenomenon. Unexplained aerial phenomenon, really? Yep, UAP. Are you going to tell the truth about aliens? I want to open the files as much as we can. I mean, if there's some huge national security thing and I can't get agreement to open them, I won't. But I do want to open them because I'm interested.

Do you believe? I don't know. I want to see what the information shows, right? But there are enough stories out there that I don't think everybody is just sitting, you know, in their kitchen making them up. I think that people see things, what they see, I don't know. But we've got to try to give people information. I believe in that. So this conversation comes out of left field.

People are kind of going, I thought we're talking about the economy and migration. So she comes in with this idea in 2016. Obviously, history shows she loses the bid for presidency. But then 2017 comes. And again, she's really the only one talking about this. She loses the bid. 2017 comes, you have the New York Times out of left field. All of a sudden, the media, it's okay to.

talk about this, glowing oras and black money, the Pentagon's mysterious UFO program. Remember, for decades, independent organizations thwarted researchers at Ivy League universities. Can't touch this. New York Times comes out and just puts it right in your face. And sure enough, right after that, that same week, CNN picks it up. So now you have the New York Times, CNN, and Hillary Clinton front-running this idea. Former Pentagon UFO official, we may not be alone. And so this is where we're starting. So we're seeing this and going, wait a minute, in retrospect now looking at that, these may not be the most trustworthy institutions and individuals to be bringing this idea forward, but here we are. And so all of this momentum at that time leads now

into real congressional hearings. And so at that time, we had the first congressional hearing with this subject in like 50 years in 2022, over 50 years. And here's some of the headlines that came out of their. U.S. officials say Pentagon committed to understanding UFO origins. The same Pentagon that censored you is going to tell you about UFOs. Okay, but here's the real switch in the narrative. At that same time, this is what comes out. These are the headlines that come out at first congressional hearing. Key lawmaker warns at UFO hearing, unidentified aerial phenomena are a potential national security

threat. It goes on to say Democratic rep Andre Carson of Indiana, the chairman of the panel holding the hearing warned in his opening remarks. Unidentified aerial phenomenon are a potential national security threat. And they need to be treated that way. They need to be investigated. Any threats they pose need to be mitigated, he said. So this goes on. There's another House Oversight Committee hearing in 2023 a year later. Now things are really rolling at the governmental level. Here's the headline that comes out of that.

UFOs present a clear threat to U.S. national security, former military pilots, intelligence officials say. So now you're seeing this narrative form. It's a threat narrative. We don't know what they are. You should be really scared of them. Where Hillary Clinton was saying, I don't know what to believe, but I'd like to know so we can, you know, we can, people what to believe. Well, it looks like the government there with these hearings are trying to tell people not so subtly how to believe with this. So at the same time in 2023, we have this happen. A suspected Chinese spy balloon is found over northern U.S. So that was a day later you have the DOD, the United States government has detected, it's tracking an altitude surveillance balloon, a high altitude service. That was the Department of Defense. That's their own

press release talking about this. So they're tracking that, they shoot that down, and all of the sudden another one pops up. But what does the media do? Now the media changes its narrative. Just a week later, US shoots down unidentified object flying above Alaska. Now you can see the hyperventilating coming. You see this narrative switch. Here's another headline. Former congressman wonders if objects shot down over Alaska's alien UFO. Another one. Canadian search teams hunt for wreckage amid UFO anxiety. So you can see this this thing is being whipped up, not even the media. It's supposed to be unbiased, supposed to report facts. Now it's changed from, it turns out that it was just probably weather blue is going to about 20 miles an hour, it said, and it shot down.

So amidst this whole conversation since 2017, you have some figures here. One of them is Chris Mellon of the Mellon baking family, but he's also the Secretary of Defense for Intelligence under Clinton and George Bush. So you have a continuity of government, deep intelligence official. He's handling the whistleblowers when it comes to the UFOs. He's front-running the hearings

with media appearances as kind of the go-to expert. And he's doing interviews himself on people like Joe Rogan and Tucker Carlson, high-profile interviews. Well, he gets interviewed in 2024 in a Gizmodo article. And he talks about that original New York Times article

in 2017, where the world changed. You always used to be crazy, but now in New York Times and Hillary Clinton, CNN says, it's okay to talk about this, that changed the world. What does he say about that? Listen to this. This was not an investigative journalism, Melon tells me. I handed them the evidence, introduced them to Lou Alizando, gave them a stack of documents,

arranged for them to meet and interview Harry Reid and made a deal with them. They ran the story which appeared on December 16, 2017 on the front page. Well, I mean, that sounds like an intelligence official literally curating information to give to journalists. But there's two journalists in this conversation here. We have Leslie Keene and Ralph Blumenfall. They wrote the article in the New York Times. So surely these journalists have something to say on their own. Well, this is Leslie Keene and Ralph Blumfall themselves talking about that article.

Take a listen. You know, our article in the debrief and our reporting in the New York Times is really focused on the hardware as a first step. we've been very careful and not to venture too far afield from that because it's even harder to pin down. I mean, you agree, Leslie? Yeah, I would agree. I mean, it's also, Whitley, it's a matter of strategically bringing out aspects one step at a time and letting people acclimate to something and then maybe you can go a little farther the next time. So, Del, I'm a journalist, acclimate to what? The government's version of this, the Intel community's version of this bring it out slowly so people can with it sounds like gatekeeping a little bit

and Dell i want to believe in the government here but i i have a hard time have a hard time with this story and so what really happens when you get to the teeth of this thing all of this hype all of these congressional hearings what's coming out the what's coming out the end of the tap here what do we really have in our hands well are we building the national defense When the National Defense Authorization Act was re-up for 2025, and that is a military budget, we have Chuck Schumer tried to slip in an amendment. And I'm going to read from this amendment that he tried to slip in. And this is one of the provisions. Subsection A, exercise of eminent domain. The federal government shall exercise eminent domain over any and all recovered

technologies of unknown origin and biological evidence of non-human intelligence that may be controlled by private persons or entities in the interest of the public good. So the technologies of unknown origin. So the government, if it doesn't know where it came from, they can take it from you. And biological evidence, could that be people? I mean, what are we talking about here? The government is, they're saying they own everything if they say they don't know where it comes from. And this is what, so when it's all said and done, this threat and fear narrative being driven is, it seems like it's working to,

expand government, give them more power, give them more control on this subject under the guise of we're just trying to get this out for the people. And I'll finish with this. So there's a lot of journalists out there's a lot of podcasters that are just being thrown in this conversation and not really understanding what they're being a part of. One of them, one of the biggest voices, perhaps the biggest voice in the world, Joe Rogan. Joe Rogan over the years has genuinely tried to get to the bottom of this. He's had Chris Melon on. He's had these whistleblowers on, these intelligence officials on to have conversations and try to get to the bottom of this. And just recently, it seems like the worm is terming for him.

Something changed in his approach with this. Take a listen. I wanted to spread misinformation or disinformation. If I was an intelligence agent, I think I would get someone to be a whistleblower. I would sanction whistleblowers. I would tell them go on podcasts, go on radio shows, on television and discuss all these different disclosures. And you can't tell them everything.

Your top secret stuff, you know, some stuff you've got to keep your secret. Boy, I wish I could tell you. But there's more I can't tell you. There's a lot going on. And that's a really good way, I would think, if I was in control of a narrative that I wanted to be continuously slippery. Like this is a very slippery conversation. Like, you never get to the end of it.

Such a great point and it is really, you know, one of the things you have to imagine, right, that I've worked in television, I've dabbled a little bit now in politics and you realize that the easiest sensation to use upon masses, when you need to move masses in a direction you want is fear, right? I mean, it's a lot of how, you know, we watch this election, I would say a lot of the Democratic Party fear Donald Trump. It didn't work, but it comes close and maybe it's working. before. Sometimes it does, but it really is the easiest way to drive emotion and to get people to perhaps sort of give up their own power. Now, I don't know where this story goes. You know, I've always held that it just seems like when you look out in that universe with all of those being sons, one of them has got to be close enough to a rock that something could grow.

But I will say what you're, you know, there's certain red flags that go off from me. And I always say this with the audience when you're watching. As a journalist, you just learn to have certain things that trigger you. What triggers me is when things don't act naturally, when things happen that are outside of the natural pressures that I'm used to watching, which is this UFO story, there haven't been marches on Washington. There aren't, you know, 10,000 people showing up in New Jersey like there were on the vaccine issue. They don't have a leader. I don't know who that would be. You don't see a voice. You don't see it, you know what I mean, like really putting pressure on government. You don't see people starting to really stand together and say, we want this information.

Just kind of out of nowhere, right after COVID, you know, and that fear didn't quite work as well as you think they might have thought it should. Suddenly, are there UFOs headline? Are there, you know, is this something we should be looking at? And now all of a sudden, like, photos, you know, that you're looking at and you're like, I mean, it could literally be anything. I mean, these videos are ridiculous, like some gray dot moving in space. I mean, come on. And so what is, what is the purpose there? One thing is for sure is if you needed a tool and a deadly virus sweeping the world did not achieve what you were looking for, certainly our enemies are in the skies and they're coming for us now would be a really good way to get us to lockdown, I don't know, to shelter in place or whatever else they want to suddenly vaccinate. We've got alien DNA, you know, moving amongst us.

It's not beyond our imagination. and certainly, no matter what happens here, I hope that what you're saying, and we should all say right now, is stay skeptical. Stay skeptical of every side of this. I think it's important to just ask yourself, sure, we all have seen enough movies from, you know, E.T. to aliens and are fascinated by the idea. But let's not be so fascinated that we end up giving up our sovereignty out of some incredible lie or hoax. We've been through it before. It could certainly happen again. It's really an important story, Jeffrey. I'm glad you're bringing this angle to it. And I don't want to let down all those people that watch the show. I don't think we're saying UFOs don't exist.

We're just saying, if they do, why are they suddenly talking about it now? Right? Absolutely. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, that's really the basic point of this conversation is we're not coming to a conclusion. We are skeptical. and the players and the organizations that are presenting this to us is just don't quite add up sometimes, nor does the messaging.

So that is where we're at. I'm sure we'll be talking about this again. I'm sure. A lot more and more headlines coming out about that. Jeffrey, great reporting. And by the way, congratulations, man. I mean, we have stood in this battle for transparency. I know like you, you would not be here if you hadn't looked at the mountains of evidence

on our side on these issues around vaccines. safety, transparency. There really are people being injured. I know that's where we met. We met out there in the field interviewing both of us from different sides, interviewing families that were just going through this really horrible experience and having a government telling them, and doctors, that didn't happen. It's your imagination. Even though it's written right on the insert, right there on every vaccine, or the warnings of these exact issues that are happening these kids. So here we are. We are now in a moment with a president that didn't just say, want transparency. He literally just put the king of transparency into a position at

Health and Human Services. Now he just needs to get confirmed. So very exciting times. But I know you're a huge part of this, Jeffrey. Thank you for your work. So much more to do. We've got to keep their feet to the fire. Absolutely. So looking forward to it. All right. Take care. I'll see you next week. Thank you. All right. Well, look, you're here. I mean, I know that you're used to podcast telling you what you want to hear or maybe, you know, finding your size, we are always going to be skeptical. I want you to, you can count on that. If we are running the story, we are giving you our honest opinion, we're telling you when it's a hypothesis, or whether it's a theory that's been proven,

or if it's peer reviewed, we put all of that evidence in your hands, which is why one of the most important things you should do if you watch this show more than once is sign up to our newsletter so that you get all of the evidence. Where did that headline come from? I know you're, you you're going to say to yourself in five days from now in a conversation, oh, man, I wish I could show you this slide that I saw on, I wish I could show this article in this video like blew my mind on the High Wire. You won't have to. You'll be right there in your email inbox. You just go to the Highwire. We don't blow you up. It's only for this purpose right here. Thehighwire.com. Just scroll down right there on the page. Put in your email. It's all encrypted. No one will know

but us. And you will get all of the evidence for every show that we have. And you can, you can can write in and say, hey, I feel like you guys cherry-picked this. Good. Challenge us. We want you to challenge us. We're pretty happy with our track record because we remain skeptical about everything we look at. But every single week on Monday, you get links, hyperlinks to every article we talk about. Every piece of science we show you, you can read it yourself. You can show it to your friends. It's a great party trick. Hey, how about the truth? Here's a peer-reviewed science. All right, speaking about the truth, we wouldn't be here if it weren't for the great legal work that we're doing. And we have so many important legal cases that are going on right now, and they're very, very expensive.

The truth is, is we've pushed it to the limit. We felt this shift, this sea change that was happening, but we need the full force now. Remember, there's multiple branches of government. You've got your justice system. You've got your judicial system. You've got your government. you've got media, you have all of the different players pushing, and we push from all sides. We've got the media pushing.

We have the legal side pushing, and now we've got government getting involved. We're hitting from all sides. We cannot have any of these pressure points fall apart right now. This is how you not just seize the castle, but you change the world. And so in order to do that, we have a really great opportunity. We have a matching fund that's been given to us by one of our beautiful donors. So right now, we are matching $2 million before the end of the year. And if you want to see, you know, exactly where we're at, I think we're about three weeks in here.

Let's just go take a look at the board, shall we? All right, come on over here. Here it is. It's the I can $2 million legal match. Right now you can just click on this QR code, or you can go to Icandecide.org slash legal match. Now, right now, we, as of last week, when we, First, when we reported on this, we were at $150,000. So let's see how we did in last week.

Shall we roll it? Boom! Amazing. We doubled our money in one week because of you. That is so exciting, so fantastic. That means that we are now, you know, technically going to raise $600,000 with the matching funds, but we want to be able to utilize all of that. And let's be honest, if we keep tracking it in average about $100,000 a week, we probably

won't get all of it by the end of the year. It's that time of year. I want you to think about what we've achieved. I want you to ask yourself, would we be in this space right now? Would we be seeing this shift in the government of the United States, the beacon of light and hope for the world if it weren't for the work of High Wire and I Can and Aaron Siri? I mean, maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't, but we certainly believe we've played a part, which means you've played a part. So for everyone, out there, this is your opportunity. I want you to really consider making a donation today. Get involved because we're going to get to double that donation and it's going to go to a really important cause, which is fighting for your children, your freedom, your sovereignty of your body.

Do you think the government owns your body or do you want to stay in charge? Do you want it back? We're fighting for all of those things, which is why I decided to really try and move this along. I asked Aaron Siri to come, can you fly in? You can't imagine how busy this guy is right now, by the way. But I said, can you fly in? I really want to talk about the super exciting hepatitis B case you've got going on and all the other things that we're working on so that people realize how important this moment is for them. So if you don't know who Aaron Siri is for some reason, maybe you're brand new. Here's the guy that is winning all of our lawsuits against the government and making the world a much better.

Take a look at this. Joining us now is Aaron Siri. Erin Siri. Her lawyer. Aaron Siri. Aaron Siri has led several high-profile lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers and federal health agencies. Aaron, you have been fighting for information from the FDA.

He's the guy that has been asking Pfizer to release the COVID-19 vaccine data. I love Aaron Siri. There's nobody who's been a greater asset to the medical freedom movement than him. The judge said correctly ruled. that the San Diego School District does not have the authority to require COVID-19 vaccine of its students. We sent this letter to the FDA, CDC, and NIH. Detail and catastrophic injuries from COVID-19 vaccines. This summer, we formally petition the CDC demanding that they support their position,

that those that have natural immunity cannot afford the same liberties that the CDC says that those who have vaccine immunities can have. We do intend to follow a lawsuit on behalf of our client, the Informant, Action Act, network. Did the clinical trial rule out that the vaccine causes autism? No. If you don't know whether D-TAP or T-DAP cause autism, shouldn't you wait until you have the science to support that vaccines do not cause autism? No, I do not wait.

It's the only product I'm aware of where it is the government with DOJ attorneys defend the company, the product against the consumers claiming injury in the vaccine injury compensation program. Not a single childhood vaccine, I could tell you, has gone through a placebo-controlled clinical trial of sufficient duration and power to assess that it was safe before being injected into millions of children in America. There's been no check on vaccines. There's no moneyed interest, if you will, pushing back on pharmaceutical companies. Why did it take numerous legal demands, multiple appeals, two lawsuits, in fact, before the CDC finally handed over the V-safe data? When we finally had that data, you got a sense of why. they didn't want the public to have it because it showed a little bit over 10 million reported

needing medical care after a COVID-19 vaccine. It should not be that any physician should have to quote unquote risk it all just to advocate for their patients. Think about this business model. You have a vaccine. You can't be sued for harms. You have a guaranteed market because kids are required to get it for school and your health agency is promoted for you.

If you want to secure civil and individual rights, you need to act yourselves because If you don't do it, who will. It's a hell of a sizzle reel. I mean, just in seven short years, the amount of incredible work that Aaron Siri has achieved. One of the most difficult spaces in, you know, probably American history, literally changing the course of where we're going. It's my honor and pleasure to be joined right now by our attorney, Aaron Siri.

Pleasure to be here. I mean. You guys make me look good. Well, it's not very hard. It's not very hard. And I just want to take this moment really quick with the people in camera because I just did talk about the $2 million match at any point during this conversation. I'm hoping you will decide, you know what, let me go ahead and donate to help this guy keep doing amazing work like that. But let's have this conversation now.

So much to talk about. But really, I just want to look forward. I want to look at the cases that we have going right now because we could sit here and do, you know, happy dances over all that's been achieved. But it's not over. Let me ask you this question just to start out with. I think a lot of people are going well. I mean, it looks like, you know, the government, you know, Bobby Kennedy's taking the government. Why are legal cases going to even be important?

Why not just say we did it? It's over. Oh, absolutely. Well, to the extent that Robert of Kennedy Jr. is able to really rein in these federal health authorities. And we're talking within HHS, you've got 85,000 employees, $1.7 trillion department, 13 operating divisions, CDC being one of them, FDA being another, numerous offices of the Secretariat. It's a sprawling mass of the Hamath.

And I think if anybody could do it, I hope that Mr. Kennedy, we hope to soon call him Secretary Kennedy. And hopefully the heads of the agencies, we still will see who those are. And then below that, there's going to be almost 300 individuals that are going to be appointed by the president.

So let's see how all those folks are, and then we'll get a sense of what is going to be accomplished over the next year, two years, four years. But even while that's going on, we have to remember what everybody else talks about, the deep state. What is that? Yeah, what is that? That is below the 300 appointed individuals at HHS are the 85,000 career employees. and there's an entire in each agency, folks who've been there for decades, right, who are very high up.

And many of them might, you often hear, say, take the view that we'll just wait out the career employee, the political appointees. Yeah. You know, they're there for maybe four years and most. We're here for decades. We'll resist them, we'll subvert them, will undermine them.

And so there is still that entire, you know, to the extent there are, individuals in there that don't want to go along with Bobby's message, that don't want to have transparency, that don't want their email shown, that don't want databases, that the American public pays for in public. I mean, why? But there are. And we know they are there because they're fighting us.

We have every time we want a database, like VSAFE, like various of the data sets, we've had to sue, like the FDA data. We've had to engage in multi-year law fees. Seventy-five years, they wanted a way to show the Pfizer data. And you always had to remind people, you weren't fighting Pfizer on that. You were fighting the government. The FDA. Yeah, it was the FDA.

Protecting a company like Pfizer for 75 years they wanted to do it. Why? Exactly. The FDA doesn't want you looking at what they did to approve that product. If they weren't concerned, they would have released it. If any, they should want the public to have it to say, hey, look, you did a great job. Right. It's amazing product.

We stand by it. We love the decisions we made. We'll show you how thorough we were. Have at it. Well, here's- Well, we're looking for a pat on the back. Yeah. Well, here's just a side, a diversion.

In that lawsuit, remember when the judge ordered all the documents, he ordered it based on there being 450,000 pages. Turns out they produce 1.2 million pages, and there's apparently another million pages they still haven't produced. Really? We are still litigating with them today over that years and years later. They are doing everything in their power to hide those documents from the public. Because the judge basically decided how many pages they deliver a date.

He wanted all the data provided in one year. So based on the number they said, then we got to the end of that year. It was still coming. You went back to court and said, oh yeah, it's like, you know, another million documents or so. And now again, we're getting the end of the updated rate of flow and is coming and you're still seeing we're not going to get it all. And so you're going to have to go to court again.

So you asked me what is there still to do in this space? Well, there still could be plenty of work to do. on the federal level because it's still there are lots of things that the federal government it will help their outsiders from the outside attacking in for example the FDA acts on petitions if you want a license a product you have to petition them if you want a product to be withdrawn or re-evaluated you typically often have to petition them right that's the normal course way for those things to happen well somebody on the outside needs to be petitioning them somebody in the outside needs to continue to provide FOIA requests and say give us those documents give it that data so there's

There's a lot of work to still be done in the federal level. And there's lots of other things. It's a bit like if you breach the castle, right, and you go in and you've got the seal team and they pull up the castle gate, if no one rushes in the gate, what did you achieve? So we still need to be coming in and demanding information and sort of getting what we can out of there. And then separately, a lot of the freedoms are actually not necessarily flowing out of the

federal government. They're at the state level. And so, you know, you've already heard. some politicians who don't necessarily like the pick of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and don't like the current, the incoming administration stance, certain governors say, oh, we're going the opposite way, we're going to fight you. And what does that mean? Does that mean that they're going to become even more draconian on the issues of concern? Are they going to increase the number of mandates? Are they going to go the other direction where if the federal government decides to say, hey, let's respect people's individual rights, their right to inform consent. Do some states go, oh no, whatever is going on at the federal level now, we're going the opposite way. And do they become even more draconian, which may mean that, you know, fighting on the state level and those states may become even more important than it or really?

And we definitely want to nip those things in the bud before they take, you know, root if they really decide to go in a further, as you said, draconian direction. You know, and I've said this many times on the show and we've talked about this many times. Rights are on a pendulum. They're never, it's never that you've now got your rights and you're done. You always have to fight. In fact, as soon as you think you've won and you let go and you stop putting your foot on the gas to protect your rights, that's when you start to lose them. If you become complacent, right. Because the other side, right, they're upset.

They're going to start fighting. And if you say, well, we feel like we've won right now, we're going to stop. They're going to, they're mounting forces. And you want to fight all the time because there's no such thing as winning your rights. There are always those who want to take your way of rights because they want to make more money for their financial interests, because they want power, and for other reasons. So you never want to stop fighting. Well, I mean, you've been, your insights, our conversations. conversations are, you know, just been amazing throughout these years. It's been a blast working

with you and just seeing what you can achieve. But this hepatitis B vaccine. I want to talk about this one because you've got an angle in on this sort of a new case that you're working on. But this vaccine is, I literally, I walk into, when I'm like speaking to a senator or a congressperson for years. When I first got involved in this conversation, I'm always like, let's just like, lead out with hepatitis B. Like you want to just understand what's wrong with this program. Want to see how something, if I can prove you one vaccine makes no sense whatsoever. Will you listen to me talk about the rest of it? Yeah, you got five minutes. It's all you need with hepatitis B, but let me have you do it.

Sure. Well, on the issue of rights, Hep B is a great example. One of the complaints that we get a lot of, and I can directly gets a lot of, is that Parents, when they've just had their first child or they've had their second or third, they bring a child into the world. It's an incredibly special moment. They've just added another member to their family. They have this newborn baby. Motions are overwhelming them.

And they spend months preparing for this moment, not only emotionally, but they've also often come up with a birthing plan. And one of the things they may have decided is we don't want to hepatitis B vaccine at birth. It's a sexually transmitted. sexually transmitted disease and it's a blood-borne illness and it's typically transmitted by sex workers and intravenous drug users and and if the mother is hepatitis be positive which they test for in every pregnancy yeah it is indicated in those situations so for most pregnancies totally unnecessary

completely unnecessary so the so the parents are there they've they've told the hospital they don't want to hepatitis B vaccine. They have this beautiful new baby in the world and despite the parent's instructions the hospital goes and they jab the baby enemy anyway and they you know empty the syringe into the baby's body with you know we know the ingredients of hepatitis B vaccine. There are risks to hepatitis B vaccine. There are known accepted risks to this product and so you are immediately exposing this baby to risks with absolutely no benefit. It makes no sense. I mean, when I think about it, literally welcome to the world.

God's creation, if you will, right before your eyes, which is what makes it such a spectacular experience, new life entering the earth. And this establishment goes against your will and injects them with toxins, aluminum, you know, that we know what it can do to the brain and everything else. And you were even one of these people that was, you know, educated up to say, we're not doing that and they do it anyway. How often, how many cases do you hear like this? A lot. And so, you know, ICANN has generously offered to support an initiative to bring lawsuits on behalf of those who have provided instructions to the hospital. And so, you know, any one of those suits is probably not financially feasible to bring. And so, you know, lawyers are just

not going to bring it. And but we are, you know, as usual, heartened that ICANN, is stepping up and has, you know, decided that this is an initiative that wants to fund. And we are, you know, planning to bring, we have brought a number of these lawsuits already. We have settled some. And we plan to bring as many as we can hundreds until enough insurance companies have to pay out just enough per case where the insurance companies start telling the hospitals, okay, stop. Because they may not care about your individual, right? they may not care about the right to inform consent.

They don't care about what you have to say, oh, but they care when you take their money. Oh, then they care. And so the moment insurance companies have to start paying out for these claims and hospitals do, then they'll finally change their practices. So, you know, the goal here is to, we're going to continue to do this until they finally capitulate.

It's kind of the similar strategy we've done in other places. You know, like with the UC system, we brought one lawsuit, we brought another, we were ready to bring more, and then they changed the process. the policy and so this will be a similar type of situation. I mean if I remember then they say how many these more are you going to do right as they keep losing them like oh we got they're lined up they're lined up where you know I you

know these are funded they're coming your way oh yeah so all right all right right mercy I mean that's what you're looking for right mercy yeah and I mean and look as long as we have the support to do it we will bring as many of these seats anywhere everywhere across this country until hospital stopped doing this to parents. I mean, like I said, they're in this moment, you know, when they're trying to be in this most joyous moment, appreciate, you know, the arrival of the newborn child, and then they've got to deal with this.

But I didn't want that. You can't undo it. I mean, like the travesty of it, I can't even imagine if that happened to me. I mean, just like you know, it's something that's very important to you, and you literally can't undo it. Your child, your baby, your day one old baby, has just been violated.

I can't imagine if you go home and you start seeing your baby having fevers and starting to scream, a high-pitched scream, or any of these things that you know would be telltale signs that my baby's brain is now swelling. They're having a bad reaction to this. God knows how it's going to affect the rest of their lives. Those are the types of things that, you know, it's really amazing that people get through those moments. But for anyone that's just watching, we have a brand new.

Our audience has really been exploding over the last couple months, really. I think while all of this shift is changing, while people are starting to finally think about making America healthy again, I just showed early in the show, the news is changing around this conversation. People are really saying, you know what? Big scientists saying there's nothing wrong

with looking at the vaccines, maybe we should probably do some testing, we should be looking at safety. This narrative is literally changing overnight, so we have a brand new audience. And like I said, I think hepatitis B is the best conversation for someone, if you wanna just understand one vaccine,

understand this one. So what are the issues with hepatitis B? Well, why don't we all go back to when they were licensed? And let's start with the vaccines given on the first day of life. That is the very first vaccine on the CDC schedule. Yeah. And there are only two standalone hepatitis B vaccines. RecomboVax HB licensed in 1986, ironically, the Year of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.

Yeah. And the other one, Ender XB licensed in 1989. And so, you know, why don't we take a quick look? So we've hooked your computer up. Hopefully people can sort of track along as you go, something that, you know, just to show people how you can actually search this. You don't have to be a lawyer. It's all online.

Absolutely. I mean, and so, you know, we'll, if you want to see, well, what was the clinical trial relied upon to license this product? Yeah. Let's go to the FDA website. Okay. We could go to the FDA website. You could see anybody can do this at home.

Anybody can get informed before they inject before they take a medical product. It's normal. Anybody tells you otherwise? They're wrong. You study before you decide what car you're going to get. You evaluate it. You kick the tires. Before you buy a house.

Car seats, strollers, bottles, baby food, you know, you name it. You do your research. And so you're going to inject something into your baby, a newborn baby, maybe a few minutes of research. And that's part of maybe what some of these families so much. They did their research. Maybe they found what we're about to look at. And they said, whoa, I don't want to consent.

So with that, if you go to Google and just type in FDA license vaccines, and usually the search result is, first search result is vaccines licensed for use in the United States. And here it is. This is the FDA webpage that has every single vaccine licensed in the United States, all on one convenient page. So if we scroll down the page, we will see four hepatitis B vaccines, two of which are only licensed for adults. and two of which are licensed for newborns. So let's take a look at the first one, Rekamavax-HB. And on each page for every vaccine,

you will find it says package insert, right under product information. There's more information below that, but we'll start with package inserts because it's a nice summary of the information relied upon to license that product. At the very top of each package insert, and a lot of folks may have seen this,

when they get a drug, there's a piece of paper inside the box, you open it up, It gets real big, that's what this is. Okay. For a vaccine. And in section 6.1, as required by federal law and regulations, it has to summarize the clinical trial relied upon to license this vaccine vis-a-vis safety.

What did they review vis-a-vis safety in the clinical trial that the FDA looked at and said, okay, based on this, we're going to license this. It's safe. We can tell the world it's safe. It's safe to our standards, the FDA standards. So let's scroll down to section 6.1. And anybody can do this anytime. This is, I would say the first thing anybody should do

to get informed about any vaccine product. And here we are on section 6.1, and in this paragraph it describes in this sentence, the clinical trials will lied upon to license this product for children. Now, right before I read it, I'm gonna, you know, I'm just gonna summarize how do you evaluate a clinical trial?

Because that's important. Well, what am I looking at? How do I know? Is it a good clinical trial? It's a bad clinical trial. Well, there's three variables. Number one, what was the control? What were you comparing it against?

Was it as a placebo? Was it another vaccine? Was that vaccine at least licensed in a placebo control trial? Do we know, right? What are you comparing it against? Two, how long was safety reviewed? And because if you don't do it long enough,

not going to catch issues. If it's a newborn baby, they're not going to develop immune-related issues like asthma until a few years of age. They're not going to know if they have developmental issues until at least five, six, seven years of age. And third, how many people were in the study or what epidemiologists would call, how well-powered is it?

Because you need enough people to detect if there's a problem. Let's say you have a one-and-200 issue, right? Let's say a one-and-two-hundred, which would be very high. If we talk about vaccine injury, they'll say, oh, it's one in a million. Well, let's just say it's like one and two-hundred. If you only have 150 children in a study, you may not even see that issue, right? Isn't that sort of like... Yeah, but that's ridiculous.

Do you have? No clinical trial would ever have 150 children. Right, I mean... That's... Right, but that, you know what that sounds like, Del? That sounds like an anti-vaccine conspiracy theory. You're right, you're right. That's what it sounds like.

Yeah. And we don't want to do that. Yeah. So how many people were in this study? Oh, it was 147. 147. Yeah. Oh, let's go through it.

Yeah, let's go through it. Okay, sorry. It's one of my favorite things to do in depositions when I depose pediatricians. I'll ask, so tell me some of the false things you've heard about vaccines. What are those folks got issues of vaccines saying? I just let them go. Yeah. It's amazing how many times, you know,

many things they say are true. Right. And, you know, and that's pretty. So they'll say that we haven't done proper safety studies. Really, they've said that, huh? Like, how long would be a proper safety study? I could tell you some very interesting ones, but I don't want to digress.

In three clinical studies, and here it is, here's the sentence summarizing by the FDA. You know, it's written by the company, approved by the FDA, summarizing clinical trial relied upon the license for Kambavax-HB before it was injected into millions of babies. Here it is. In three clinical studies, 434 doses of a combo-vex HB 5 micrograms were administered to 147 healthy infants and children up to 10 years of age who were monitored for five days after each dose.

Now, if I would have told anybody that, they would have said, I'm crazy. Right. There's no way. They tell us that they properly study these vaccines before they go on the market. They are robustly, the most thoroughly and robust studied products ever. Yeah. But there it was black and white on the FDA website. So let's go through the three variables.

First, what was the control? None listed. Meaning what was the group that didn't get it that you compared them to, tracked them for the same four days? Five days. Five days. And said, well, look, you had more fevers or more headaches. I don't know how much you'd see in five days, you know.

But did the group that didn't get it, got the placebo, did they have the same amount of any of those things? Obviously, five days, I don't know what you'd see. in five days except for an immediate anaphylactic reaction. I suppose that's the only thing you might catch. And it's a baby, remember, it's a newborn. So in five days, their immune systems not developed yet, their neurological systems are just, I mean, every system is just totally different than what you've seen in an adult, or even what you would see in a one-year-old. And so if there's going to be a manifestation of an autoimmune issue, for example, for the

vaccine to quote unquote, as they say work, develop enough antibodies to fight the disease they're trying to protect against, that takes weeks. Yeah. So if you're going to have self-attacking antibodies, that will take weeks. Right. Right? And so five days is not going to be long enough to detect that issue. Obviously.

You know, Dr. Plotkin, if you recall, we talked exactly about this thing, any event. So there's not enough children. It's underpowered to detect virtually anything. Even if there were, you didn't, were your safety long enough for five days. And even if you did, you don't are comparing it to anything. Right. So this study is completely useless. Horse crap.

It is. Well, horse crap at least you can use as fertilized. And you can grow. This is valueless. Right. This, and you cannot determine safety in any way. And there's nobody who can argue differently. Dr. Parkin didn't try to do it.

Nobody had deposed this tried to do it. I brought this up many, many times. And as we talked about before, we foiled the FDA, because the first time I saw this, frankly, and we've talked about this, I said, come on, can it really be? That's incredible. But we got the clinical trial reports from the FDA.

Just so everyone knows if you're watching the first time FOIA, meaning of Freedom of Information Act request, this is a huge part of what we do with ICANN. We call Aaron said we would like the FOIA, for instance, all of the trial data that you relied upon to decide that this product was safe. And then, as I've said to you, in the United States of America,

The we employ the government. They work for us. We are actually the bosses. The citizens are and so you're allowed to ask for Tony Fauci's emails. He has to hand them to you. You're allowed to ask, but you know, you had to be somewhat specific about what you're looking for. But a FOIA request is something that's really special here in the United States of America. Yeah, it's how you check on the folks whose salary you pay. Those 85,000 people, they work for the American people. Right. But yet, the fire should work the way you just described, DEL, which is you request it. They give it. But, of course, as you know, they don't necessarily do that. We've got over 2,000 FOIA requests on behalf of FI can, I believe, right now. We've got dozens and dozens of lawsuits ongoing right now. Because you're not handing it over. Right.

Now, the good news is that they know we're going to sue them. So, you know, they're a lot more compliant with us. But nonetheless, we still have to sue them. pretty regularly. So we submitted a fire request with regards to this clinical trial, asking for the underlying reports that were submitted and everything that they've given us back has shown, it's five days. That's it. And as you know, we even had a long exchange with HHS, the Department of Health Human Services, that includes the FDA, CDC, NIH. Specifically about this product, we sent them a letter saying, how could you do this?

Yeah. And their response, and everybody can read it. If you go to ICan Decide.org, you go to Get Informed. This is, and you go to the vaccine safety debate right here. Yep. You can read, going down, you could read the letter that was sent right here, short 37 pages, but it's a great read, okay, to saying, hey, here are a lot of safety issues. Can you explain what you're doing?

can it be? And one of the questions was, the hepatitis B vaccine. Now, I believe that was section two. It says, please list and provide the safety data relied upon when recommending babies receive the hepatitis B vaccine on the first day of life. We asked that because we pointed out, it was only five days for recombavax-HB. And for the other one, Andrew XB, in case anybody's wondering, it was four days of safety monitoring. And that's on the FDA website you could see. Anyways, the next letter is their response. And then the next letter after that is ICANN's response to that letter. And I think if you go to Section 2 here,

it's extraordinarily telling when they have their response here. So in the opening letter, I want to read the operative sentence, we said, I read the question, which was, how could you license it based on such limited data? And in the open letter, we pointed out, of the two hepatitis B vaccines licensed by the FDA for injection into one day old babies, Merck's was licensed after trials

that solicited adverse action for only five days, after vaccination, and that's for KambaVax, HB. And Glaxo Smith-Kleins was licensed after trials solicited adverse reactions for only four days after vaccination. That's AndrewsB. So we wrote that. And we cited to their package inserts in the opening letter. And we said, how could you do this? So let's go read their response. Yeah, what was the response? Let's go. Here we go. So it's right here in the letter. It says, data relied upon. So this is the federal government's response. And just to put this in the context. This is HHS's response, and we know from subsequent

FOIA requests, they had the FDA, the NIAH, all the agencies vet and approve this response. Right, this is it. This was a multi- agency. Every governmental health agency in America all said, bam, that's it, nailed it. Let's hear it. Here it is. Data relied upon in licensing infant use of hepatitis B vaccines is summarized in the respective package inserts. So they opened by saying the proof that they're safe is the very package insert. We pointed out show it's audited deficient.

Right. Okay. Okay. There's a few more sentences, Del. Okay. Maybe. Maybe they're going to say this, though. We're laughing.

We're off the bad start, but let's see how they recover. I mean, we're laughing, but, man, it's, you know, it's, we're laughing, but, you know, we're talking about a product. They unleashed them billions of babies with this data. So they continue. Next sentence, they say, furthermore, pediatric data from other countries and in the literature support the safety of these vaccines and infants.

What literature? What data? They don't tell you. Useful sentence. Keep going. The recommendation for all children to receive these vaccines was made by the advisory committee for immunization practices. Their reasoning is summarized in

and they have a link to a report in the MMWR. They also claim there's some follow-up studies, but they don't link to any of them. So the, and our whole letter is give us the data, give us the studies. So the only thing they gave us was they said, look at the two packages inserts, which we did, four days and five days, useless. And then they gave us this one of the link. And again, as I often say, maybe they think we can't read. I don't know.

Right. But we pulled it up and we read it. And then we responded to them. And when you read, and this frankly makes it far, far worse for them. Because this report by ASIP, the Advisory Committee on Organization Practices regarding this product, was years later. So they had years to get more data, to have more. So you think, okay, when they summarize the safety of this product in this report by the CDC, there'd be something else. But there isn't.

When you read, and this is the response right here, this is our response. response to them. Okay, where we say, first of all, we say, hey, folks, we say to a safety data for hepatitis B legislature is plainly deficient, meaning we said you cited back to us if you cited to you. So that's nonsense. And then in section B, we drill down on the CDC report. And when you look through what it cites, it cites a number of clinical trials, all of which are even worse than the four to five days. I think the longest one was three days. And most of them are for adults. And some of them are observational. I mean, the retrospective epidemiological. So there is nothing in there that provides any comfort. And I could read through it. But frankly, it's devastating when you read it.

And I encourage everybody to do it. So here we are. We have now a full back and forth with our federal health agencies about this issue. We're saying, come on. How could you do this? And they have nothing to give in response. So separately, we said, okay, maybe we should just look directly at the clinical trial reports submitted to license these products. Maybe they're just lazy. Maybe the CDC and FDA, they don't even want to bother reading the initial reports.

Maybe they missed something. So we did their work for them. We foiled Freedom of Information Act, right? The tool we used to get documents from the government. We foyer them for the clinical trial report, submit. by the manufacturers to license product. And we have never gotten anything from them that shows anything other than the four or five days

from everything that they have provided to us. And that took many years of fighting with them and more legal work. And then, I guess, to cap it all off, we finally decided, you know what, when the federal government said, when Congress said to the FDA, said to the FDA, you only license things that are safe.

They didn't define what those standards are. Right. So it's, you know, it's unclear. Could it be, does the FDA you need five years of data? So from birth to five years to speed developmental issues, does it need four, three, two, one year maybe even? No standard at all. There's no particular standard.

The FDA sets a standard. Now, you could argue about a year, maybe in six months, but five days, four days? No one can argue that. Nobody can argue that. No way. Yeah. We use the same.

They really do not like it when we do this. We use the same exact docket that the Moderna, Pfizer, Sinoffi, all use to license their products or to seek changes to request that the FDA withdraw the licensure for this product or require proper placebo-controlled trial. Because this was, after all, the very first ever recombinant DNA vaccine in history.

Never existed. Wow. And so, and it had no proper trial. They had six months to respond to that. petition it's been three and a half years and they keep asking for more you know we're gonna get back to we're gonna get back to it's been three and a half years wow we're asking for a very basic risk I think part of the reason they don't want to respond is they know once they respond we can sue them in federal

court yeah and at this point I think we're going to make a novel argument in court that despite the fact that they haven't responded you should still adjudicate the underlying issue because you can't they can't delay this way they can't sit on this for years and years so those are two happy initiatives That's just one of the products where, you know, we talked about earlier. We're going to be suing for parents whose children get the hepatitis B vaccine without parental consent for the hospital. Yeah. And we're going to be bringing this lawsuit about the petition.

We've got another lawsuit that, you know, we've discussed and is, you know, not one that we want to advertise, like many of the lawsuits that and legal actions that we bring. So, but all of this, these tiny trials, and I always say this is a vaccine that is given to a day one old baby. There are hospitals that will call child protective services if you try to walk out of the hospital with your baby without getting that vaccine. They say this is critical. It's, you know, endangering the child if they don't get this vaccine. What does hepatitis B? Who's at risk? Is every baby at risk?

I mean, do they recognize, like, why get this vaccine? Why is it so important? Hepatitis B is a bloodborne illness. Right. It is typically transmitted by sex workers and by intravenous drug users. And on rare occasions, if the mother has tested positive for hepatitis B, and they test every pregnant mother for hepatitis B during pregnancy, she could potentially transmit it to her baby.

And they test for that. So they know. Every mother, we've had two kids. It's tested for that. You're tested before you. Every at that point, so they know. So they know. Which means that it.

ever an argument be like you're testing positive for hepatitis B, you should probably take this, you know, have this vaccine for your child just so that you protect them. And when they first licensed this product, when the advisory committee immunization practices at CDC, which creates the CDC Childhood Schedule, was deciding, well, should we add this to the schedule? And if so, for what uses, what indications, right? And what was the initial indications, even when it was first licensed? It was only licensed for the higher risk groups, I believe. But the CDC for sure, when they added it to the childhood schedule,

it was only added for the high-risk situations. It wasn't added for as a universal vaccine. It was not added to be used by every child at birth. It was only supposed to be given to the high-risk individuals. Those are the parents who had hepatized B. Do they admit to this? I mean, we always say this intravenous drug user, you know, promiscuous, you know, is that anywhere in a document where they,

they sort of admit that's what it's for? Yes. Yes, there is. You know, I'll pull up the page right here. So this is on the CDC website. The immunization practices advisory committee. This is from 1990. So this is that advisory committee's meeting.

So these are the minutes of the meeting where they summarize their discussions and they explain the basis for their recommendations. And it was in this meeting in 1990. Remember, the first vaccine was licensed in 1986. Yeah. It was in this meeting that they decided to not just recommend it for high-risk individuals. They decided to recommend it universally as a routine vaccine for all children to be given in the first day of life. And the explicit reason, and we'll read it right now, is because they said they can't get the drug users and the sex workers to take the vaccine in adulthood.

And so we got to catch them before they get to that place in life. Like day one. That's what they decided. Well, I want to just so that we can read it ourselves. Everyone always says, come on, that's not true. You're exaggerating. So here we are. Here is the CDC document.

And let's go down to the section with regards to hepatitis B vaccine in the recommendations. So if we scroll down and here we are. universal immunization against hepatitis. Right here, we can read their decision-making and their justification. The increasing incidence of hepatitis B in the last eight years has been primarily in adults, but data show that high-risk group immunization of adults is not feasible. The prevailing conclusion is that either infants, preferably, or possibly adolescent immunization is the way to control this disease, though it may take full.

15 to 20 years to see the effects. And there you have it. That is their reasoning. We can't get them when they're adults engaged in this high-risk behavior. So we're going to get them right when they're born. I would point out that if they were waiting 15 to 20 years to see the effects, in that timeline we went from about 12% chronic illness in our children to now we're saying 60% chronic illness in our children, autoimmune disease, neurological disorders.

maybe we should stop vaccinating for promiscuous sex drug users in every single infant that's born on day one. Maybe they should be allowed to be born into this world without having their blood contaminated with a vaccine, forcing their immune system to do something it was never meant to do. Why the heck do we take our baby home? You take them home. Stay in your home. Don't take them outside. They don't need to be.

Just let them get acclimated to mom, to dad, to the dog in the house, to the house. I mean, this is all like just logical thinking that has just gone absolutely haywire. No, let's kick their immune system, make it fight a disease inside of it, try to make antibodies, all of this on day one. Total insanity. I also want to point out that we have the highest day one death rate of infants in the industrialized world. That's the result that we've seen over the last 20 years. And so this is why I'm passionate about this vaccine.

I'm so glad that we have multiple angles. I really believe we are going to see the end of the mandated hepatitis B vaccine. I think it's imminent. That's why they're not responding to your, you know, a request, three and a half years. No sound person is going to leave this thing on the schedule. And then what happens? And what do you think happens when, you know, parents across the country all find out, as it turns out, hepatitis B vaccine, we're discontinuing it.

it wasn't properly safety tested. What does that do to people's minds? In the state we're at right now, where the conversations are already changing on the news. I mean, unfortunately, the government has overstepped. You know, they just treated these products like any drug, allow liability to attach to them so you consume if there's injuries. Unconflict the regulators.

You probably have a higher degree of trust in these products. but they overplayed their hand. They went too far, and I've said this many times, the government engages in mandates when they can't convince you on the merits. That is what every tyrannical government throughout history has done. It's antithetical to what this country, individual rights, civil liberties,

is supposed to be expiring towards. And I hope it'll be a wake-up call to public, quote-unquote, health authorities. You want to recommend, you want to try to persuade, go ahead and do that. But never take away people's rights. Ever. Go ahead and remind everybody that you are putting on the websites.

Here's how long our safety trials were. Here were the results of them. Here's what we know it does. Here's the side effects that we're hearing about. All that's so important. I want to wrap this up, but you have a bunch of cases. This isn't just it. What do we got going with the COVID vaccine right now?

Well, we've got lawsuits right now seeking to strike down the immunity under the PEPAC because those are injured by COVID vaccine. You know, hepatitis B vaccine and rolled out is given to smoke cohort. every year and their infants and it's tragic when they get harmed and you know so but it but it continues to happen with COVID vaccine you basically vaccinate the whole country and you could not hide those injuries everybody out there i don't i've not met a person i think who doesn't know somebody who seriously had an issue with that vaccine yeah those folks need um they need compensation a lot of them are adults a lot of them are trying to support their families they can't work you know it's horrible

when you injure a baby. Yeah. But you're not injuring the person who's bringing home. Providing for the whole family. Right. Co-vaccine, they injured so many folks. Wow. We need to provide basic subsistence to their family.

And so we've got lawsuits to strike down the immunity under the PEP Act. So those folks can hopefully then get compensation. We've got other suits, but I'll stop with that one for COVID-19 vaccine. And then we're on this mission to free the five, to bring back the religious exemption at the very least for these vaccination programs. Tell me about California. We know we've still got West Virginia hanging in the Lurch, Connecticut, Maine. New York. New York.

I always forget New York because it was a recent one, New York and then California. But California is the big cahoon. I think this whole thing starts in California. Someday I'm going to erect a statute of Senator Richard Pan. Thank you for waking up the nation with your vaccine mandate because you woke a sleeping giant and now we're in the White House and we're going to do something about it. But in California, huge win just a few weeks ago with the university school system there. You won back to religious exemption starting this semester.

So after we get back from Christmas, you will not be mandated. I mean, you will be mandated, but you can go against the mandate, get a religious exemption, and not get a vaccine and be in the UC schools. How long do you think before we get to the SB 277, the childhood? That's what everyone keeps asking, elementary schools. So in the UC case, that's obviously a heartening. for the hundreds of thousands, literally, of UC students who don't need to get a vaccine to go to school

if they don't want one. They can have their rights back. It's a public school. And of course, we brought the lawsuit that struck down any school district or local county to be able to mandate any vaccine in California. In our case in San Diego, that's great for those students. But those cases also create bridgeheads.

They create precedence. You know, when Ruth Bader Grinsberg, who fought for women's rights, right? That's what she did. She was a civil rights lawyer. her first lawsuit was not for a woman that went to the Supreme Court. It was for a man. It was for a man.

And so, you know, when you want to create change in the law, you do it piece by piece. And, you know, we've got lots of lawsuits. Each one is another piece that goes forward. When we get to a, you know, a significant interval, we announce it on the show. I know you want to announce all. Yeah. I know there's a desire and there's desire for folks out there who who I fully, I understand they're in California,

they're homeschooling, they wanna send their kids to school, they're struggling, but the wheels of justice are slow, but I assure you, we are, we are on it. And we have lawsuits to crown the country, we have lawsuits in New York, West Virginia, California, we are everywhere, and we are slowly pushing those, that precedent forward. You know, I don't wanna give a prediction because, you know,

but, you know, in time, time I believe we will we will overturn the precedent we will overturn Jacobson we will overturn and and not only we will overturn the law you know because that's one pillar of the three things we do with ICANN legally which is change the policies yep but we also will change cultural cognition because what people believe what they think affects what judges do and of course we always act as a watchdog on the agencies which is why we have 2004 aircrafts and millions of lawsuits and so forth as we wrap this up if someone has been to that

situation where their baby was given a hepatitis B vaccine even though they had in their birth plan do not vaccinate my child where do they go if they want to bring a lawsuit absolutely so if anybody has made clear in writing in any way or otherwise to the hospital we do not want to have be for our baby and they gave it anyway they can go to our law firm website Siri lp.com you know they can submit that on one of the vaccine pages over there and let us know about their somebody will be in contact with them to take an intake and assess whether that's a case we can bring. All right, excellent. Aaron, thank you for spending time coming in here.

Thank you for all of your incredible work. I said to Jeffrey Jackson earlier in the show, I mean, his incredible work is one of the reasons we're here. Certainly, you know, you have just laid a roadway right into Washington, D.C. With all of these legal wins, you've been instrumental in helping. us change the court of public opinion, which has clearly happened now. The news media, mainstream media is covering this conversation completely different even than it did two weeks ago. So we just have huge momentum, but we have to keep the pressure on. And so in order to do that, I would really love it if you would help us continue this mission. As happy as you may be,

and we're all very happy right now, we have so much important work to do. I know many of you live in places like California where you aren't able to just drop your kid at this school and not worry about, you know, what they're going to inject with them or what's going to happen, or if your kid falls out of tree and you go to a hospital, what are they going to do? I've dealt with all those situations. So has Aaron, we want to make a difference. We want to make sure that you get to decide that your parental rights hold up, that your child's body sovereignty is decided by you. So please take advantage right now of our two million matching offer. If we can bring that up right now, there's a QR code making it very easy. Just take a picture of that

QR code or if you want to go online, just go to I can decide.org slash legal match. This is the time to donate. It doubles your money. I want to thank the sponsor that made this all happen. Once again, I want to thank you, Aaron, for your incredible work. And I just can't wait to see what transpires over this next year because now, you know, we really have momentum. It's amazing what we can do now that the wind is at our backs. One of the things that we've done, we started Highwire Plus for those of you that are donating, that you're becoming recurring donors. We want to bring you more media. We have a brand new Jeffrey Jackson show that's going to be releasing. It's imminent. It's super exciting. A documentary series. We're bringing and we're finding other

documentary movies and things that you may be interested in looking at future programming. If you want to get on the ground floor, that's available to you. One of the things that's there right now is the Freedom Files. We're dropping a brand new Freedom File this week. Take a look at this. Tell me about the organization you have for Health Freedom. Citizens Council for Health Freedom has been around for 26 years. I am the co-founder. I am a registered nurse. The fact of the matter is I think controlling the doctors means that they get to control the population

and they get to control the money. We don't have health insurance anymore. People don't understand this. We have health plans. And health plans are the corporate version of socialized medicine. And the government and the health plans have collaborated together, both for their own benefits, They're just using the healthcare system for their own financial purposes. So this is not about the patient anymore.

And what I like to say is the mission of medicine has been taken over by the business of healthcare. The patient is no longer the point of the healthcare system. And that's why it's really important for the patient to know this and realize they have to protect themselves. Freedom Files Las Vegas, our newest series on Highwire Plus, exclusively for monthly donors. Well, next week is Thanksgiving. week is Thanksgiving. I'm already feeling in a very thankful mood. It's been a very exciting show,

as I said, from the beginning. Actually, things that I'm not even sure I ever dreamed would happen within the next decade or two are now afoot. Every day, we seem to be getting new announcements. Here's what our health department looks like with the Trump nominations as we know them now. That list is going to keep growing, but, you know, exciting developments, people that really have been outspoken in many different ways saying, I want to make America healthy again. Robert Kenny Jr., of course, leading that charge. I just want to say, you know, what Aaron was talking about is so important. You have to imagine now that, you know, things are swinging our way. There's going to be an opposition like we've never seen before. You really may see states lashing

out. You're going to see, you know, some institutions lashing out. The pharmaceutical industry is gearing up. I would imagine that pediatricians are probably going to get really ugly in many places kicking out patients that ask any questions, all those things. So that's why we really need to keep our pressure up. We've got to stay vigilant. You know, it's like any movie, you know, it's almost like a horror movie where they just act like the, you know, the monster's gone and they're walking up and the sunset and you're like, you know what, I know, oh wait, don't go back in the house. Don't go back in the house. We got to stay awake. We've got to stay vigilant. We've got to make sure that we see this thing all the way through, which means now more than ever, you know, stay focused,

keep supporting the things and the people and the institutions, the groups that you think are working for you. I hope one of those is the informed consent action network and the work that we're doing here. This is the time where we push it all the way to the end. Let's take this across the finish line and make sure that we have built a brand new world for our children and the children to come. The high wire has just been this magically. experience for all of us involved and you have made that possible. Every sponsor out there that has made this possible. Every single dollar that you donate goes to this cause, goes to the work that we've done that has put us in this incredible moment in history. A moment that we will

tell our children and our grandchildren about. A moment that the history books to our great grandchildren and beyond will be reading about. It's that big. And you're a part of it for this. You are Never forget that, and I'll see you on Thanksgiving next week.