The Highwire with Del Bigtree - Episode 400: W.H.O.’S TO THANK

Episode Date: November 30, 2024

With the prospects of a historic administration for public health on the horizon, “The HighWire” looks back to one of the most revealing and relevant episodes to have aired. In January of 2020, host Del Bigtree brought to light a meeting of the world’s top health officials, and their shocking admissions about vaccine safety caught on camera. Wishing all of you a very Happy Thanksgiving!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?

Action. Good morning, good afternoon, good evening. Wherever you are out there in the world, it is time to step out under the high wire. And for everybody in the United States of America, happy Thanksgiving. We have so much to be thankful for here in the United States of America. and especially we have a lot to be thankful for right here in this studio of the high wire because today is also our 400th episode of the high wire. I love that it lands right on Thanksgiving. So to my team and everybody that has made all of that possible through the years, all of our donors, all of you, I mean, what an amazing journey we have been on, which is what we decided to really talk about.

on this episode. In fact, we're going to do a giant flashback, but let me set this up for you. The high wire started right at the beginning of 2017. I had been on tour prior to that with the documentary Vaxed for entire year. Prior to that, I was working at CBS on the daytime talks to the doctors. So all of this stuff was going along. Vax was touring all over the country. and I had all of these parents that were coming up to me, you know, after the screening of the film and saying, okay, that film's all about the MMR vaccine, and I'm obviously asking questions about that. But what about the rest of the vaccines on the vaccine schedule? Are those safe? What's going on with them? I didn't know the answer to that because the film Vax really was focused on one specific vaccine and the fraud that was brought forward by the whistleblower Dr. William Thompson inside the CDC. So I started the informed consent action network so that we could start investigating all the vaccines. I teamed up with our lawyer, Aaron Siri, who has been absolutely spectacular.

And the thing about him was prior to running into Aaron Siri, every lawyer was telling me, you can't sue. You can't get anywhere near any of the information on vaccines because of the liability of protection that happened in 1986. But Aaron and Siri and I sat down and we came up with a new plan. Okay, if there's liability of protection, our government is protecting the vaccine program so that we cannot find out what they know about the safety, what they know about the issues, how harmful is it, how many people are being injured, all that's being hidden from the public. Then what we're going to do is we're going to sue the government themselves. The very people that are creating the liability protection say, well, then it's your fault. We need to get it from you and we started suing the government.

We won against the FDA, NIH, CDC, Health and Human Services, you know, one of the most amazing feats of any nonprofit. I think in the history, certainly in the area of health. So cut to we start the high wire. Why? Because if a lawsuit wins in the forest and no one is there to see it, then did it really happen? And we realize no one in news is going to cover these wins against FDA, health and human services that are revealing that they've been lying to us about a lot of the studies they say exists or that have been done or the work that they've done or the safety and the efficacy.

We want the world to know. So we started the highwire just as a way to show the public what we were finding out. Total transparency, right? That's how it all began. So by December of 2019, that's right, a very important time. We all know it was happening right around the corner. There was a giant gathering in Geneva, Switzerland of the WHO. This was called the Global Vaccine Safety Summit.

It was also the 20-year anniversary for the Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety. So this summit was really put together with one goal in mind. Let's bring together all the scientists of the world and figure out how we're going to stop vaccine hesitancy. Well, I said on the show when we did it all the way back, we did the show, I think it was in January, after this meeting that had happened in Geneva, Switzerland. And what I said then was this show ultimately is going to be about what they are saying themselves. And this is what happened. They had two days, December 2nd, December 3rd to gather all the greatest minds and science,

and they forgot that cameras were rolling on the entire event. And so for the first time when we saw this footage, it was absolutely mind-blowing. All the things that we had been saying on our show as we were growing, Every day, I think at that point, we probably had around 250,000 viewers per week or something like that. Just prior to COVID, we said this show says it all. This is all the greatest scientists in the world admitting what we've been saying from the beginning. And so for all of you that are watching this show, maybe for the first time, I know you saw

our show where I worked on the Robert Kennedy Jr. campaign and we're tracking what's happening with that here in America and the Make America Healthy Again movement, all very exciting things. how did we get here? People are asking what happened that accelerated to this point? And most of us that have been at this for many years said it was COVID. Without COVID, this vaccine conversation would never have hit the pinnacle that it need to be at so enough Americans would wake up and say, wait a minute, they're lying to us. Why are they forcing a vaccine on me that I know that they didn't properly safety test when we're talking about the COVID vaccine? It was too fast. There's no way anything could get approved that fast. And so all of that, why are they not letting me

have iburemectin? Why are they shutting down, you know, hydroxychloriccline? Wait a minute. Why are they locking me in my house? Why are they shutting down my business? Why are they shutting down my church but keeping a bar open? All of those things that they did were accelerating factors that now put us in a dynamic once in a generation moment, maybe once in a lifetime moment that is about to see the entire restructuring of the government of the United States, especially when we talk about health. You want to know how we got here? I think it was these fools that all gathered at this meeting in Geneva, Switzerland. Well, what you're about to see is all the conversations they have around what they know and don't know about the safety of vaccines,

and they meant a lot of things. But if this entire conference was about how do we stop vaccine hesitancy, could it be that when this conference was over, maybe in a room where the cameras weren't rolling, that they thought maybe it's time to bring an adult mandate? Could it be that they thought, you know, it would be really great, would be if there was some sort of virus sweeping the nation where we could make people believe they all needed to get a vaccine, and then maybe they would all take it, and we would get over this problem of vaccine hesitancy? Is it possible that that was the thing?

thought coming out of this conference, we'll never know. At least I don't think we'll know. But what we do know is about three months later, a worldwide pandemic was declared. And what was the solution? A vaccine everybody needed to take. This is that conference. Watch now with new eyes. And for those of you that are brand new to this, brace yourselves. You're about to have your mind blown, not by my opinion, but what the greatest scientists in the world admit about this vaccine program. What I want to start this presentation out with was a presentation made by Dr. Heidi Warson. She's an anthropologist that works with the vaccine confidence project. She's the director. So she's been investigating the confidence around vaccines. I want to start here because we should

get a little bit warm and fuzzy about the question. I've been saying we're willing. We're But nothing would prove it more than someone like a head scientist, a head doctor for the World Health Organization at the Summit on Vaccine Safety, admitting that. So let us begin. This is Dr. Heidi Larson speaking to all of the scientists in Geneva, Switzerland, about vaccine confidence. You've seen a lot of news about the growing questioning environment, but what I'm trying to look at here is where does safety? come up in the broader look at where the confidence problem is. And again and again, safety rises to the top. This is in the U.S.

I've done a lot in Europe. This was our first. We developed a vaccine confidence index, which we've been running for five years. We have under review now an analysis of 250,000 people in 148 countries. We have all their background demographics and to look at what are the trends and patterns. But this is one of the first ones we did 67 countries in 2016.

And I was actually surprised at Europe being so acutely skeptical when it came to safety. I knew other countries were having some issues, but it was quite acute in Europe. in Europe. When we try to disaggregate that by different kinds of reasons, safety is the biggest issue. Safety is the biggest issue. Fear of side effects, low sense of risk. Amazing, right? See, when we got involved, after I made Vaxed, I've said this publicly many times. You know, Vax really only challenged one vaccine in the MMR. We had a whistleblower, Dr. William Thompson at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, saying that were lying about their discovery of the safety of that vaccine as it related to autism.

But as I traveled the country in the Vax Bus, we had parents that were signing the names of their injured children or their deceased children after vaccination. And every one of them was talking about a different vaccine. And it became very problematic to me because people would say, well, your movie shows me I shouldn't get the MMR vaccine. And I was thinking, yeah, but I've watched hundreds of interviews of parents. and they had problems before the MMR vaccine. So many parents, in fact, more parents said,

my child regressed into autism before they ever got to the MMR vaccine, that we lost them right after the D-TAP vaccine. And that's what started this quest. That's when we decided we have got to investigate safety, one issue, because we're being told the science is settled. We're being told vaccines are safe and effective. But I am seeing, and by the way,

even when I was a producer on the doctor's television show, you know, I don't know, hundreds, maybe thousands of parents writing in about injury from vaccine. Why aren't you covering this? And so we decided to cover it. We decided safety was the number one issue. Not parental rights, which are obviously the main important part of this, our right to choose, but we thought if we can break safety, if we can show, and if it's true that these parents are right, these millions of eyewitnesses around the world, that they're the ones that correct, especially if no science has been done to disprove them, we're hearing science is done, but is it actually being done? So here she's saying safety. Look at these graphs because it's really,

you can see why she's shocked. When you look at why do the reasons you lack vaccine confidence, look at that line. 31. I mean, it's almost triple any other argument they have about vaccines. Safety is what people reacted to. Here again, fear of side effects, a low risk of contrast. the disease. I mean, that was one of the things they said and that they didn't believe the disease was that severe. They were more worried about the side effects. So your discussions, all of you that got on the Vax bus and told your story, those YouTube stories and those Facebook posts obviously made a massive difference. They are affecting global thinking around the safety of vaccines. But there was something I think of in everything I saw here,

what I'm going to show you today is extremely shocking, but not necessarily surprising to me except this one point right now. I'm going to show you something that blew me away because I did not know that this was true. The other thing that's a trend and an issue is not just confidence in providers, but confidence of health care providers. We have a very wobbly health professional front line that is starting to question vaccines. and the safety of vaccines. That's a huge problem, because to this day, any study I've seen, and we're constantly looking

on any studies in this space, still, the most trusted person on any study I've seen globally is the healthcare provider. And if we lose that, we're in trouble. Listen to what she's saying. Not only is it people that you have been affecting by sharing your studies, and sharing the highwire and walking in and showing people like the vaccine safety

white papers saying, well, read this. Many of you were handing this to your doctors. Many of you are questioning your doctors, asking very, very reasonable questions that they can't answer. Listen to what she's saying. The front line, their soldiers for this issue are the doctors. Everybody looks up to, she says, to the doctors. That's the number one person that people believe in.

that person is becoming wobbly. That person, we are all shocked to find, including her, but especially me, that they are starting to question vaccines themselves. The doctors themselves are questioning the vaccines. Isn't that mind-blowing? So we're having an even bigger effect than we realize. They're not admitting that to us, but they're admitting that to the World Health Organization when they're having to fill out a survey. Yeah, no, I'm not really confident about these things. Some of the things are like I'm especially not confident giving me a flu shot to a pregnant woman because I haven't seen a safety study on that. But what's really amazing is when she starts to drill in on,

why would the doctors be lacking in this confidence, and what are we going to have to do about it? Listen to what she admits. We've talked about it earlier. Some of the challenges are when the frontline professionals are starting to question, or they don't feel like they have enough confidence, about the safety to stand up to it to the person asking them the questions. I mean, most medical school curriculums, even nursing curriculums, I mean, in medical school,

you're lucky if you have a half day on vaccines, never mind keeping up to date with all this. What? Wait a minute. I thought Dell was exaggerating. I thought he was spreading misinformation when he said that vaccines, that that, that, that, that, doctors are barely trained at all in vaccines. I've told you it's like a paragraph. You're lucky if it's a day. She said, listen to what she said. This is the head investigator looking at vaccine safety. Why it's an issue? Why are doctors wobbling? Because she says to the whole room. Nobody said,

boo hiss, that's not true. They all nodded as she said, as we know, doctors and even nurses are lucky if they get a half day of education on vaccination. Out of eight years, we're lucky if they get a half a day of education. We got ripped about this because we did a skit about it just before we went into the break. Let me just show you a little clip of the AIMS skit. And if you haven't seen it, you'll have to watch the whole thing another time. But take a look at this. Are we on it or what?

You are concerned that I don't know the ingredients in the vaccines that we're going to be giving your baby today. Damn right, I am. Vaccinating is what you've been doing for, what, 20 years? You don't know the ingredients? So what? I can go into any restaurant in the state, and the server could tell me every ingredient of every dish on the menu of like 50 things,

and that person probably didn't even go to college, and you went to medical school for eight years, and you can't tell me one ingredient in these six vaccines? The product is safe. That's what I know. That's all that matters. Safe? And effective.

I mean, we had a lot of fun with that, but it's actually really a scary thing. thought. And it was amazing to watch how humor is something I want to do a lot more of this year. But if you watch the comments on that, there was actually really deep discussions. It's clear that this reached deep into the psyche of people that thought they believed in vaccines. I watched arguments saying, well, what do you want to do? You want to do placebo studies and put children at risk? And then someone else would say, well, you think that they'd be at risk by being in a study, getting a vaccine? Then why are you giving it to them? And other people

saying, I don't think it matters. They don't just have to know the ingredients. They study all the other things, they know about vaccines. You know, they don't have to be able to list the ingredients. Really? It's not just the ingredients. Listen what she just said. Half a day on vaccines, unequivocally. I don't have to ever say it again. From now on, I'm going to play that video from the World Health Organization. Now, obviously, they're trying to censor us. They've been trying to censor us when we put out skits like that. When we're telling you, when we're bringing doctors to say, look, my curriculum, Tony Bark said, I didn't cover this. Dr. News said we never looked at it. That's what they all say. We are not educated about vaccines, yet we're telling you it's safe,

we're telling it's effective, but we can't answer any of your questions. And what are they calling that when I try to bring the news to you, when you're starting to see gray masks over the videos that we're doing saying this information is not true, you got to go to our fact checkers? How about let the World Health Organization do some fact checking for you, would you? Because this This is what they have to say about our misinformation. I spend a lot of time talking particularly in the last six months with tech companies, Facebook, WhatsApp, Pulsar, Twitter, Instagram, WeChat, Weibo. They have a lot of fingers pointing at them to fix the misinformation problem.

But it's not so simple. And the biggest problem is a lot of it's not misinformation. Our problem is, as we've heard in the last 48 hours, that there's not anything 100%. And what actually can legally, without creating a censorship thing, can we absolutely say this is misinformation? Because we have a lot of ambiguity in the safety field, and we have to come to terms with that. So we have to think about it differently than deleting misinformation, but building trust. So people are willing to put up with a certain amount of risk because they believe

in it enough. They believe in our work, what we're doing, and that it's in their interest. I'm speechless. I mean, I think you should be speechless right now. These are the people that are writing the mandates. They oversee the AMA. Everybody. This is a. is the World Health Organization. These are the world scientists. This is the woman looking into it. What she's saying is, look, we all have to admit that our biggest problem is these things that are being said in these blogs and these posts online, it's not actually misinformation.

As every, even though we've told CNN to call it misinformation, even though we told the Washington Post and the New York Times to call it misinformation here inside this room where we forgot the cameras are rolling, we all know deep down it's not misinformation. It's true. They found our weakness. We have a real problem now. And we're losing the people. Somehow they're getting this information. Somehow this problem is growing. You see, what you're about to start watching now, and we're going to see this year, what are they going to do about it? They recognize now that they're losing ground, that the entire approach of just saying, you know, go against them and just call it misinformation and say they're lying that it's not working because we keep doing this. We keep putting it. out products like this that the bottom of every page have links so that you can go read the actual science yourself. So even though newspapers refuse to read, then doctors are barely learning to read, sounds like they're going to maybe start trying to learn to read, we've been presenting truthful information and they know it. That's what's shocking. They're lying to the world.

They're lying to the media and saying, call it misinformation, even though we know it's not. You want to hear another sea change? Look where this. woman thinks we should go. Look where Heidi thinks we need to go in order to bring people back to the belief in vaccines. This one is going to blow your mind. This is a physicist. I'm working with at GW in George Washington University. It's actually an Oxford physicist. These are, he has had worked primarily on different kinds of social networks, but I was fascinated by his methods, and I said, listen, you should look at the vaccine space. So each of these blobs, as he calls them, are communities, like a Facebook page, or Arnica, this group of mothers. So the green dots

are undecided, neutral communities, people interested in vaccines, but asking questions. The red are the clearly questioning anti-communities and the blue are the positive. Already you can see the blue is a tighter group and the red more out there. Now if you look at the numbers, what he was looking at was over a period of time, literally a couple months. What is the recruiting pace of the blue positive versus the red in that converting the undecided to their camp or the other the it was a 500% faster recruitment by the negative than the positive vaccine community that's that's

fast and these are not this is not hypothetical that is fast folks you know let's all do it together let's go like this right now Look what you've done. 500% faster is those people that are looking for information that are starting to find the information that you've been putting out there. Our recruitment is perfect. So if you've been saying to yourself, you know, is anyone hearing this? Is any of this working?

Is my blog? And I love the fact that so many of you last year started blogging yourself, started your own programs, have your friends gathering in because all of us have different voices. If you look at that red that's all over, the way it's spread. By the way, I'm dying to get this made into like a 10 by 10 foot wall hanging, you know, Jackson Pollock of sorts on my wall. I'm going to do it because it makes me so proud of all of us. Look at our recruitment. It means we are languages, you know, we're talking about the right

things. We're approaching this the right way. And pharma is dying. Farma has billions of dollars, hundreds of millions of dollars they're spending on every major network in the world. They're pushing this agenda, but you, you with the truth at home, typing and blogging and writing to your friends and sharing are making a difference that they cannot explain. It's incredible. And one of the things they're going to do to try and see if they can get some of those greens back is change their languaging. What language do they want to change? Take a look at this. Our biggest, one of our biggest challenges I think now is getting rid of the term anti-vex, getting rid of the hostile language, and starting to have more conversations to be open to questions, to make people feel like

they shouldn't be judged when they're asking questions. As crazy as those questions might seem to you, as stupid as they might seem, or as ignorant as they might seem, we can't risk losing another person's confidence in safety right now. Yeah, this is what I've been saying. Every single day people are coming over to our side. Every single day, the pharmaceutical industry and the medical establishment are losing people. Now, think about this. What's being laid out here is a plan that was put in place by Stanley Plotkin, by Paul

Offit. Senator Richard Pan is one of the people that are using their talking points. They decided at some point, let's just say vaccines are safe and effective, let's tell them there are no injuries. Let's call them all anti-baxers, whether it's just a mom that's coming to an office with a baby asking a reasonable question, or it's a scientist that's deciding to look into aluminum and how dangerous it might be in a vaccine for the first time in his life. Call them all anti-baxers and we win. Call them anti-baxers and we win. It's genius. Paul, that's great.

Good stuff, man. Get it out, send out the memo, call them all anti-vaxxers. In fact, Senator Richard Pan just put out multiple tweets. He woke up at like 8 in the morning the other day and started tweeting about me. Then he ended on Facebook about me that night, calling me an anti-vaxxer, and those anti-vaxxers, and those pathetic anti-vaxurers. Obviously, Senator Pan has not gotten a new memo. I can't wait till he does.

Aren't you looking forward to this? Because obviously, these people are about to start writing policy. You're going to watch it as they try to backtrack their way away from. Well, they're not really anti-backers. Well, it's not really misinformation. Okay, there are some injuries, but you should still like this product. Isn't this going to be fun to watch? How are they going to do it?

Or do you think they're just going to double down and say, screw it? That's never going to work because then we're going to admit they were right. Oh, wait a minute. Cameras were rolling. We already did. This is incredible. And I love the fact that she calls it hostile language. Their own people are calling it hostile language.

How many of us have said, you are treating us like a minority group, you are oppressing us, you're using derogatory language towards us. It's offensive. It's what they did in Nazi Germany. It's what they did during the civil rights movement. It's what they did during the gay rights movement. You call people names. Educated smart people that we hold on pedestals is what,

saying, don't call people names. People that have the truth that are supposed to be well educated, don't have to call people names. We got to stop this. We got to stop this quick. Really, really amazing. So now I'm getting closer and closer. Obviously, you're probably thinking,

is there just one person in this room that's, you know, that we snuck in there, we like put in our own Trojan horse? No. What's really driving all this? And I want to get to something that's really quite terrifying that she's about to say. Because I have told you over and over again, I put up multiple models now talking about herd immunity. They keep saying that in order to protect that immunosuppressed child, everyone else around them has to be vaccinated. And I've explained to you that when we didn't have vaccinations in the 1960, 61, I believe the vaccine came around 62, 63 for measles, the mortality rate had already almost,

disappeared. It wasn't killing anybody anymore. We also had this awesome effect where nearly 90% of our country had lifelong immunity. True herd immunity. There was no way measles could penetrate this nation anymore because everybody had already had it and they were immune for life. I've also talked about the fact that mothers that had measles as children were passing that immunity onto their babies for the first year and a half of life. They breastfed it lasted for two or more years. But then we started vaccinating. And we discovered that vaccinating mothers that they don't pass any immunity onto the children. And we discovered that vaccinating anybody didn't last. It was supposed to last for a lifetime the first measles vaccine. They said, oh, it's going to last for life. It'll do

the same thing that nature did. But it didn't. So then they added a second MMR vaccine. And now, as I've been reporting to you, we're watching mumps outbreaks. We're watching people get the measles. What was it? Thirty-eight percent of the people that were, you know, that they investigated had vaccine strain measles. And 30 percent had the vaccine and had vaccine failure or vice versa. It's one of those, 30-38. But right in there, one-third of the people have been vaccinated. So the vaccine is failing. And now we're going to the CDC and seeing meetings where they're saying we need to add a third MMR in college. And if you go to the adult CDC schedule, you see that there's two more MMR vaccines as adults. So we're saying that five waning vaccines that just have disappearing value and at the CDC

that's saying they last shorter and shorter and shorter, shorter periods of time every time you give one? What would be the problem with that? Do you know this was one of the discussions back in the 1960s before the vaccine came? They said, look, folks, this is a trivial childhood illness. We may make a very major mistake in injecting a pharmaceutical product because if it fails, everyone will be in danger. We will have really hurt the real herd immunity and we might even mutate the virus

so that it becomes so dangerous like antibiotics are doing that we won't be able to fight it. I've said that multiple times. Now listen to one of the top scientists looking at this in the world and watch all the heads nod as she basically says the high wire was right.

Take a look. I think that one of our biggest challenges is, as Bob said this morning or yesterday, we're in a unique position in human history where we've shifted the human population to vaccine-induced, to dependency on vaccine-induced immunity. And that's on the great assumption that populations would cooperate. And for many years, people lined up, the six-fixenched. vaccines, people were there. They saw the reason. We're in a very fragile state now. We have developed a world that is dependent on vaccinations. We don't have a choice, but to make that effort.

Did you vote on that? I don't remember. I don't remember a ballot saying, I want to vote and leave natural immunity that where no one's dying and I get lifelong immunity. I want to leave that and go to an inferior immunity system that keeps wearing off and then find ourselves that, oh, my God, all of a sudden, you know, we're losing it. People all had to enroll, yeah, when we did six vaccines, everyone was down, but now it's like 53 vaccines. It's getting harder and harder to sell it.

And now with 270 vaccines in the pipeline, how are we going to get people to believe in that? Because that's what we're going to have to do. Nature was giving you immunity, and it actually affected your health all the way around. As you saw in that montage, scientists, top doctors saying, if you got some of these diseases, you wouldn't get these other diseases. That it had, you know, massive protection that we took away.

Now we're going to try and pinpoint and do what nature was doing so perfectly. Did you vote to step out and try and mess with nature? Did you vote and say, yeah, let's all get on this ship? No, you didn't. You didn't know this was happening. You didn't know that they were wiping out natural immunity while they tried to make billions of dollars off of us. And now they find themselves in a problem

because people are starting to doubt we're losing them. If we lose them, we're really in trouble. We really messed this up. Now, it might be okay. Maybe you're saying, well, Delle, it's okay. We're all on this vaccine program. We can't go back. There's no going back.

And by the way, if vaccines are safe, what difference does it make? If the vaccine safety study is being done, then all she's saying is we've just got to show people that vaccine safety and we'll bring them back. Take a look what she says about the vaccine safety science that we all thought was done when they were putting us on the ship

to destroy natural immunity and put us on the pharmacological, constant injection basis society, world society. This is what she says about the safety that made them confident about that. There's a lot of safety science that's needed. And, um, Without the good science, we can't have good communication.

So although I'm talking about all these other contextual issues and communication issues, it absolutely needs the science as the backbone. You can't repurpose the same old science to make it sound better if you don't have the science that's relevant to the new problems. So we need much more investment in safety science. I thought the science was settled. I thought this had all been done. You're saying we can't be like refurbishing old science that doesn't even deal with the question at hand

that isn't even addressing the problem. You would think I said this. You would think we hired someone to go in and say this in front of this room. This woman's being paid. She's in the vaccine confidence project designed by the World Health Organization. She's looked into this and what she's telling you, is we really need to do some safety science

because the only way I can teach you and come up with talking points to win people back is I got to be able to do what Del Bigtree is doing. I got to be able to put out science and say, look, here's the science, here's the proof. But we can't because we haven't done it. We got like old science from a vaccine we're not even using it anymore.

We're trying to say, look at this old Volkswagen bug that doesn't have airbags. It gives you all the confidence you should have in our brand new Cadillac. It just doesn't work that way. The world doesn't work that way. Incredible admissions. Now, you may be saying, well, it's just her.

I'm about to show you multiple scientists now that are going to begin the discussion. Of course, she's looking at the confidence around safety. She just told you she doesn't think that the safety studies are there. What do the other top scientists at the World Health Organization and other groups that are looking into this, what do they think about the safety? Let's start out with Marianne Gruber. Director, Office of Vaccine Research and Review Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the FDA.

Take a look at this. My name is Marion Gruber. I'm with the Office of Vaccines at the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, U.S. Futendrach Administration. And as I was reading the paper that I was part of writing, I would like to sort of underscore a few points made in that paper. also reflect on some of the issues presented to us regarding novel vaccine platforms. So I think vaccines, regardless whether they are generated using new and innovative technology

or whether more standard conventional technologies are applied, they do require safety surveillance and monitoring that is specifically tailored to the vaccine that is under consideration using available pharmacovigilance systems. So, in other words, the risk management plan for each particular vaccine will need to take into the consideration the pre-licensure safety database, potential safety signals that may have been identified during pre-licensure clinical safety trials, other perhaps even theoretical safety concerns, and also need to take into consideration the disease. the disease to be prevented, the target population, and the proposed indication in order to really inform risk management. Risk management. You know what we will need to do to work better at risk management, to establish safety?

You know what we will need to do? We'll need to do. Hold on a second. I mean, it's terrifying. It's terrifying. It's it's it's it's it's it's a absolutely terrifying to me. I don't even revel in the fact that we've been right. Think about what she's saying. I thought this was a discussion. Didn't we all think this was a discussion that happened like a hundred years ago before they were giving us like 11 vaccines at the time that they had, they said, you know what we will need to do? We'll need to track how safeties are in people. Yeah, we'll look at the clinical data that was done by the manufacturer, which we all know you can't really trust. But seriously, we're going to have systems. We're going to have the

things in place so that we can track the risk management plan. And it's going to have to be specific to each vaccine. We will need to do that. All right, that video would have been cool, you know, in 1920. It would have been really, really cool in like 1961 before they released the MMR vaccine in 1962 and three that essentially led us to this place that's just been described as a world dependent on vaccines, before that happened, we'll put these safety things in place, would have been really great. But to be hearing about it, in 2019 on the eve of 2020,

as people are marching in New Jersey saying, you are not going to take away my religious right to opt out of this vaccine program. And Del Bigtree is screaming his lungs out, saying they've never done a safety study to find out that while we're there doing that, that the World Health Organization is sitting down and saying, you know what we will need to do to make vaccines safe?

Put in some safety measures that we never did before. That's scary. What we're seeing then is we're watching a plane that's crashing. We're realizing that this people started flying a plane before they even finished building it. They're literally flying a plane and trying to build it and figure out how to keep it in the air and knock it. crash while it's flying. It is clearly, boom. And we're all on this plane, especially every single

state that's going to lose their ability to exempt out so that some of us can stay off the plane so that some of us can make sure that the species survives while these morons decide they might start doing some safety science. All right, let me take it down a notch. My executive producer said, Del, you have the winning argument. Let's let them do it. You don't need to scream and yell. It's true. But it's hard to not get amped up about this.

I mean, it's so incredible. So one of the things that we always hear when we talk about vaccines, I've said it before, Sanjay Gupta will say, they say that vaccines are more toxic. But the truth is, there's less antigens in vaccines that have ever been in the vaccine program. And your child digs through thousands of antigens every day. That's the straw man argument. That's not an argument. I don't know anyone that's made that argument in our movement.

We've never said there's too many antigens in the vaccine. We said it's the adjuvants in the vaccine, the toxic chemicals that incite the body into an allergic reaction, essentially, that hyperactivate the immune system. That's what we're really concerned about. Well, listen to a man whose specialty appears to be adjuvants. This is Dr. Martin Howell, Fried, or fried, coordinator initiative for vaccine research at the WHO.

Let's get into adjuvants, shall we? I'll just say a few words about adjuvants. So adjuvants are added to vaccines for many reasons, but primarily to make the vaccines work. And as we enter the next decade, and we're trying to make vaccines against malaria, TB, HIV, GBS, RSV, it is extremely likely that these are going to require adjuv. and yet every time we add an adjuvant to a vaccine,

the people that are using the vaccine look at it. And if there's an adverse event, we know what they're going to say. It's the adjuvant that caused that adverse event. And we've seen clinical studies in the past where a single adverse event has been blamed on the adjuvant in the development trials. And things come to a standstill while we go in and spend many years trying to investigate, is the theoretical immunostimulation induced by that adjuvant

responsible for the adverse event? Now, over the years of GACS, over the last 15 years, we've seen many accusations. I'm going to begin off with aluminium. So this was accused of causing macrophagic myofaceitis. And yet this complex word typically only occurs many years after potential administration of the aluminium. And as we go forwards with the immunos immunosiminators like MPL, like the Sapanins, we are likely to see every time that there is an association, be it temporal or not temporal. The first accusation is it is the adjuvant. And yet without adjuvants, we are not going to have the next generation of vaccines.

And many of the vaccines that we do have, wrenching from tetanus through to HP. require adjuvants in order for them to work. So the challenge that we have in front of us is how do we build confidence in this? And the confidence, first of all, comes from the regulatory agencies, to Marianne. When we add an adjuvant, it's because it is essential. We do not add adjuvants to vaccines because we want to do so. But when we add them, it adds to the complexity. And I give courses every year on how do you develop vaccines?

How do you make vaccines? And the first lesson is, while you're making your vaccine, if you can avoid using an adjuvant, please do so. Lesson two is, if you're going to use an adjuvant, use one that has a history of safety. And lesson three is, if you're not going to do that, think very carefully. I mean, listen to what he just said. This is one of the discussions. I get asked this all the time. You know, there's been, you know, green my vaccine was what?

one of the things that Jenny McCarthy was, you know, trying to create. And people say to me, you know, what if vaccines were safe? And I've said, I don't know that they can be safe. I don't know that you can do it because you can't make many of these vaccines, as he just said, without an adjuvant. And he said every time we add an adjuvant, it adds to the complexity. And as we've pointed out, they don't just test adjuvants by themselves. They can't.

They're not allowed to. They can't just inject someone with aluminum and then inject someone else with saline and say, huh? Let's see how they do over the next year or two or three and see if they develop an autoimmune disease, which as J.B. Hanley said very eloquently in the rollout we had at the beginning of the show. I think we've shown that adjuvants, that these things are causing autoimmune disease. I think the science is settled there, and he's right. We've looked at the aluminum studies in mice and rats.

We've watched Dr. Christopher Exley dissect the brains of Alzheimer's patients and the brains of autistic children and seeing that their extreme highest levels of aluminum we've ever seen, how is the aluminum getting there? In fact, that's the studies going on right now in Chris Exley's group in the UK. They're starting to figure out ways to track the aluminum, see how is it traveling from the injection and getting up into the brain? Of course, Roman Girardi has done all the work in the autoimmune disease and what's happening when we're injecting aluminum.

And so this guy's telling you, listen to what he said, because you really have to think about this. If you're praying that there's going to be a safe vaccine, he says, we don't put adjuvants there because we want to. Kind of menacing sounding, isn't it? Like, we know it's dangerous to do it. We wouldn't do it if we didn't have to. We're not fools. We just have no choice.

We've got to put this dangerous element into vaccines that add to the complexity because it's the only way we've ever been able to figure out how to make them work in many of these vaccines. And so in my class, when someone's saying, you know, I want to make vaccines, he says, then I have three rules. If you can make one without an adjuvant, do it. If you have to use an adjuvant, try to use one that we've used before that they won't blame for the dangers and harms that are going on. If you're going to use a new adjuvant, think very carefully. Obviously, this conversation sparks the mind in any intelligent person. But there was a doctor in the room that I think asked the obvious next question. The one that we've asked probably a million times here on the high wire when we were supposedly spreading misinformation,

listened to what Dr. Stephen Evans, professor of pharmacoreco-epidemiology, asks about this element that you have to put in vaccines. It seems to me that adjuvants multiply the immunogenicity of the antigens that they are added to, and that is their intention. It seems to me they multiply the reactogenicity in many instances, and therefore it seems to me that it is not unexpected if they multiply the incidence of adverse reactions. that are associated with the antigen, but may not have been detected through lack of statistical power in the original studies. Now, I wonder if this thinking is correct,

and if it is, whether this has some implications for the way we do pharmacovigilance. Because one vaccine that has one antigen and an adjuvant, and another vaccine that has a different antigen and no adjuvant, the reason for the difference is not immediately obvious. I mean, that's the question, isn't it? If this adjuvant ramps, you know, up the power of the antigen, then it can ramp up anything else that it comes in contact with in the body.

Can it not? And what about another vaccine that didn't need the adjuvant, but that maybe I think he's saying he's given at the same time, what happens with that antigen? I mean, it is possible that it could ramp up the, amount of autoimmune disease and reactions in the future, could it not? I mean, if we're really messing with the system, and this is why you're saying we shouldn't put one in if we don't have to, right? I mean, these are great questions, but, you know, Dr. Stephen Evans, where was this question

50 years ago before we were all put on this airplane, we were still building, and saying, you know, these adjuvants, these multiple adjuvants we're using, is it possible that they could ramp up the immune system in a way we do not want? Listen to the response. So with the local reactogenicity, you are correct. As we addjuvants, especially some of the more recent adjuvants, such as the ASO1, SAPBEN and derived adjuvants, we do see increased local reactogenicity.

The primary concern, though, usually is systemic adverse events rather than local adverse events. and we tend to get in the phase two in the phase three studies quite good data on the local reactogenicity. Those of us in this room that are beyond the age of 50 who have had the pleasure of having the recent shingles vaccine will know that this does have quite significant local reactogenicity. If you got the vaccine, you know that you got the vaccine. But this is not the major health concern. The major health concern which we are seeing are accusations of law.

long-term effects. So what we have to bear in mind is that we don't use adjuvants by themselves. The adjuvant is used in combination with an antigen. And an adjuvant may give quite different responses depending on which antigen it is combined with. So the fact that an adjuvant is shown to be safe with one antigen might give a different response with another antigen

because of other things that are with that second antigen, including impurity. So to come back to this, I'm going to once again point to the regulators. It comes down to ensuring that we conduct the phase two and the phase three studies with adequate size and with appropriate measurement. It would be really good if we could do these early trials with like the appropriate size and the adequate measurement, which clearly we have not done because listen to what he said. The way we're testing them right now, the way our studies are set up,

We're really good at discovering whether or not your arm hurts like hell after getting a shingles vaccine. Giggle, giggle, giggle through the room, which we all know because we got it. I mean, that's how good their science is. That we're really good at figuring out. Did that hurt? Yeah, it really hurts. Still hurts. All right, mark it down.

Local reaction. Adverse event and local reaction. We're good at doing that. Studies can achieve that. Our problem is we absolutely suck at being able to figure out if there's systemic adverse events. That's what he said. Systemic, meaning your body is screwed.

You're going to start developing autoimmune diseases two and three years down the road. We have not ever designed a trial that could track that. And by the way, that's exactly what Dr. Chris Exley and Dr. Roman Gerardi and Dr. Zibinyahu and Dr. Christopher Shaw and many others, Yehuda Schoenfeld,

around the world, they're doing this work after the vaccines are in the population and they're being attacked by the World Health Organization. They're being attacked by the medical community, saying you're anti-bactors for even asking the question. And this guy's telling you, somebody better ask this question. Somebody better figure out a way to study it

because we are flying blind. We don't know what we're doing. And this guy that just asked this question is right. Yes. Adjadjements are probably really capable of creating systemic adverse reactions and might really be the cause of our rise from 12.8% chronic systemic

adverse reactions in our children in the 1980s when they got 11 vaccines to now 54% of our children having adverse reactions. Those studies really should have been done before we did this to our children. But as you're hearing, they haven't figured out how to do that. You want to hear something you even

scarier? Not only have they not figured out how to track and do a study that can see if there's going to be a systemic problem in the future, what if they don't even know how an adjuvant works? Doing surveillance is necessary, but understanding how these things work is also necessary so that we can assess plausibility. So in our clinical trials, we are actually using relatively small sample sizes and when we do that we're at risk of tyranny of small numbers which is you just need a single case of weggner's granulomatosis and your vaccine has to solve waltz how do you prove a null hypothesis and it takes years and years to try to figure to figure that out so it's a real conundrum right getting the right the right size dealing with the tyranny of small

numbers, making sure that you can really do it. And so I think one of the things that we really need to invest in are kind of better biomarkers, better mechanistic understanding of how these things work, so we can better understand adverse events as they come up. One of the additional issues that complicates safety evaluation is if you look at and you struggle with the length of follow-up that should be adequate in a, let's say, a pre-licensure or even post-marketing. study, if that's even possible. Because, I mean, one has to acknowledge the longer you follow up,

the more you perhaps see adverse events that have nothing to do with the adjuvant vaccine combination, but maybe, again, and coincidental. But the problem is, you know, how do you deal with that data? And again, as you mentioned, pre-licensure clinical trials may not be powered enough. It's also the subject population that you administer the adjuvant too, because we, seen data presented to us where in Archivant, in particular Archivant, added to a vaccine and it did really nothing when administered to a certain population, and it's usually the elderly, you know, compared to administering the same formulation to younger age strata. So these are things which need to be considered as well and further complicate safety and effectiveness evaluation

of adjuvants combined with vaccine and genes. I hope there's people right now that are watching this show that believed their doctor when they said the safety studies have been done, that believed that vaccine was safe and effective because I'm pretty sure how the rest of us are reacting right now. And part of it, you know, you want a fist pump and say, yeah, I knew I was right. But it's absolutely shocking what we're watching here.

It's like watching third graders. Who put these third graders in charge of, world health. Listen to the things she's saying. I wrote some of this down. First of all, you know, two scientists both say the same thing. It would be really nice to know how an adjuvant works, how these adjuvant works. We need to figure out a way to do some sort of studies so that we can understand why it's doing what we're seeing it do. I mean, remember, this is supposed to be settled science. This is so far from settled science. It's absolutely shocking. David Caslow says, I'd like to know. Yeah, Martin, I would like to know too. That'd be really great.

Let's have a party on how many people would love to know how that adjuvant works. And then you go over to Gruber and she starts saying things like, you know, the trials just really aren't powered enough to track systemic reactions and adjuvants. And, you know, and he said, I love the tyranny of small numbers. We're suffering from the tyranny of small numbers in these studies. Folks, I'm not saying this, Bobby Kennedy's not sitting on a microphone and saying what we're suffering from is the tyranny of small numbers. It's the scientific community, literally the heads of the scientific world are saying we have a tyranny of small numbers. Let me explain that. See, these people are so brainwashed in the fact that we got to have vaccines. So the problem Caslow has is when

you do see an adverse event show up. You know what really sucks is when a kid dies in the middle of a trial because now you got to stop everything down. And even though it might have been like a one and a thousand problem, we only had 100 kids. And since it happened in one and a hundred, how do you prove the null hypothesis? How do you prove that it's only one in a hundred? Or, you know, when it could be one and a thousand. You know, this is the problem. When we see a problem, it's really problematic for us. And then Marianne Gruber kind of jumps in and says, yeah, I mean, it's one of the issues we have with having a long-term study is what if something happens, then we have to prove that it wasn't the vaccine, and there's a chance it wasn't the vaccine.

And so you see in their minds, they go, that's why these things have to be so short. I mean, we really got to keep them short because we can't, we don't want to be investigating issues that pop up when you have like a thousand kids in a study versus 100. We don't want to see those problems. We don't want to see the problems that would show up if they get like a systemic autoimmune disease because we saw it because we actually did the study for three years, even though she says our problem is length of follow-up. Now remember, I've said it over and over again.

Every drug you're taking, for the most part, went through a five to six years safety trial. And she's saying, we have a problem with the length of follow-up. They're talking about adjuvants and saying the systemic autoimmune disease problem would be very, very difficult to discover, especially since these aluminum adjuvants and the issues with them don't come up for years

until years down the road. So let me quickly remind you exactly what Marianne Greene is realizing it's a problem. We looked into it. Here's how long the follow-up was on many of the childhood vaccines you're giving your children. Measles, 42 days, both solicited and unsolicited reactions. Chicken pox, 42 days. Hepatitis A, well, here's a bomber. Four days and five days. And then they decided to make a phone call, you know, 31 days later, and then at six months to see how you're doing, still not enough time to see an autoimmune reaction. 42 days. Hepatitis B, said over and over again, four and five days total. Everyone seems to be doing fine, even though

hepatitis B has massive amounts of aluminum and very well could lead to multiple sclerosis as studies in France found and other issues like that. But our four to five days study, you know, we're going to stick with that. All right, hold on. I just want to pause this incredible episode for just one minute to talk about how we are able to do this show and how important your involvement is. Now, first of all, we're talking about hepatitis B right now, a very important issue. And just last week on the show, I had our attorney Aaron Sireon talking about his new initiative and the lawsuits we want to bring around hepatitis B. This is a very, very important issue. In fact, it's one of the best conversations to have when you're starting out with someone new

is I just say, let's just take the hepatitis B vaccine, for instance, as an example. I do it when I talk to politicians because it doesn't make sense. We're giving this on day one of birth, day one of birth. And the hepatitis B, you're only going to catch it if you're sharing intravenous needles or having promiscuous sexual relationships with multiple partners. That's what the vaccine is designed for. So why is a baby getting it? It makes absolutely no sense. Then you look at the levels of aluminum in it, and then you look for the short period of time with which this thing is tested. and almost every politician I talked to immediately says, I don't know about the rest of it,

but that one I want to get rid of. So that's where the conversation begins, and that's why it's important that that is this week's legal update. Take a look at this. As many of you who follow the work of I can know, the two hepatitis B vaccines licensed for newborn babies were licensed on clinical trials, which monitored safety for only four or five days after injection.

That's clearly not long enough to assess the safety of those products before they were unleashed, and millions of babies were on. this country every year. If you're injured by one of those vaccines, you can't sue the manufacturer for design defect claims and other claims. Parents, when they go into a hospital based on those decisions or the fact that maybe their baby is not at risk of hepatitis B, which is often transmitted based on permissible sex or sharing dirty needles by drug users, they'll decide, you know what? I don't want my newborn baby to get a hepatitis B vaccine on the first day of life. But unfortunately,

Too many hospitals will give that product and inject it into their newborn baby anyway. Why would a hospital do this? Well, that's what they consider the standard of care. They're just following the CDC schedule. We are proud that ICANN has announced and has decided it will financially support lawsuits against hospitals and other health facilities that will give the hepatitis B vaccine to a newborn baby against parental consent. we look forward to bringing those lawsuits around the country.

Yeah, here at ICA, we have a little personal axe to grind. I'm tired of getting calls from people that said, I filled out the thing, as I was supposed to, I gave them my birth plan, and we told them we didn't want a vaccine, and they ended up giving my baby a hepatitis B vaccine anyway. We couldn't believe it until we saw that we were billed for it. Well, we want that to end. It's got to end. You have informed consent.

This is the United States of America. These are the types of things that need to end right away. But we're not going to wait to see how long it takes for government to get to this with all the other things they need to do. We're going to take it right to the hospitals themselves. And by the way, that'll work faster than anything. You watch one gigantic lawsuit take down one of these big hospitals and this thing is all over. But I cannot do it without your help. As you know, all of this is made possible.

There's no sponsor here, no Exxon, certainly not Pfizer or Moderna. no pamper's, no Johnson & Johnson, no Coca-Cola, it's you. You are the ones that make it possible. You're the reason that we've been able to do shows like this that have absolutely exposed things that nobody else had ever thought to expose or knew was there. But right now, this hepatitis B lawsuit, we're looking, you know,

we're going to have the perfect cases and go in and really put pressure on hospitals so that this never happens to you or anyone you know ever again. If that interests you, this is a perfect time to donate and make that happen because we have a matching fund right now to the end of the year. We have a $2 million legal match. So let's see where we're at as of this point this week. Boom! Fantastic.

Amazing. So far, many of you out there have donated $400,000, which means we are going to be able to double that to $800,000. But we only have a little bit of time. left. Really, one more month here. So I'm hoping that you're, you know, full of Thanksgiving turkey, you got some, you know, maybe some whipped cream on a piece of pumpkin pie and you're feeling especially warm about being a part of change in the world. I would love to see you donate today. What a perfect day to do it. On a day that we're giving Thanksgiving for all that we've done, for all that we've achieved, all that we've been guided, you know, for me, for being, you know,

a vessel of God's will in all of these circumstances that bring us to here. here. There's so much, something so much bigger than all of ourselves. And this is an opportunity for you to feel it. Instead of just watching it, to be a part of actually making change. When you watch them remove this mandated hepatitis B vaccine, when you never again hear that a hospital is forcing it onto children or doing it without parental consent, you can say, I did that. Because I'm telling you, we can't do it without you. We are involved in a lot of lawsuits. We are pressed to the edge. This is one we're adding on top of all that we are already doing. So this is the moment. I hope you will donate now and be a part of making history and think about every single baby's life that you're going to

save. Maybe keep them from ever suffering from autoimmune disease because they started on a different path. That is a gift I believe we can hand to you. I hope that you will take pride in being a part of it. All you have to do is click on this QR code or just go to Icandecide.org. legal match. One other way that you can, you know, be a part of donating to all the work that we do here and also get some of your Christmas shopping out of the way. We're having a Black Friday sale starting tomorrow, Black Friday, all the way through Monday. Everything on our shop at the high wire is 20% off. Now, this is a way to get great gifts like the Faraday bag that you can put your cell phone in. Everyone needs one of those these days. When you want to have that cone of silence, have your Faraday bag, the High White. It's a great stocking stuffer. That and many other things at our shop at the High Wire. So go check it out, Black Friday, tomorrow through Monday, 20% off. Just go to thehighwire.shop and start shopping tomorrow.

All right, I want to let you get back to this because, by the way, this thing has a climactic ending that is going to blow your mind. I'm sure you're saying I cannot believe what they've already admitted. Remember, this is them in their own words. when they're talking to each other, thinking, we'll never hear it. Sorry for them, there was a camera in the room. Enjoy the rest of this incredible summit in Geneva, Switzerland, December, 2nd and 3rd, 2019. Hmm, interesting timing.

Enjoy it. 30 days total, even in the follow-up on Hibb, D-TAP, 28 days, six months, three days, 30 days, 60 days, days, folks. days. While drugs are being tested for years, they're only testing these things for days. I really want you to wrap your head around this. It's as though these people think, and Paul Offett and Senator Pan and all of these spokespeople vaccines act like vaccines are just so much safer in the way they're designed than drugs. That's why they really don't need to go through these studies. Now, clearly, you're hearing in this room a totally different discussion, but even if you didn't hear this discussion, try to wrap your

head around, their logic. Yes, we test drugs for five and six years. It's important, but we don't have to do that with vaccines because it's much safer than injecting chemical compounds, which is what a drug is. We know we have to study that. But this product that, well, actually does have chemical compounds too. And, well, yeah, heavy metals and mercury and aluminum and, you know, toxic things like formaldehyde and, you know, polysorbate 80. Well, yeah, but still, you know, we think it's safer than drugs. But think about this. This product has living antigens in it. It has living live elements of bacteria, viruses that can spread, are designed to spread as we see polio outbreaks where they come back to life like Frankenstein viruses

and start spreading. This product has living material. materials in it. And you're telling me that by nature would be safer than some dead set of compounds, it absolutely defies all reason as we know it. And as if it's not bad enough. Now, we've shown you that clearly they don't know what adjuvants do. They're recognizing that we have a length of follow-up problem. We have a powered study problem. Here, we were supposed to be here celebrating the 20 years, of the World Health Organization's investigation into safety, and this is turning out to be a real bummer. You know, everyone's got to be sitting around going,

I don't know, this is kind of a bummer, isn't it? I mean, thank God there's no cameras here that the world doesn't see or hear what's going on in here because it's a doctor, I'm getting kind of depressed. But think about this, while this is going on, and what she said, we even give adjuvants to, like, grandparents that works fine. But then that same adjuvant's in kids, and it's a problem.

And do you think they did studies on that? What are they doing? And when we change with a different antigen, when we put that aluminum adjuvant on a different vaccine, we're just making an assumption be fine, but the leading scientists in the world says you can't do that. The adjuvant works differently with every single different antigen

that comes in contact with, including those that are already inside your body when you're injecting it. But what about a brand new group that they really want, really bad? Listen to this. Coming down the pike, maybe relatively quickly, is a new target population for us in vaccines, and that's maternal immunization.

And these are women who are pregnant, who will have all kinds of adverse events associated with their pregnancy. Part of the problem is that we don't have a strong enough pharmacoeoebideologic baseline in the target populations that we're studying to be able to say, is this an expectant? adverse event due to pregnancy or is this related to the vaccine? So I do think an investment in that kind of epidemiologic baseline is going to be critically important if we don't want to derail some of our maternal immunization vaccines as they go into low resource settings. I do think an investment into an understanding of what's going on with pregnant women would be very

helpful as we want to continue to forcibly inject these things into pregnant women. Think about this. We know that an adjuvant works differently in a grandparent than a child, but what about a fetus? This guy, they're going in and they have no idea what they're doing, and this is one of the things we've been involved in. I've told you this. I said this. It's one of the most terrifying, you know, things that's happening in this country and around the world. They're giving back things to pregnant women when throughout history until literally like 10 years ago, everyone said, make sure, do a pregnancy test before you get a vaccine because the one thing we know we don't want to do is give you a vaccine after you've been pregnant. In fact, I go to CDC meetings.

This isn't surprising me at all, but for those of you that are maybe watching this for the first time, you're thinking, geez, that's really shocking. Listen to what we heard them say about the vaccines given to pregnant women at, oh, by the way, let's show the posters. First of all, so everyone knows what knows what's talking about? When you go to Walmart or Walgreens, you see these poses up. Protection during pregnancy. It begins during pregnancy. Make sure to get your flu shot.

Make sure to get your TDAP vaccine. CDC says, CDC says it's really important if you want to really protect your baby. And you didn't know that the World Health Organization, they're all sitting around saying, we don't have any idea how pregnancy works, what vaccines might do. Look what we saw them say. This is the guy.

at the CDC at the ASIP meetings that actually deals with the lawsuits against vaccines. That's an HRSA program underneath Health and Human Services. Listen to him described what we should be telling people about the use of vaccines and pregnant women.

Dr. Son. I just want to make a clarification on use of vaccines in pregnancy. Unless there is a study of that vaccine in pregnant women, even though that age indication, you know, may fall in within that age indication,

it is still not considered, we will be still, using pregnant women would still be considered off-label. Off-label. Just can bring up that last image? I'm not lying, I'm sitting right behind that guy. You can see me right in the video. That's why, when we were sitting there,

that's what, this is where we get the ideas for our lawsuits. We were sitting there saying, wait a minute. Did one of the top officials at the CDC just say that use of vaccines and pregnant women is an off-label usage? Why would that be? And by the way, it would be illegal for a vaccine maker to put up a poster that says you should use this product knowing it's an off-label usage. Only a government agency could get away with that. So we sued the FDA. We started out with FOIA requests against the FDA and said, we'd like to see the trials. We left that meeting, we went and we started a lawsuit. We'd like to see the trials of TDAF vaccine and flu vaccine in pregnant women that determined when you put up posters saying you're doing the best thing for your baby, by getting these vaccines, where are the trials that you did that said that would be safe? In a fetus, because we know it's different than a grandparent now and a child. What about that fetus?

They fought us. They pushed back. And this one, we settled because they finally admitted. We said, we will settle this case and walk out of here if you admit. And what they said is, we can't find any information. We have no records responsive to your request. We cannot provide a single record of a trial that. had a pregnant woman involved in it. And that's how these government agencies are working.

Are you terrified? Are you scared yet? Now, this show is going a little bit long, and we knew it would. I said, I don't know people are as geeked out on this as we are. But honestly, for the entire three years of the high wire, I've been dreaming that this would happen, that this moment would happen, that I could finally show you once and for all. This is the proof that we've been right, that we're the only ones that were bringing you the truth. So for those of you that are still here, there's just a little bit longer to go. We're going to finish this out strong as it can be.

Because as we have sat around saying, how could this be, how could this possibly be, that the head scientists of the world, obviously, I mean, I've never seen so many people with, like, they're deer in headlights. Like, yeah, it would be really nice to know. We don't have enough power. We don't have enough this.

We're just starting. We're thinking we should do this and that. Listen to a doctor. When we think about, you know, when she talked about, one of the biggest concerns they have is the waning, the wobbling confidence of our front line, the doctors. Remember, this is supposed to be a summit

about vaccine confidence and raising confidence. Is it possible that even inside that room, doctors began wobbling? Doctors began saying, oh my God, I had no idea. We were so unprepared. Listen to this doctor from Nigeria asking arguably the most obvious question known to man.

As we're having the discussions, something was just going through my mind, which I will need clarification. Outside vaccines, for instance, we take septrine and fancy that they potentiate each other, and there are so many other drugs like that. I cast back my mind to our situation in Nigeria, where at six weeks, 10 weeks, 14 weeks, a child is being given different antigens from different companies. And these vaccines

have different adjuvant, different preservatives, and so on. You go again to nine months. Currently, the child had nine months who received men. A, that same child would receive yellow fever, that same child would receive Mrs. Vaccine. Something crosses my mind. Is there a possibility of these adjuvant preservatives cross-reacting amongst themselves? Have they ever been a study on the possibility of cross-reactions from the panel members that you can share the experience with us? Because this is one thing that I've also crossing my mind. Going back home, this is an area that we'll need to work with the regulatory agency.

Let's even see what is happening. Is there any possibility? So we need guardians from the panel members, whether they haven't been any study on these cross-reactions of multiple entities from different companies given to each other at the same time. What counsel do you have for us? Thank you. This reminds me of a question that we played many times

that took place to the CDC at the ASIP meetings. The obvious question. Multiple adjuvins and vaccines at the same time, this very intelligent doctor is thinking, you know, before I came in this room, I thought safety studies had been done. I thought you guys knew what you were doing. And as I sit here listening to this,

I'm becoming more and more terrified, as what I think he's saying, is becoming really obvious to me that you're doing something that I don't think you know anything about. Can someone on this panel, please take away my fear? This is the moment that happened

with a scientist's acting question at the ASIP. And this is what the CDC's recommendation was for questions like that. Just listen to this conversation. Is there any comment on using this vaccine at the same time with other adjuvanted vaccines? We have no data to make a recommendation one way or the other. So just to sort of put this in context of other vaccines, whilst preclinical studies were not done using these vaccines simultaneously,

our general approach to immunizations is that they should be given, they can be given at the same time in different limbs. You know, I was sitting on the edge of my seat when I heard Dr. Bassi Akkosen from Nigeria asking this question and wondering, I wonder if the same thing that the CDC recommends is what we're going to hear is an answer here. Well, Dr. Akposen, you know, no, we haven't done any studies on that, but don't worry, we know to give the vaccine in different lens. Does he go home going, oh, great, thanks. That makes me feel a lot better. Is that what a scientist is going to say to another scientist?

Different lens solves the problem. Oh my God! No. Here's the answer he gets. This is a very important question because in general, the clinical trials with any particular new product frequently is done just by itself. And then ultimately, frequently the regulators will ask if that vaccine could be added to the routine immunization program. And so frequently, a trial is done with that new vaccine in addition to the regular regimen. But your question is almost kind of the next step, because in real practice,

frequently there are multiple vaccines from different manufacturers that then maybe receive at a different age schedules, et cetera. And if you take a look at the immunization schedule, over the last, let's say, 15, 20 years in high-income countries, as well as in low-resource countries, the schedule has gotten more and more complex, clearly. And so if you take a look at the exposure, what we call the vaccine exposure, in the typical adverse event report

to a spontaneous reporting system in any country, you'll see that increase in heterogeneity of those different vaccine exposures, especially if you take the manufacturer into account. Now the only way to tease that out is if you have a large population database, like the Vaccine Safety Data Link, as well as some of the other national databases

that are coming to Ving, where the actual vaccine exposure is tracked down to that level of specificity of who is the manufacturer, what is the manufacturer, what is the lot number, et cetera, et cetera. And there's initiative to try to make the vaccine label information barcoded so that it includes that level of information so that in the future when we do these type of studies, we're able to tease that out.

And in order to, each time you subdivide, then the sample size gets becoming more and more challenging, And that's what I said earlier today about that we're really only in the beginning of the era of large data sets where hopefully you could start to kind of harmonize the databases for multiple studies. And there's actually an initiative underway. Helen there may want to comment on it to try to get more national vaccine safety database linked together so we could start to answer these type of questions that you just raised. That was a lot of words to get to the last point so that we can start to answer these types of questions you have just raised. Nobody on this point, this is what I mean. If this right now was a special on CNN right now, on a 2020 special, what do you think would be happening in this country? With everybody that can read, everybody that has a brain, everybody that's screaming at you on Facebook right now saying,

you're an anti-backer, you're crazy, you're stupid for reading on your own. Well, I didn't, we don't have to read now. You're listening to the professionals in their own voice. Let's go through some of these things he said. Your question really leads us to the next step, the step we haven't gotten to yet. The step we should have gotten to before we started trying to fly this plane before it was built, before we understood what an adjuvant actually does or how it works. Those would have been really great questions.

And then he talks about the harmonizing that, yes, in first, world nations, and yes, true in more impoverished nations, too, the addition of all these vaccines has made this question more complex to answer. Think about what he's saying. We went from 11 vaccines when we could sue them in the 1980s to 54 vaccines, 72 doses now that we can't. And what he's saying is, as you all know, when you're going for your well baby visits, and as this guy said, seven, eight, nine different vaccines at one time. There's no way now at this point to figure out how to tease this way out to somehow isolate one of those vaccines because we never did it one vaccine at a time. And we never did the studies we should have done when we were only giving 10

vaccines where it might have been easier to figure out if all of these systemic problems and deaths and things are being caused by these vaccines. And now that it's like 54 and climbing and you're getting 10 at a time, how the heck are they going to be able to do it? And this is why if someone else wants to chime in here. We're trying to harmonize all the databases around the world, first world nations and second world nations, so that we can start to figure out a way to answer the safety question that any moron with a third degree, third grade level education would be asking the question we've been asking on the high wire every single week for 145 weeks. The answer. The answer is, you The answer is, it has never been done.

Just like we showed you, we knew the Institute of Medicine weighed in on this. Let's take a look at that because I've showed it to you a million times. You didn't need all of this information. You didn't need them saying in their own words, but in case you didn't trust me, the Institute of Medicine said this. Studies designed to examine the long-term effects of the cumulative number of vaccines or other aspects of the immunization schedule have not been conducted. Existing research has not been designed to test the entire immunization schedule.

No studies have ever compared the difference in health outcomes between entirely unimmunized populations of children and fully immunized children. But to go out with the coup de grace, I told you, it's only going to get better. Believe me, I know how to end the fireworks show. Here it comes. I want to show you the video

that the World Health Organization put out four days before hosting the vaccine safety site. Take a look at what once again they wanted to tell the world outside of this room. Take a look at this. Vaccines are very safe. If someone gets sick after vaccination, it is usually either a coincidence, an error in administering the vaccine, or very rarely a problem with the vaccine itself. That's why we have vaccine safety systems, robust vaccine safety systems.

vaccine safety systems allow health workers and experts to react immediately to any problems that may arise. They can examine the problem, rigorously and scientifically look at the data and then promptly address the problem. WHO works closely with countries to make sure that vaccines can do what they do best, prevent disease without risks. New vaccines against malaria, meningitis and encephalitis in Asia and Africa, and now being thoroughly monitored with support from WHO. Vaccines are one of the safest tools we have to prevent disease and ensure a healthy future for all children.

Obviously, four days before this event, that's, you could maybe argue that's what the World Health Organization believed is true before they put all these scientists in room. Maybe they never, ever talk to each other. Or this answers, I'm about to answer one of the biggest questions I've always had. And I get asked is, do they know? Or are they just being manipulated? Remember, so this is Dr. Sumya Swamanaathan, MD.

She is none other than the chief scientist at the World Health Organization, a pediatrician. They brought their number one person and put her in front of a camera. And so you could ask yourself, are they just not showing her the data? Does she not understand it? Are they lying to her and putting her in front of this camera and she's just clueless? One might think that if you now have seen this entire event that I've just shown you, which obviously goes directly against everything she just said in that video. Four days earlier, she's putting this video.

Maybe she didn't know this conference was happening. Or what if she's at this conference? What would she say four days after putting out statements like, we have a just, you have to trust vaccines. It's one of the safest ways we can make you healthy here in India. And that even if there is an issue, you should know we have a robust vaccine safety surveillance program in place. So there's any issue, we catch it right away and we're able to make the changes so that we can ensure to you that all these new vaccines we're telling you need.

that they are perfectly safe because as she ends it, everything's monitored by the World Health Organization and vaccines are one of the safest things, best-studied products we have for your health. What does she say four days later at this event? If you have food in your mouth, swallow it now. Because this is the whole kitten caboodle. I think we cannot over-emphasize the fact that we really

don't have very good safety monitoring systems in many countries, and this adds to the miscommunication and the misapprehensions, because we're not able to give clear-cut answers. When people ask questions about the deaths that have occurred due to a particular vaccine, and this always gets blown up in the media, one should be able to give a very factual account of what exactly has happened and what the cause of deaths are. But in most cases, there's some obfuscation at that level, and therefore there's less and less trust then in the system. Putting in place the mechanisms, whether they're cohort studies

or whether they're sentinel surveillance sites, to be able to monitor what's going on and report back and then for corrective action to be taken because unexpected things could arise after introduction and one always has to be prepared. As we've seen in the history of many drugs, you've learned about adverse events only after the drugs being licensed and introduced.

into the population. So I think that risk is always there, and the population needs to understand that and feel confident that mechanisms are being put in place to study some of those things. That video forever blows my mind, and frankly, I probably could have just played, you know, the propaganda video and then what she actually said

three days later and spared you all the details of this entire show, but I know your mind is. blown, especially if this is the first time you've looked at this issue. How is it that we've been told something completely different? But let's really analyze what she is saying right here, in full truth. This is just a few years ago. This is just 2019. So five years ago, this is where the state of science was we don't have any surveillance programs to actually track if a vaccine is having issues. As she said, we need to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to give clear-cut answers when there are deaths after vaccinations, and we just don't have

the ability to do that. These are the leading scientists in the world, and no one's standing up and say, oh, well, we're really good in America. Yeah, no, we're good in Sweden. It's just, just you in India. The truth is, nobody has a surveillance system. You just watched it. Nobody knew. We still don't know what happened with COVID. We still, is it long COVID? Is it a vaccine injury, you now have former CDC director Redfield saying, I believe that long COVID is mostly just a vaccine injury from the COVID vaccine. If you came down and visited me and interviewed my patients, you know, you'd interview patient after patient after patient that did not have COVID, but are very sick, you would say very sick long COVID patients. And it's all from the vaccine.

But you don't have a surveillance system because you can't And so for everybody, this is why this show is so important because the big conversation now is going to be what is a new health department going to look like? What would Robert Kennedy Jr. want to do? He'd want to put in surveillance systems. That's it. Is it that hard to understand? Everything that these people complained about during this entire two-day summit that we really

don't do long enough trials, we have no idea because we don't have the trials long enough to know whether it's causing autoimmune diseases, which would be the most obvious. problem you would have with a product that affects your immune system. What I say to people when they're, you know, they're walking down the street, what is a vaccine? If you stop anyone, if I could stop any one of you or anyone out there, what's a vaccine? Well, I think it's, you know, they take like a killed version or a somehow a mutated version of a virus that can't hurt me. They injected my body and it tricks my immune system into thinking I have had a disease. All right, great. So we're tricking your immune system, autoimmune disease, a confused immune

system that is now somehow accidentally attacking cells in your own body instead of foreign invaders. Is it possible that when we trick your immune system that somehow we just threw it off course? Maybe it was the fact that we didn't just trick it one time or five times or 10 times or 20 times or 50 times or 72 times. we're tricking our children's immune system. And we're like, oh my God, I have no idea why we have the highest autoimmune disease rates in the world. Oh my God, I have no idea why we have the highest rates of autoimmune disease in human history. This is what's going on. These scientists have been lying to you for years and that's all coming to an end right now.

All that they've said that data exists, that's going to be shown to the world. I guarantee you. studies that need to be done, they're going to be done. All those trials that need to happen, they have to happen. And all those surveillance systems that have to be built, they're going to be built. And all those studies and all the injury, actually studying the people that had been injured instead of gaslighting them and telling them they're crazy, that's going to happen. You don't need to be a zealot. You don't need to go in and just say, oh my God, I'm getting rid of the vaccine program. Just go in and show the world the science and tell them what we do know.

And what we don't know. And what we don't know is what these things do after the two week or the five day or the 30-day trial that they analyze them under. After that, we got no clue. So now we're going to find out. And I believe while we're finding out, we should be allowed to have a choice. Was this product tested enough for you to feel comfortable that all, all the rise in autoimmune disease that you're seeing, all the peanut allergies that are like making people not serve peanuts on airplanes,

all the neurological disorders that you never heard up before in your life, all of the asthma, all the ADD, ADHD, all the lupus, all the cancer in our children, that is all at the highest levels we've ever seen them no longer, no matter how many times they drop coins in a cancer dish or a multiple sclerosis dish or cure lupus, It's only getting worse. Something's got to change.

And it's about to. But you better do what you need to do now. And never forget, as Margaret Mead said, never doubt that a small group of passionate individuals can change the world because indeed, it's the only thing that ever has. Be a part of that small group. Thank you for being part of the high wire.

Thank you, God, for this incredible moment on this earth. Thank you for this amazing country, the United States of America. Thank you to all the warriors that have fought for freedom through all the years. Thank you for this opportunity. Thank you for going out and doing what's right next week. And I'll see you next week on the High Wire.