The Highwire with Del Bigtree - Episode 407: CLIMATE CONTROL

Episode Date: January 17, 2025

First, Jefferey Jaxen Reports on FDA Pulling Red Dye, New Concerning mRNA Vaccine Study, and the Fall of Fluoride; Practitioner Fights to Transform Health with New Conference; ICAN investigates Geoengineering; Huge Win for Medical Freedom in West Virginia; ICAN on a roll.Guests: Barry Smeltzer, MPAS, PA-C, FAAEM, Catherine Ybarra, Esq.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

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

Yeah. Action. Good morning. Good afternoon. Good evening. Wherever you are out there in the world, it's time to step out onto the high wire. Probably the most important issue that we deal with here on the high wire and that we're focused on with the informed consent action network, which is the nonprofit. that makes this educational program possible.

That issue is really freedom. And at the heart of it, medical freedom. If you don't control your own body, then what freedom do you have? Whether you live in the United States of America or Canada or Australia or United Kingdom or where else in the world, if your body is not your own, if you don't have sovereignty, then I don't know what kind of freedom you have. And that freedom should stretch to the freedom to decide how your own. own children's bodies are treated, what they eat, and certainly, you know, what drugs they take or don't take or what injections they're given. So at the heart of our work here at the

high wire has been to ensure that that freedom exists for every single citizen in America and hopefully one day for every citizen around the world. But we have, you know, seen over time as different states have taken away that right. They're defying informed consent. The informed action network is the name of our nonprofit, and informed consent being the first rule of the Nuremberg Code, which came out of the Nuremberg trials where every free country in the world said, never again will we force medical decisions upon innocent people. We won't do surgeries where they don't know the benefits and the side effects. We won't give them drugs where we don't tell them the benefits and the side effects and let them choose. And we certainly won't inject anything,

even if it's called a vaccine into them, whether they've seen the benefits and the potential negative side effects, and then they consent, meaning it's their decision. The United States of America, in several states, we've been calling it free the five. In five states are defying the Nuremberg Code and the right to inform consent. Well, we have a huge victory once again. This one comes a little bit differently than those that we often share with you here at the highwire. We bring lawsuits. We show you we've won. But this one took a little bit of a different route.

And this is how it appeared in the news just yesterday. West Virginia, governor acts as DEI and enacts vaccine exemptions on first full day in office. It was at the top of his list. We're talking about Governor Patrick Morrissey. I want to thank Governor Morrissey for making this bold step for West Virginia. I have been spending years at the Capitol in West Virginia fighting to have this moment and this day happen. We wrote about it, I can. We have a headline. So if you always want to be getting breaking news, you should be one of, you know, joined to our online sign up and we'll

talk about this second. Breaking, West Virginia now provides religious and moral exemptions for school vaccine mandates. Let me go ahead and read what this governor just wrote out in West Virginia because it's historic. Whereas the Constitution of West Virginia recognized that all people are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights of which they cannot justly be deprived or divested, the commissioner of the Bureau of Public Health and the state health officer to establish a process for objection to compulsory school immunization from persons who desire to send their children to a state school

or state regulated child care center, but object on religious or conscientious grounds to one or more vaccine required by the compulsory immunization law. For purpose of this process, a writing signed by the objector shall be sufficient proof to establish the objection. When as directed by the Equal Protection for Religious Act of 2023, the compulsory immunization's requirements violate a religious and moral objection, the Commissioner of the Bureau for Public Health, the State Health Officer and all officials and employees of the state under their authority shall, consistent with the Equal Protection for Religion Act of 2023, take no action to enforce the compulsory school immunization requirements against the particular objector or his or her child. Number three by February 1st, 2025, the Bureau for Public Health, and the state health officer shall submit a plan to the office of the governor, including a proposal for any necessary legislation and rules to enable and facilitate a statewide exemption to the compulsory school immunization in Chapter 16, Article 3, Section 4 of the West Virginia Code for Objections Based on Religious and Moral Beliefs, and Report to the Office of the Governor on the number of people who have filed written objections to the compulsory school immunizations.

humanization requirements. There it is. The religious exemption has now been put back in play by the new governor of West Virginia. Now, that means we have one more down. We have four holdout states, so we're going to be moving on to free the four. But I want to talk about sometimes if you heard, we lost the battle, but we won the war. In this case, we believe that I can, and your donations have made this moment possible. not just because I visited the state capital so many times over the years and, you know,

met with so many different, you know, assembly members and senators there, but because we actually brought two cases on this very issue, fighting for the religious rights for certain students. This is that one of those cases, to not have to go to have mandatory vaccinations to order to go to school. And we were bringing that on the grounds that we won in Mississippi for, which is essentially you can't have a, you know, a section. exemption and not have a religious exemption. I've talked about this before. This was something we

discovered during COVID. And one of the lawsuits that came up around that was when a Costco was kept open, but a church was shut down. And the argument was made in one in several states. You cannot have Costco open because of, you know, shopings needed to happen, but shut down a religious establishment. If there is some form of an exemption for this establishment, whatever it is, then every religion should also have that same right and protection. And so we have used that in the state of Mississippi. We brought it here in West Virginia. Well, in that case, at the moment, the current Attorney General,

which was Governor Patrick Morrissey last year, he was at that time the state's attorney general. He wrote an amicus brief saying he agreed with our argument and sent that over to the courts. Now, the courts decided to push it, down to the state and leave it out of the federal space, you know, to argue religious exemption. They said, well, this should really be fought on state's grounds. And so that case, we've appealed that, we've got it back up. The cases are still going. But lucky for us, the friend that we made

in West Virginia in the middle of that case in that attorney general just became the governor. And as luck would have it when we were in West Palm Beach, the night of the election, Aaron and Syria and I were there for multiple reasons, part of him working with Robert Kennedy, June, and we were there in support. We ran into Governor Patrick Morrissey, who had just won his election. We offered him congratulations and said, hey, it would be really awesome if you could get refocused on the need for a religious exemption there in West Virginia, and he has followed through. This is a historic moment. It's something that we should all be celebrating, and it means that this pressure that we have been bringing for years from ICANN, we're not alone. There's other

great nonprofits, but no one has bringing the pressure. pressure through the legal system the way we have. And look here in this moment, that pressure resulted in making a friend that ended up being a friend in very high places. So for all of you that support the work here at ICANN, we never give up. We see the light at the end of the tunnel. And we expect, to be honest, that there may be some pushback in West Virginia. We're not sure from where to try and say, you know, we're not going to allow this to happen and fight and pushback. That's why those cases are ongoing.

We have won our appeal. We want those cases to keep going so they will defend this position for the now sitting governor. But congratulations, Governor Patrick Morrissey. Good on you for standing up for their religious rights and the right to body, autonomy, and sovereignty. West Virginia has now joined the majority of the nation in this thought. We won't rest until the remaining four join in the same celebration of freedom and

liberty that this nation was founded upon. Again, all this is made possible by every one of you that are donating and supporting to the work that we do. If you are not in that team, if you're not a part of the informed consent action network and you want to be able to jump up and celebrate moments like this, why don't you go ahead and start donating $25 a month for 2025? Honestly, that's what we love. But if that's too much, you can only afford a couple dollars a month.

That makes a difference. Remember, any donation over $5 a month, and you get access to High Wire Plus, which is a whole new batch of programming and shows that we're coming. We've got the Jeffrey Jackson's incredible part two of the series on polio. We are, it's being celebrated worldwide right now, probably the most in-depth investigation into polio and the polio vaccine ever done. There it is, the founding myth, the modern medicine, part two. So once you become a recurring donor, you can watch that and share it with all of your friends. So thank you all for this incredible moment. Congratulations, West Virginia and Governor Patrick Morrissey.

All right. I've got a huge show coming up. We're actually going to try something we haven't done before. I'm going to sort of do my debrief with our legal team and the head of our legal team that's been investigating geoengineering. We have had an investigation going on. I usually get briefed on what we've come up to, what we've learned over the last couple of years, actually, of this investigation. And then we try to put a show together and bring you the best of it. Instead, I'm going to get my debrief right here in front of you today on the show.

I also have Barry Smelzer, who is a holistic practitioner. He's got an incredible event coming up. He's the executive director of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine. I'm going to be speaking in that event, but we're going to talk to him about what's going on in environmental medicine and why this is such an important event. But first it's time for the Jackson Report. It's amazing, Jeffrey. Another one goes down.

I mean, you know, this has been a dream, right? Could we ever start reversing the laws around this country and bringing back medical freedom? So many people told us like you just were naysayers. You'll never accomplish it. You can't go up against farm in these states. They're too powerful. Lobby's too powerful.

I mean, just time and time again, like every week we're celebrating another victory. So congratulations because your pressure and your work I think is a huge part of this. Yeah, inch by inch piece by piece, we're bringing back medical freedom. We're also bringing back, we're trying to end, obviously, manmade disease, but we're also trying to bring justice to people that have been harmed by the medical community. And, you know, the FDA, well, I think their status quo days are numbered. And I think they may know that because a big announcement from the FDA just came in. What are they doing? Well, We'll go to stat news. FDA bans red dye number three in foods.

Decades after additive found to cause cancer in rats. They're so worried about this that they're going to wait until 2027 to actually get this out of the food. Remember, we reported a couple of weeks ago. 35 years. Yeah. We're on it. We're on it. We're going to do it.

We're fast-tracking it for 2027. We got to move that up. We definitely got more work to do. So 35 years after they found it caused cancer, they took it out of cosmetics. They finally got around getting out of cosmetics. out of the food well because of a complicated bureaucratic process at consumer reports. But that's what's happening there. And you know, the FDA is not done there. They're going to revolutionize health care in the next, you know, five days before the next transition team gets in.

You just wait. Here's the recent headline FDA proposes putting ready nutrition info on the front of food packages. There it is. Wow. Our health problems are solved. That's, that's where we're at. We're not hiding anymore. All right. Great. That's right. So now Let's talk about food for a second. So in 19, just to give a little context here, in 1971, there was a gentleman named Earl Butts. Nixon tapped him to become the Secretary of Agriculture. What he did, look at this New York Times article,

1971, US will buy corn to raise prices. They subsidize it corn for all the farmers. And basically, small farmers were put out of business for the most part. It was go big or go home. There was this huge influx of corn in the United States. And what did they do with that? We look at this chart from the US, D,

And this was this is the pounds per person and dry weight of sugar basically sweeteners. And you can see their corn 1970. You can see it just shoots right up and it's been really bumping at that line ever since 2019 up to 2019 which is as far as this chart goes. So corn sweeteners are what has been what has been being put in foods. It's a cheap alternative. There's an abundance of it. And this is where you get the high fructose corn syrup and all of the processed foods causing

a lot of the health issues. well. A new study just came out, and this was in nature. And the title of this study is dietary fructose enhances tumor growth indirectly via interorgan lipid transfer. So it's interesting here. It says here we show that fructose supplementation enhances tumor growth in animal models of melanoma, breast cancer, and cervical cancer without causing weight gain or insulin resistance. But it's interesting here because we've always been told that cancer feeds off sugar. So it eats the sugar and it grows, it grows. Well, this study, Rather than just finding, you know, some correlations here, it actually found a mechanism.

This is what's interesting about this. So it goes on to say the cancer cells themselves were unable to use fructose readily as a nutrient because they did not express keto hexokinacy. That's the main enzyme that metabolizes fructose. So the cancer cells don't have this enzymes. They're not using sugar. So how are they growing? Well, we go into another article here from the same organization, same nature.

The liver converts fructose into lipids to fuel tumor. It says, fructose aids tumor growth, but cancer cells usually lack the enzymes needed to metabolize the sugar. The liver converts dietary fructose to lipids that enter the blood, and cancer cells use the lipids to make membranes for proliferation. That's metastasizing. That's what they're using. So we have this mechanism now of fructose, high fructose on top of that, is supercharging

this process, and it's in so much of these processed foods that this is one of the big alarm bells that should be raising for everybody. And obviously, the cancer conversation is so multifaceted. There's so many inputs to this. And I know people out there right now are wringing their fist going, turbo cancer, the vaccines, yes, there's so many factors. But the high fructose corn syrup and the sugars and the sweeteners cannot be overlooked. There's some multifaceted approach that we have, some heavy lifting we have to do,

you know, in this next four years, if we have this window of opening, this should all be looked at. And it's not just a couple cancers here or there. We also have colon cancer. This is Scientific America. The colon cancer conundrum is the title of the article. And it says this. In the U.S., people born in the 1950s have the lowest incidence of colorectal cancer

and rates rise from there. Someone who is 41 today has a 47% higher risk of colorectal cancer than someone who was 41 in 1991. Over those 30 years, the rate increase, from 10.6 to 15.6 people per 100,000. In other words, the risk goes up with every subsequent generation and travels with those individuals as the age, something known as the birth cohort effect. Now, this should not be happening,

not only in our country, but any country. We do not want to pass disease, greater burdens of disease to every generation as we go on. What's going on here? Well, I mean, and think about it. I mean, all of that's happening while we're getting exams you never got back in the 1950s, right?

Everyone's going in for their colorectal exams at, you know, 50 years old or whatever. But now it's even getting younger. I know people under the age of 50 that are having issues. We've never saw that before. I mean, it just, it's just basically, what is going on? And so for colorectal cancer specifically, there's this term. It's called the Warburg effect. And this was basically showing that this inflammation is, it's kind of like a wound that doesn't heal in the gut.

and some new research is putting a spotlight on maybe a really key point to that. And this is the headline here, ultra-process foods, high-in seed oils, could be fueling colon cancer risk. So these researchers, they looked at the omega-6 oils. That's what we're talking about, the high-in-seed oils. Those are canola, corn, grape seed, sunflower. And they're suggesting that they're showing that the omega-6 fatty acids, if there's an overabundance of those, that actually continues the inflammation.

It doesn't allow the inflammation, the wound, so to speak, to heal. And so they're showing that if you can actually balance that and have more omega-3s, which is the fish oils, that actually turns off or it starts to shift that inflammation towards a healing process. And what's interesting, obviously it's not just easy as fix your omega-3 and mega-6 ratios and you won't have cancer, but this is a key process and inflammation. And there's something called resolution medicine.

These researchers are actually talking about just by switching your diet, your wrist is actually going to lower by having lower inflammatory foods, but especially this very, but especially this this oil balance and cutting out those seed oils, those canolas and all of those things in ultra-processed foods is a big step to cutting out that inflammation. But then, you know, if you're reading New York Times, you may not know what is actually happening here because a lot of people are turning to health and saying this is something we should really look at here, the medical, industrial complex. We really should take a close look at that. But New York Times, now, have Americans ever really been healthy is the title? So lower your expectations, Americans. You were never really

that healthy to begin with. So that movement you're trying to do for, you know, health, yeah, you really were kind of sick all along. So don't, don't get, I mean, it's the same. I mean, God, they have no new plays in mainstream media, mainstream medicine. Same argument as autism's always been here in consistent prevalence. We're just diagnosing it better. In this case, you've always been sick. You just didn't know it. It flies in face of the science that you and I have both talked about for years, which is we had 12.8% chronic illness, which is, you know, different forms of inflammation, whether it's a neurological disorder from brain swelling or an autoimmune disease from inflammation and your own immune system attacking itself.

We're at 12.4% in the 1980s. We're at more than 50 now. We stopped doing this graph in 2011. It was at 54%. They're arguing that it's probably around 60% where they're not really sharing the data as well anymore. We know it's gotten worse. But look at that. Just bring it up. for a second. I want everyone, this should be burned into your mind, 1980s to the 2000s. So, you know, in however you want to look at that, 20 or 40 years where we're at now, look at that decline. You know, 12.8% to 54% chronic illness, really 60%. That's the greatest decline you're witnessing right there in human health on an issue like chronic illness. Chronic illness meaning for some reason your body doesn't know how to live on this planet anymore. And for some reason, you're allergic to

too many things, or allergic to your own cells and your own body, you were de-evolving. Your evolution has led you to a place in a very short period of time where your own immune system is attacking you. Something has gone terribly wrong, and when they say it's always been this way, that's when you should have a red flag. You're lying or you are stupid. There's no in-between space there. And people, it has a lot of conversations about, well, what should we look at?

These are layers upon layers, obviously you have environmental toxins. You have the food industry that's been slowly later upon us over the last 50, 60 years. But then you have the childhood schedule that's been increasing since they took away the legal recourses about that, as you brilliantly put together there.

And then we have the largest experiment of our lifetimes in the last four years of an experimental vaccine during a pandemic. We were essentially mandated to take. And in 2022, California convened a grand jury, Governor DeSantis put it together. Florida Supreme Court rules. Yes, I'm sorry, Florida. Florida Supreme Court rules. Governor Ron DeSantis can panel grand jury to investigate COVID-19 vaccine makers.

And that report has now come to the final report. It's now to the public. What's interesting about this report is because we can't sue vaccine manufacturers, we cannot have a legal process. We cannot get our legal hands in there. We can't get lawyers in there looking at this entire process. This is what this grand jury did. Now, one of the caveats here, they were tasked to look at if there's any criminal wrongdoing.

And what they were able to find is under the jurisdiction that they were given from a state level, remember, they're looking at multinational corporations here. They're trying to subpoena people out of the country. They're trying to subpoena people with limited subpoena power, past federal regulators that weren't cooperating with them. So they did not find criminal negligence, but they did find this. I'm going to read right from it. And again, this is a legal report to build on. So it says, gatekeepers became cheerleaders as federal regulators with the trust of the

American people dragged their feet in publicly confirming important safety signals, and then sanction long delays in mandatory post-marketing studies involving those very same signals. Sponsors abuse the scientific journal system and regulatory reporting requirements, delaying public disclosure of serious adverse events from their clinical trials for years. Goes on to say experience and respected scientists, so their careers turn upside down. for dissenting from the science, while experts with opinions matching those of regulators filled the gaps with contrived research and ill-conceived study designs propagandizing citizens into believing that things about SARS-CoV-2 virus and the COVID-19 vaccines that simply were not true.

But here's where it gets interesting because they look at the vaccine safety kind of process. And we've had a lot of researchers, journalists, even our lawyers at ICANN looking into this, and they'll say one thing, but this, this is a lot of the, this is a lot of researchers, journalists, even our lawyers that I can, looking into this. This is what the grand jury came out with looking at all the evidence they looked at for over two years. They said our entire system of vaccine safety is built around the presumption that a small group of federal regulators are wholly responsible for ensuring the citizens of the United States that risk associated with vaccines are acceptable. And this same small group of regulators is also responsible for alerting people of health problems

that may arise in vaccines. It has already approved. Meanwhile, the manufacturers of these vaccines are fully insulated from any financial liability, and persons who experience adverse effects can only secret us through a limited and highly bureaucratic federally controlled program as insular and limited as that may seem this is the current design of our system and i know a lot of people out there are going well yeah especially we've been watching the high wire here but this is where we're building this is where we start here from a federal process and right on the back of that you had 14 attorneys general go right after this

CICP, this is the countermeasures injury compensation program. This is a process. It's a bit, like they said, a highly controlled bureaucratic process that people go to try to seek, try, because very few people have ever received a judgment or much money from that, try to receive any type of justice after they've been injured from the COVID vaccine. So this is the actual letter here. This is the Javier Becerra, Secretary of HHS and Carol Johnson. She's the administrator at HRSA. And you can see here it says, we are the attorneys general of, and it shows every state, I don't know why every state in the United States has not signed onto this. Maybe we can hope for that in the very near future. But they sought lots of answers here. What this is doing is this is

keeping pressure on the courts where ICANN actually has two lawsuits trying to get justice for people, petitioners in this program. But it's also helping lawmakers, legislators to look forward and say, look, this is a key component. This is a key thing moving into 2025 that people should really be paying attention to. And so that is where we're at on the legal part of that. But in the scientific part of the vaccines, we have a lot more headlines that just came out. Just this past week that we're finding, and it seems to go on and on, but this should be putting pressure on our leaders to do something. Royal College of G this is in UK. Royal College of GPs failed to declare conflict of interest over children's COVID vaccine. This is where the Royal

college stepped in the jbc i that was their vaccine board over there's at the time said look we're not going to there's not enough evidence to really give Pfizer the okay to be injected into children their COVID vaccine the royal college of gp stepped in and said we think unanimously that you should be doing that and that was kind of that was the decision that pushed it all over and gave them the right to do that is fine we find out that the royal college of gps were receiving money from Pfizer at the time I'm the only children's COVID vaccine that was approved for emergency use at the time. So that's what we're talking again. Go back to the Florida grand jury.

That's what we're talking about, conflicts of interest at that level. But even now, the FDA, they're moving on red dye, but they're also moving on something else. GBS warning, GSC, this is in Reuters headline, GSC and Pfizer's RSV vaccines to carry warnings of neurological disorder risk. So all of a sudden, we have the RSV vaccines that Pfizer and, and GSK are really banking on for those age groups, those older age groups, they have to carry a black box warning basically now saying, Guillain-Barre syndrome. Now, you and I both know,

Gian-Ber-Sy syndrome is a symptom, can be a harm of several vaccines. So the fact that it's starting on RSV vaccine, it's like maybe this is the first step into a long step of big warnings, but let's go to COVID vaccine. And just to bang it home, because the amazing documentary you have out right now, Jeffrey,

is the fact that Gian-Barre syndrome, prior to the polio vaccine would have been called polio. It's a paralytic, it can result in paralysis part of your body, all of your body, depending on how serious the case. And prior to the polio vaccine, that was called polio. Then of course, once the vaccine came on the market, which is part of what you're covering in the series,

they broke up all the different paralytic diseases into their own categories and only left the true poliomyelitis where they did the blood test and found out what was actually there, And so they showed a reduction by the vaccine. It wasn't reduced. You just had a bunch of categories. It was hidden in the other categories.

One of those categories, Guillain-Barre's syndrome. So when you're paralyzed by a vaccine and they say, oh, we eradicated polio, really? I mean, you're causing paralysis, which is what we think of when we think of polio. And now you have a vaccine, another one. As you said, just one of many, that a side effect is, yeah, you can be paralyzed. That's right. It's absolutely astonishing. It shouldn't be to our viewers, but we move on here to the COVID vaccine.

A study just came out, and this study, it really confirms what we've already known. So remember a couple of years ago, we had some Japanese studies looking at the lipid nanoparticle distribution after the COVID vaccine. That's a little capsule that encapsulates the mRNA and allows it to go through your body and just basically puts the payload in your cells. Well, we have a new nature biotechnology. That's the journal that published this. carrier imaging at single cell resolution across entire mouse bodies with deep learning. So they used basically a functioning single cell resolution. So this wasn't a snapshot. This wasn't like trace or die. This was going into very, very deep levels of cellular workings to see where

these lipid nanoparticles have went. And we see some imaging here. And these are the mouse pictures. And you can see it's distributed throughout the entire body. Now each one of these is a different administration route. So on the top left, the first one's oral, the nasal, then dermal, then IV, across the board. And you can see each one of those. The nasal, you saw, you see a lot of it getting into the lungs here, but it's distributed also across the spleen, the liver, the kidneys. We've already known that, but what's interesting about this study is the researchers say this. We demonstrate that intermuscularly injected lipid nanoparticles carry SARS-CoB2 spike MRNA reach heart tissue leading the proteum changes suggesting immune activation and blood vessel

damage. So they're saying this is possibly the mechanism that's leading to all the myocarditis is actually changing the proteum of the entire basically working, the proteins, the workings of the heart is having possible blood vessel damage. So they can see this from a single cell at this point. They see these lipid nanoparticles going in there and dropping these payloads into the heart. and also, again, the kidney, the liver, the spleen. So this is, and then they're talking about lipidininopidid particles, hey, they're great, but the specificity and the accuracy of the target is not quite there at this point because these things are distributed. They're not just stained in the arm, clearly. They're going all over the body. And, Del, you mentioned the polio vaccine. Another thing that

used to probably be called polio, and now is not, is transverse mellitis. This is what was once called a rare neurological condition of inflammation of the spinal cord with serious, serious consequences. This is a Korean study that just came out about a week ago or so. The association between acute transverse myelitis and COVID-19 vaccination and Korea self-controlled case series study, they looked at the database in that country and they said this. The total of 159 acute transverse myelitis patients were included. Among them, 82 were male and mean age was 55.4 years. The incident rate ratio was 2.41. So that's 141 for the acute transverse myelitis risk within the first basically 42 days after COVID vaccination. So that's the window is the first 42 days. You have a

pretty big percentage increase. But then it says it goes by each vaccine. The internet rate ratio by vaccine product was 3.31 for AstraZeneca. That's 231%. I'm going to do the math on the fly here. Yeah. Increased. One yes, increase. Absolutely. One. One. 0.99, that's 99% increase for Pfizer, 2.57. That's 157% for Moderna and 3.33 for Johnson and Johnson. Remember, Johnson and Johnson was the one that really just fell off off the wayside and Moderna and Pfizer dominated because J&J had so many issues with their vaccine. So, I mean, again, it seems like almost every week these new studies are coming out. And for people that are myopically looking at one thing, whether it be food or the vaccines or the environmental toxins,

it's, it's everything. Clearly, this last four years has shown us that this, this, this vaccine is still, the research is still ongoing about the harms and we cannot let this drop. We cannot have this slide and say the pandemic's over. It's fine. I mean, the majority of Americans took at least one of these shots, mostly two. So this is huge. This is gigantic. And we're going to keep celebrating some of these wins here. Remember, we were told that for the last 50 years, fluoride was a conspiracy theory and it's super healthy for kids and their children. Well, the news has now come to our side 100%. And this is what it looks like. All right. The decades-old controversy over fluoride in drinking water continues. Fight over fluoride in drinking water takes another turn. A new study on fluoride and drinking water

is generating headlines online, raising concern among parents. A report published today in JAMA, Pediatrics concludes there is a statistically significant association between higher fluoride exposure and lower IQ scores in children. To come to that conclusion, researchers looked at the findings of dozens of studies published on the subject since 1989. Fluorite has been added to U.S. drinking water since the 40s. More than 70% of Americans get it in her taps. The CDC, American Dental Association and American Academy of Pediatrics support fluoridating water. Last month, Dr. Joseph Lattapo told Floridians that he was opposed to fluoridation. He cited a federal court ruling that claims high fluoride levels can lead to lower IQs in children.

That judge ordered the EPA to look into the risk. The risk is, I mean, it's appalling. In an editorial in JAMA pediatrics, Dr. Bruce Lentfier says today's study shows it is time to reassess fluoride in drinking water. The conclusions are sufficient to raise serious questions about fluoride's toxic. to the developing brain. Wow. Just huge. Happening.

It's happening. It's happening. And you're seeing in there, the media reports that the controversy continues. There is no controversy anymore. County by county, people are taking this out. You saw there in Florida over almost half the counties have Florida taken out, and people, residents are showing up at their health boards and demanding this is taken out of the water. So there's a new study in JAMA Pediatrics.

This is kind of the big one. I mean, we had the court case. We had the court case, the court ruling. We had Michael Conant on several times talking about this, but this JAMA pediatric study, this is kind of the bar, the benchmark where we move from here. Fluoride exposure and children's IQ scores a systemic review and meta-analysis. It says this systemic review meta-analysis found inverse associations and a dose response association. You don't want either of those. They found them both. Between fluoride measurements in urine and drinking water and children's IQ across a large multi-country epidemiological literature.

Listen to this. Analysis of 13 studies with individual level measures found an IQ score decrease of 1.63 points per 1 milligram per liter increase in urinary fluoride. More fluoride in your body if you're a kid, the less your IQ is going. Just for people that are watching right now, Jeffrey, that we cover a lot of science here. And we do get into the weeds. And maybe if this is your first time watching, it's like, wow, it's hard. I guarantee you people right and say, oh, now I understand this works. But dose dependent, when you are doing a study, this is one of the telltale signs of evidence,

which is it's not an anomaly. The question is, what's an anomaly? Do we see a group of kids or somehow that maybe there was something else in their environment that was affecting their IQ? And we didn't see it. We couldn't track the confounding issues. All of that's always a question. So was this an anomaly that their IQ dropped? Was there something else in their environment?

But when you study across multiple environments in different places and what you see is dose-dependent, meaning it wasn't the same IQ loss. It actually got worse. The more fluoride that was found in your system or in your water system or your, you know, that is really some of the best evidence in science there is. If you see it stepping up and you see the problem increasing with every one of those steps, that means these things are definitely moving beyond correlated. Now you're moving into causation.

This is a huge, huge discovery. And it's going to be very hard for any other news. agency now to say, I still think Florida's a good idea. And the inverse relationship, as you said, is one goes up, the other goes down. And when the IQ is going down across a countrywide, I mean, think about what that does to the brainpower, the ability to create the intelligentsia of an entire generation. You're lowering, you're lowering those expectations. And I mean, the harms cannot be calculated.

And as we talked about with Michael Conn, IQ is just the tip of the iceberg here. That's the low-hanging fruit. We have associations with Alzheimer's, I mean, it goes on and on. So in a lot of the detractors, if you're reading the articles from mainstream media, they'll say, yeah, this study came out, but they looked at countries that were really outside of the U.S. They use a lot more fluoride than, okay, but let's just talk about water. What about the products that we use? What about the beverages, the breads, the water we break, we use to bake breads and make food? I mean, it's all in there.

It's ubiquitous throughout everything we do, our showers, everything. It's everywhere. Yeah, it's amazing. It's amazing when you do watch media again. You know, I've said I've been doing a lot of interviews lately and when a reporter is like, well, I mean, even if they didn't do the placebo trial, you're still saying, you know, it's safe to investigate it? I was like, are you saying it's safe to do, you know, put drugs on the market without placebo

trials? I mean, why is it the media's knee-jerk reaction to go and defend the industry? Like when really in what, you know, I guess in this lifetime, it's pretty been consistent. But isn't that what the media does? Is it just like, oh my God, red flag here? We're seeing children's IQs going down in a very specific study. Yeah, but, you know, IQ, you know, who cares? There's other things we should really think about.

At least their teeth are strong. I mean, come on. The whole thing is really absurd. But I'm glad we're on this side. I'm glad we're on this side of history. I'm glad we're on this side of the media. It is such a joy to keep being able to deliver things that we knew to be true. We have been talking about fluoride for the entire time.

Higher has been here since the beginning of 2017. Jeffrey, incredible reporting. Once again, we're just getting started. What an amazing year. Right out of the gate. We now have another state that has freedom of religion again and the right to body autonomy. So keep up the good work. Look forward to seeing you next week.

All right. Thanks, Del. All right. Take care. Well, look, in any other station that you're tuned into, on your cable channel right now, if you leave here and you go and let Fox run all day or CNN all day or MSBC, whatever you're paying for to be your other news agency other than the high wire, this is where that story would have just ended.

That's it. Well, they found the fluoride in your water is killing you or it's dropping your IQ or the drug is causing transverse myelitis, whatever the case. And then they just walk away because that's what the news does. It reports, it tells you you have a problem. It's kind of like a bad therapist where all you do is get more and more luggage and figure out you have all these problems. And now you're just trudging another street with a load of problems with no one there to really actually figure out how to get you through it. Right?

We're different. We're not the news that way. We got really tired. In fact, you know, early on before we even started the reason we started this network is we were going to do something different. We're not just going to report to you and then say, well, good luck with that. and, you know, hope you can afford bottled water or a really expensive water, home water, you know, treatment machine.

No, we do something about it. We do something about it, and we're doing something right now. Michael Connett, who won the famous case, a multi-year case against EPA on this fluoride issue, proving that it was reducing the IQ and really blew this up just a few months ago. We had him on the show. Well, guess what?

He now works for us at ICan. He's joined Siri and Glimstad, the incredible law firm that brings all of our lawsuits against government agencies and against corporations that we think are poisoning you. Remember, at the heart, our mission statement for ICANN is dedicated to eradicating man-made disease. IQ drop caused by man-made products fits right in our wheelhouse. So here we are. We're going to do something about it. We're bringing a whole slew of lawsuits. Not just against water treatment, but actually the products in your store that are targeting your kids with brightly colored toothpaste and stuff that you know they're swallowing.

We now know this is lowering their IQ and we've had enough. So we're bringing a lawsuit against Colgate. These are the lawsuit right here. You can see it. We're also bringing a lawsuit against Tom's. Unfortunately, we thought it was a natural product, but it got sold off to, I believe, also Colgate. We are saying that this product is poisoning. children, hello, we're coming after this bubble gum flavored fluoride for your children's brain

development. And then also Kids Crest, we are bringing a lawsuit telling them pull this off the market or get the fluoride out of it. We now know you're poisoning our children. Another one, act is a guess a mouthwash in multiple colored flavors so you can poison your child's brain. Not if I can as anything to do about a firefly anti-cavity. We're coming after you. Get that crap out of our children's mouths. That's it. Okay, wow. It's like, boy, that's this list.

Even longer than I remembered it. And we're probably not going to stop there. I was just say, wait a minute, have we not got like the fluoride water? You realize you can go to like some of these baby stores and they like, it's like fluoridated water to like make your like mix your children's baby food? Unbelievable. But hey, waking up is hard to do. But once you're up, you got to do something about it. That's what we're doing here.

There is no news agency like this. That I know. If there is, go ahead and submit it to us. Say, you know what, Del you keep saying it, but there's another news agency that doesn't just report on it. They bring multi-million dollars worth of lawsuits every single year and fight for the causes they're talking about. Show me what other agency is doing that and we'll celebrate them right here on the show.

But meanwhile, we need your help. Obviously, that was like, I don't know what, seven or eight new lawsuits. They're not cheap. They're not free. and they're only possible because of people like you that actually care to make a difference in this world. We're one-stop shop here. Not only do you get the truth,

then you get to do something about it. You don't have to sit there like all pent up and God, if I could only do something, all you have to do is click right now, go to the top of the page of the highwire.com and say, I'm going to donate to I can because these guys are badasses. They keep fighting for my children and me and our health

become a recurring donor. When we know how much we're making over the year over the next couple months, we know how many lawsuits we can dive into $25 a month for 2025 is going to literally make a difference in this world. I want you to just think back. Those of you have been with us for a while. Look at how much we've achieved. Look at where we are at. Would we be here if you hadn't been donating? And imagine if you haven't been and you're sitting here right now, can imagine what we can do if we had even more support. We are not going to stop. There is so much work to do until every one of our children are the healthiest in the world.

And then we will be that beacon of light and that example to the world of why body sovereignty is so important. Why a constitution matters and why having parental rights is everything. So support that. Please become a recurring donor today. So many different ways you can give us some stock and international transfer, crypto by mail. Throw us a vehicle that maybe you're done with. the kids gone off and bought a brand new car. We're going to give you our old one. Gift cards.

Legacy giving also is appreciated. And you get the Highwire Plus. All this new programming that we're doing, Jeffrey Jackson's incredible documentary series. It's already on episode two. It's phenomenal. Off the record, the in-depth, you know, after-hours interviews I'm doing after the Highwire episodes.

All right. So speaking of trying to, make a difference. One of the conversations that you are all talking about all the time, you have been for years, is one that doesn't often get a lot of attention. It's sort of like this murmuring, and they call it a conspiracy theory. But what happens when it stops being less and less of a conspiracy theory, and you start seeing them kind of admitting it on television the way they just did fluoride? Wait a minute, I thought that was a conspiracy theory. Now it's news? Well, guess what? This is becoming news, too. Take a look.

Water officials in the Inland Empire want to make it rain. Experts are ramping up efforts in solar geoengineering. A drought so severe, they're firing rockets into the sky to make it rain. They're using science of the process called cloud seeding to increase the amount of rain in some areas. We physicists are firing trillion-wad lasers into the sky to actually precipitate rain clouds and actually bring down lightning bolts. This is potentially a game changer. Pilots target clouds full of moisture and ejects small amounts of an inert chemical. Then the water in the cloud condenses around the new particles and gets heavy, falling to the ground as precipitation.

Drones and rockets are used to sow silver iodide into the clouds. The substance has a similar structure to ice and changes the cloud's structure to increase the chance of rain. There is no atmospheric study more controversial than stratospheric aerosol injection. A number of technologies in development to reflect. sunlight back out of the atmosphere before it reaches the ground. Imagine now planes or balloons dispersing sulfur to screen out some solar radiation. The tiny bit would be reflected high in the stratosphere, cooling the planet. While there are certain benefits from trying to cool the environment, we're not quite sure what kind of negative effect. The technology is doable, but can we do this type

of technology is a different question than should we do this type of technology. An engineer climate is science fiction today, but will it someday be necessary? Well, I can tell you here at ICANN and the Highwire, this topic of geoengineering, or call them chemtrails, it draws more attention. More of you write in on this issue, just aside for the work we do in vaccines, more of you are curious about these lines you see in the sky. What are they? You know, certainly we're being poisoned. Is the military behind it? So I want to let you know we've been doing about an almost two-year investigation of this. We've done a couple of episodes where we brought in experts, experts that have different perspectives on this,

which is part of how we sort of narrow in on what are we really looking at what's happening here. This conversation causes a lot of drama about what things are really happening. People argue about it. I've even been at events where I'll show up to speak and someone will look up in the sky and say, See, this chemtrails is because you're here, Del. I'm like, really? How does that work? But there's people that really take it that far that somehow we're being tracked and

they're putting these lines over specific events we're at, things like that. So it's a very curious topic. Now, I've said from the beginning in all of our, you know, investigations, I'm a very skeptical person. I'm skeptical on all sides of this. One of the reasons I don't promote natural health remedies is I would have to do such a deep dive to make sure they work. So on all sides, sometimes you as an audience will make an assumption that you know where I stand.

Here's where I stand. I need to have the evidence. I want to be able to win in a courtroom when I am talking about what is going on. When I say, this is the evidence we found, I mean I need to be able to stand by it. And so I've said many times on the high wire that what you can expect from the show is not that we're going to break the story first, but that when we break the story, we're going to get it right. And there's times where we'll be about to deliver a story on a Thursday and we'll just pull the rip court. I'll just say, don't feel comfortable with it.

I think we need to do more research. I know other people are breaking this story. But I want to make sure that you always know where we're at and that we're giving you our honest perspective and it's deeply researched. So when it comes to this issue and the investigation we've been going on that's been going on for the last couple of years, part of what we do at the high wire and that I can is we involve our legal team. So just like we've done with vaccines where we have had over 2,000 FOIA requests, freedom of information act requests, to get to the bottom of the issues going on there. And then when we get pushback, we learn things. Then we bring lawsuits if we're not getting the information or they're not releasing it the way that we want.

So similarly, even though we've been here interviewing some experts on geoengineering or chemtrails or whatever you want to call it, we've had our legal team doing a deep dive through Freedom of Information Act request. So I thought it would be really interesting to actually let you see what it's like behind the scenes at the Highwire, how we do these types of investigations. It's sort of the dream I had when I left CBS at the doctors. One of the things that you do in regular television is you interview everybody you want to, you get debriefed, and then you sort of build the show and bring in the experts and get them to say what they've already said before. You sort of pack it all together. But what we always thought would be cool.

And a lot of times I do interviews where I don't even know what they're going to say because I want you to experience the actual interview. I want you to learn when I learn what, you know, what's taking place. And so today we thought we'd really take that to another level. I usually have a sit down with someone from our legal team or several people from our legal team and go through a PowerPoint that they've put together to lay out exactly what we've learned on a vaccine issue or something we're investigating. I'm going to do that today right in front of you. I have brought in Catherine Ibarra, who is one of our lead attorneys on this investigation into geoengineering. And usually we have an update.

What do we do about three times a year? Yeah. So this is the current update where we were at since the last time we spoke. So first of all, welcome to the highwire. Thank you, Del. Thank you so much for having me. Is there anything that you think the audience, should know before we get into this conversation. Yeah, well, what I would say is today,

I want to emphasize that we're not just looking at geoengineering. We're looking at all aspects of aerosolized environmental pollutants and toxins. That can be things that are being sprayed in the atmosphere. That can be transmissible vaccines. Okay. We're going to touch on both of those spaces today. Okay. We'll start with talking about geoengineering. And I hope that people can kind of see the way that the legal team works. It's incredibly nuanced and detailed. And we use strategies that we know are proven and effective. And we're just trying to get to the heart of accurate information

that like you said, we'd be able to use and prove in court. Okay. Yeah. All right, great. Well, what do we know now? Yeah, definitely. So we're going to go ahead and start talking about geoengineering first. And I just want to explain what geoengineering is just really briefly.

for those in the audience who aren't familiar. So geoengineering refers to technologies that are used to alter the Earth's climate system. These are man-made technologies. And the idea behind geoengineering is to actually repair the climate. And it's really important to think about that. It helps you to understand it. When you hear the top geoengineering researchers

talking about this technology, they're saying that they're using it to fix the climate. They believe that we have runaway climate change. They believe we have runaway global warming, global warming specifically and increased global temperatures. So the idea behind geoengineering is that you would reverse that or repair that. And in fact, you'll hear geoengineering referred to as climate intervention or climate engineering or climate repair. Okay.

And so if you think about it that way, you can understand the motivation behind it, behind what these scientists are trying to do. There's two types of geoengineering. The first is carbon dioxide removal. That's literally removing carbon dioxide out of the air and sequestering it. We're not going to talk about that today. We'll talk about the second type of geoengineering. That's referred to as solar geoengineering or solar radiation management. That involves injecting particles into the very, very high upper level of the atmosphere known as the stratosphere.

And those particles are supposed to sit up there. They're reflective, so they're supposed to reflect sunlight back into space. They mentioned it in the video that you played at the top. rather than allowing that sunlight to come to Earth, and then that's supposed to result in cooler global temperatures. The idea from this comes from volcanoes. There was a volcano in the 90s called Mount Pinatubo. It erupted.

The particles from that stayed up there for about a year. That caused a decrease in global temperatures. So what they're thinking is, yeah, they want to mimic volcanoes. That's really what they're trying to do. Oh, fascinating. Okay. And so there's one type of geoengineering, of solar geoengineering, known as stratospheric aerosol injection,

and that's when you're injecting the particles. Now, in the promo, you also saw space mirrors. There are other types marine cloud brightening. Stratospheric aerosol injection is the one that gets the most notoriety and the most push among geoengineering researchers. So stratospheric aerosol injection is what I'm going to talk to you about first. Okay. So like we do with the vaccines, we start with using FOIA to gather information.

So for geoengineering, when we started looking into, to this we wanted to know who's researching this and who's funding the research. Is our government funding the research? Yes, our government's funding the research. So we looked into some of the grants that are going out from the different federal agencies. One of them is the National Science Foundation. Okay. So what you can see on the screen is a screenshot of one of the grants that we pulled from the National Science Foundation. And this one specifically is looking at the impacts of geoengineering using stratospheric aerosols. So what we saw, we is that there were grants from the National Science Foundation going back from 2009 to present.

We looked at five grants specifically. So what we know for sure is that not only is the government funding geoengineering research, but they've been funding it for decades. So those documents confirm that. So let me just, just to get sort of the lift the hood a little bit, you know, when we set to you guys just nearly two years ago said we really want to start investing in Benton, you're running a team. This is really your area that you're developing expertise around. We have a vaccine department was doing that.

This is your team is like we are really just focused on this issue. Is that right? This and a few other issues, but yes. So part of it is figuring out if you're going to bring a FOIA request, freedom of information act requests, for people, maybe that if this is a new concept to you, it's a lot of what we do. Just essentially, you should recognize that the government is our employees, right? We the people control and own our government.

So just like if you're the boss of your company, you're you're the CEO, you can read any email of anybody that's working for you if their email, you know, is your company's email. Very similarly, we can make any requests that we want of government officials that work for us. We can look at their emails. We can ask about the grants. We can put in specific requests, which is how we've done all the work in vaccines and the work that we've done. But to be clear, one of the difficulties with FOIA is you have to know who you're FOIA. Like, who am I sending this request to you? Can you just blanketly ask the government of the United States were looking for geoengineering?

So you had to do research, and I imagine FOIAs some of the wrong departments starting out. Is that true? Actually, yeah, we did have FOIAs that would go out specifically with branches of the military, and they're very nuanced on how they handle the request. So it's a very detailed process, and, you know, you go back and forth with the agencies. It's not just, here's our request, please give us these records. You give them the request, and they say, this doesn't make sense, or that's. too vague or that's ambiguous and you have to go back and forth to really modify that

request until it's something that they believe they can then execute the search on. So you might start out with one request and that might end up getting broken into ten separate requests because you had to break it down so much for them. And I would imagine this doesn't happen overnight. They probably delay as long as they can with each response. Actually now that we're going to respond to you it doesn't make sense or we need some clarity or you know. And so you've been in this process and it's a, it's a, you know, you know, you've been to, you know,

I guess it's a relatively tedious process. I wouldn't say tedious, but it's a detailed process. Yeah, we have to follow steps properly. If we do anything incorrectly, we would have to start over. And ultimately, we're just trying to get the records, right? Right. So it's just about focusing on executing properly so that we can do that. And so in this case, then, you have finally narrowed in on,

it's the National Science Foundation that is delivering these funds. So now we know what we're focusing on. Now we know where at least the funding's coming from going to this space. Okay, I just wanted to sort of make that clear for everyone that, you know, you don't just start there or the government doesn't make it easy and say, oh, what you're looking for, call the National Science Foundation. The other ones on top of this. Right. Doesn't work that way. Oh, no.

And, you know, just to kind of drill at home, I'll point out that many agencies of our federal government have sub-agency's and then sub-sub-sub-agencies, right? Right. So they'll come back and they'll say, oh, well, which office should this be directed to? And we're like, well, do you have a list of the offices? You tell me, which I, you know what I mean? So not literally, it's not like that. But it is that sort of process. But, you know, you just work through it. And ultimately, we get to the information.

So, yeah, and what we were able to see once we got these grants is who the researchers are that are working on this. So this one in particular is with Alan Robach. Rutgers University and he's actually one of the top geo engineers in this space. This one was back from 2011. So we know that they're funding these top researchers and you just have to wonder how the government not given these researchers this money, you know, 10, 20 years ago, would this technology be in the space that it is now? And they were looking at the, I don't have all of the grants on the screen, but they were looking

at politics of geoengineering, ethics of geoengineering, ethics of geoengineering, They were looking at the specific injection levels or rather altitudes that you would inject, what type of plane you would use, what type of chemicals you would use. All of that you can look at. You're seeing these conferences, you're seeing the fun, you're seeing the documents,

you're seeing the studies and the tests and things that they're doing. And this Alan robot guy isn't hiding the fact that he's working on geoengineering. No. He's working on being able to use human power to change how the climate is working? Yes. Okay.

Yes. Yeah, they don't hide it at all. If you read another individual who's featured in these grants is Douglas McMarton, and he's at Cornell University, you could search his name on the Internet, and he's got videos on this on YouTube and whatever platform you're watching videos on, where he's talking about geoengineering, and he's talking about how he wants to do stratospheric aerosol injection and what planes he wants to use and where the funding can come from. And they're talking about it all openly because in their minds, again, think about they think they're repairing the climate.

Right. They think the climate is something that needs to be fixed because we have runaway global warming. So for them, they want this out there. Right. You know what I mean? They're not hiding it. Okay. So it's interesting.

But now we understand kind of how our government has been helping to give thrust to that movement by funding the research. Okay. And so you had mentioned earlier that we also, we don't, you know, when we're going in and getting documents, one of the things that we ask for is emails. And so with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, they're a sub-agency under the Department of Commerce, so they're part of the federal government. They're charged with monitoring our oceans, our atmosphere, obviously, and our weather and our climate. And so they're supposed to monitor all of that and deliver data on it. And they also are looking at geoengineering. And so what we did is we figured out who some of the top officials were in NOAA that were working in the space of geoengineering.

And we asked them, do you have any emails with certain specific geoengineers? And so we asked them for, it's on the side, but the two individuals from NOAA are Karen Rosenloff and David Fahey. And we asked them for emails with David Keith, Alan Robach, Douglas McMarton, another individual named Wake Smith, another individual named Frank. Coych. And so are these people emailing? Is our government emailing with these top geoengineering advocates? So you're, so you're, we obviously can't get information from private individuals. And if you work in a university that we can't FOIA a university, correct? But we, but we, if it has public funding, then you might be able to. Oh, you might be able to through public, but not a private university. So you've got to find the government officials that you can FOIA and then ask, have you emailed any of these

people that we can't FOIA to see if you can get an interaction? Right. Okay, very interesting. Okay. Yes. So that's what we did here. And lo and behold, David Fahey from Noah was emailing several times with David Keith. David Keith is the individual who's pictured there on the slide. So he is actually the one who was behind the Scopex project.

The Scopex project was through Harvard University. That was funded in part by Bill Gates. And that was a project that was supposed to start actually. testing geoengineering by sending balloons into the sky. And so that experiment actually got shut down. Really? Yes, because of public outrage and public outcry. But that's the individual that we're talking about here. So our government, Mr. Fahey, with our tax dollars paying his salary, was speaking with David Keith about that project, kind of advising him about the project. If we look at this email right here on the left, it says,

says, thanks for the Scopex document. This is David Fahey talking to David Keith. Well done. So he's congratulating him. I would like to share it with the ERB folks in CSL. He's referring to departments within NOAA. So it's this back and forth that they're having. And above that, in the same email, they're talking about the altitude that planes would fly.

Would we use balloons for this versus planes? So they're getting very intimate with these details of talking about geoengineering. And David Keith doesn't work for the government. Right. He's running his own private project that Bill Gates is funding in part. Right. So, you know, that's not. So this is how we see when we see Bill Gates getting involved in things,

this is how he ends up sort of interacting through, you know, people he's working with with the government, that they sort of are sharing information with each other. Yeah, I mean, it seems like there's an overlap in terms of researchers in the private space of geoengineering overlapping and speaking with researchers in the government. Right. And so those emails, you know, really show us that sort of intimacy between these private researchers and then our government.

Well, let's read through just some of the things because you obviously highlighted in there. It looks like this is Frank, David K. and I invited you to a Friday V meeting to catch up on CI matters. What is, oh, climate intervention. Right. That's got to be difficult because if we're looking for geoengineering and you're thinking that's the term Is there times where you realize wait a minute they've changed the term we're searching for the wrong term? Yes, exactly. Okay, so now climate intervention is something what we suddenly must be having a FOIA and then you have another email over.

Dave we expect to fly pops. What does pops mean? So that's referring to basically balloons that would be high altitude balloons. Okay. Now that this mission seems to be finally coming together would be good how about the three of us to touch base again about this and about the meeting to discuss future flight missions? And then down below, do you plan to fly pops? It would be in, would be a value to get a high lap profile and adds to your flight data return. No communications with the device is needed since it records on board list. Know if you want assistance.

So they're clearly David Faye's like, we'll help you out. Yeah. Right? Okay. Yeah. And it almost seems like a runaround. Our government is funding researchers who are helping private industry. Right.

You know what I mean? Who are trying to do geoengineering. And so that's concerning. Okay. And so just briefly, like you said, we have difficulty getting documents through our FOIA requests. And so the strategy that we use for FOIA on my team is the same as what we do across the board at our firm, specifically with vaccines. If they're not giving us documents, we do put pressure on them. So with regard to our geoengineering FOIA requests, we've already filed,

there's two on the slide that you'll see right here, two cases that we filed related to those requests. We've had to file several more now. And so, you know, it might be a case where we send them a request and they just don't respond. Or it might be a case where we do that modification and we spend the time, we spend months going back and forth, and then they don't respond.

So we're not looking at here. just so people understand, these are not FOIAs anymore, this is now litigation. What we're saying is you are not responding the way you are as our employees. You're basically breaking. We think the law because you're supposed to supply us this information. We've jumped through all the hoops you've asked us to jump through. And still you're not providing these documents. Therefore, now we're bringing a lawsuit.

Yes. Yes. So we actually do, ICANN has directed us to file several lawsuits now in federal court. And so these are just examples of a few of them. But unfortunately, it can be difficult to get this information. And so we really just have to keep putting on that pressure. And if we have to, we will file if I can direct us to those lawsuits. Yep.

Thank you, by the way. Of course. I actually love that. I love it when we get to sign office. Yes, absolutely. Yeah. We want to get to the bottom of it. Yeah, I mean, I think that it's important for government agencies to know that they have to take these requests seriously.

And unfortunately, sometimes that requires litigation. to put the pressure on. So it's a blessing that ICAN has the ability to do that so that ultimately we can get this information and get it out to the public. Yeah, amazing. So another area that we're looking at, we're using FOIA, something else that we do is we'll send letters to agencies

to say this is going on, what are you doing about it? Something else that we've done frequently in the vaccine space. So specifically here, this is basically what I'm showing you is a letter that I can received in response. to two letters that were sent to the EPA. There's a company in California that is doing geoengineering with balloons, and they're just launching them into the air

and releasing sulfur dioxide. And so we wrote... A private company is doing that? A private company is doing that. So we wrote to the EPA on behalf of ICANN to say, you know, there's this company. They're injecting sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere. Sulfur dioxide is an EPA criteria of pollutant.

So the EPA should regulate that. under the Clean Air Act. So we figured that this is pretty alarming. Does the EPA even know that this is happening? So we wrote to the EPA, they ignored us. We wrote again, and then after we wrote twice, I can receive this response. And so this is from the deputy, the principal deputy assistant administrator of the EPA. His name is Joseph Kaufman. And his response is right here. And he says, Thank you for your letter of October 16, 2023 concerning the releasing of sulfur dioxide from balloons into the air. The release of sulfur dioxide or other sulfur compounds into the stratosphere

is a form of stratospheric aerosol injection, often referred to as geoengineering. So he's saying, oh, well, yes, that's geoengineering. Right. Yeah, that's what they're doing. Yeah, thank you. Okay. Yeah. Because we were wondering why they were doing it.

That was the point, okay? Well, which was also stated in our letter, by the way, they're doing this. This is geoengineering. Did you know they're doing it? And then that's the response that we got. So that was not very helpful. And then in the letter, they basically go on to explain that pursuant to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy that was put out in 2022. There was a research plan that was put out in 2023.

And they're saying in this letter, by the way, we contributed to that research plan on geoengineering. So we're a part of the research and the development. And then the rest of the letter, I won't read the whole thing to you in interest of time, but they basically go on to explain why sulfur dioxide is bad and why they're supposed to be regulating it. And then that's it. We know it's bad. We're supposed to be regulating it. Thanks for your concern.

Essentially. But I don't think they even thanked us for our concern. Oh, they thanked us for our letter. They did it top. Yeah. Yeah. This is exactly what you think it is. Yes, it's toxic.

Thank you for writing your letter. We know about it. Have a good day. Yes. So we're like, great. Thank you. Right. That was incredibly helpful.

So on behalf of ICANN, we wrote a response back. Okay. We said to them, therefore, since the EPA is aware of Make Sunsets, Solar Geoengineering activities, please respond and state whether the EPA condones private companies, such as Make Sunsets, engaging in solar geoengineering. Yeah. So we want to know. Give us the response.

Do you condone this or don't? you. We go on to the right of that. I mean, just to be clear, this is a company that just like raises funds and say, hey, we're just going to do this. We don't care if there's any repercussion. I mean, I just always think, you know, blocking out the sun, I mean, what could possibly go wrong? We've discussed, what if we're going into a grand solar minimum when we need that sun? What if there's cooling and these idiots just blocked out the sun? And so what we're realizing then, what you've discovered, is private companies aren't even asking permission. They're just doing this on their own

because they personally feel like they're going to stop global warming themselves. They're just, and we're, and we're, and we're just going to let any company that wants to start blocking out the sun do that without any pushback or is it being regulated in any way? Right. Right. So that's something that we're realizing is there is not any oversight over this. There's no regulation of it. Can't believe any idiot can just start blocking out the sun and no one's like concerned about it. Well, you have to fill out a form first and file it with no us.

It's a 17-4 form. Okay. But that's it. Today I'm going to start blocking out the sun. Yep. Dear Noah, okay. So actually on that note, because that was the next thing that I wanted to talk to you about. Wow.

Noah actually received a petition recently earlier this year. Okay. Asking them to do an amendment to their weather reporting requirements under the Weather Reporting Act. And so they want the petition is requesting. that geoengineering be added to that. So that anyone who wants to do geoengineering just has to fill out the form and then there would be some additional parameters for it.

But the company in California just fills out the form. They give it to NOAA and that's sufficient to just report what they're doing. It just falls under the umbrella of weather reporting. And right now that act controls, we saw in the video, they talked about cloud seating. That act currently is regulating things like cloud seating. Cloud seating is happening. the companies that do it, they file this form with NOAA, and then they're just going and doing it. And so the petition was seeking to basically normalize geoengineering by allowing it to just be reported like that,

just like people that are doing cloud seeding are reporting it now. Okay. And so ICan had the opportunity to submit a comment to basically oppose that petition. And so ICAN did. It was a nine-page comment. portions of it are featured on the slide here. And what it did was it went through the risks of geoengineering because that's what we kind of were just getting into now.

This isn't something where we just put sulfur dioxide or other chemicals into the air and they just fall back to the ground and nothing happens. There are real impacts to this on a global scale. You're talking about on the outset ozone depletion. Right. Stratospheric ozone depletion, which will have devastating impacts on human health. Yeah. Could lead to cancers, obviously, skin cancers and many other impacts. This is a known risk. So what we did in the common...

So this potentially could cause ozone depletion by putting sulfur dioxide up into the stratosphere. Yes. And that doesn't... That's not coming from me. That's not me telling you that. That's coming from the researchers who are prominent in this space. That's who's cited to in Noah's Comet. So there's depletion of the ozone. There's potential for acid rain. There's potential for air pollution. There's potential for droughts. There's potential for droughts. potential for flooding, there's potential for impacting agriculture such that crops can't have production if you have an alteration of the monsoon cycle. That could lead to food shortages. I mean, it really could impact on a global scale. There's potential for global conflict because who's going to do the geoengineering?

What country gets to decide? Is there going to be a worldwide treaty? What if we can't have an agreement? What if one country does geoengineering and then another country says you're attacking us with your geoengineering or you're taking our reign? you're causing a drought, you're causing whatever those impacts are. And that could lead to conflict. And then on top of that, what the researchers that support this are saying

is that we wouldn't just do it once or twice and cool the planet a few degrees and be done with it. It would be like a morphine drip that the planet would be addicted to, where it would have to be happening constantly. Once you've interjected yourself, we never go back to just letting nature be nature. You can't. You've already... Right. You can't because of something called turn.

termination shock. And again, this is not, these are not my words. These are their words. You would have as such an abrupt, if you were to stop injecting the particles, you would have extreme heat. There was a study that said that you would have four times the amount of temperature increase that you would have from what they believe is already happening with global warming. Wow. And so you would have this termination shock where if a country or an administration or whoever it was in the future that was doing the geoengineering decided maybe we shouldn't be doing this anymore. If they were to stop it, it would result in extreme temperatures, devastating, deadly temperatures. Wow. So, you know, it's a cure, is the cure worse than the disease? It's a classic example of that. And then the other really big risk about it is that the impacts from it are all based on modeling. They've looked at the volcanoes, right? And they've been able to kind of make some estimates with models based on what happened with the volcanoes,

but they don't actually know what the true risks and benefits are going to be. going to be until they start doing it. This high stratospheric aerosol injection, you would have to start doing it based on modeling. And if it finds out that that modeling was flawed and those risk projections or those benefit projections were incorrect, you have now experimented on the planet, you're stuck with that, and you did it based on flawed modeling. So... No, I mean, just to just sort of pull it all together, because I so understand the vaccine space, it's almost identical the same problem. They never tested these things for safety. There's never an when we start vaccinating everybody, what actually happens to global herd immunity that

has kept this species alive since the dawn of man, now we're injecting ourselves in. Could you ever withdraw out? The original vaccines for measles, that was exactly the concern. Big scientists got up and said, well, why are we messing with this? Measles is a trivial childhood illness. It's, you know, basically has no risk for most people. I think the death rate was like one in 500,000 in America before the vaccine came. along about the 1960s, but the big concern was if we don't eradicate that disease, we're going

to pressure it, we're going to make that disease more dangerous than it would have been. It's very infectious. Why give it any ability to pressure it to make it more deadly? That would be crazy. And that would be the only result if we were to do that. And now, I can honestly say in conversations right now that are happening, looking at the vaccine program with our government, like let's say if you just decided or, you know, I've talked to experts, If you believe the MMR vaccine isn't really necessary, if you withdrew it, you would be putting babies at risk.

And the reason being when we had national immunity and when a mother got measles as a kid, as every one of our grandparents did, when people say it's deadly, I'm always like, how are you standing here telling me that? It can't be that deadly because every one of us alive on this planet, our grandparents had it, which means they didn't die. They didn't kill this species. But what people don't realize is our infants were always protected during every measles outbreak because their mothers had all had it. There's just no way to avoid it. And they passed on that immunity. As soon as we started injecting the vaccine program, we wiped out that baby immunity. Now when a mother's only had the MMR vaccine, she passes no protection onto her baby.

And so for the first time really in history, our babies are not immune in any way to measles. And so you do have this concern. If someone wanted to try and back out of that program, you are going to see measles come out. And we're never used to kill babies. Now it would. I mean, these are the types of things that I think a lot of people in our movement don't recognize. And those that are like extreme, you know, they have extreme anti-vactors. I'm not one of them.

I think you had to be pragmatic. And you've got to look at the science. But this is what you're talking about. Once you've injected yourself into the natural cycle, now you've messed it up. You can't back out of that. And I've said with vaccines, really vaccines, the only thing it eradicated is not disease. What it eradicated was true herd immunity. We don't have herd immunity anymore, and we don't have a natural immunity.

And so now you've just got to keep, it's almost like a pyramid scheme. We just got to keep feeding it more and more to try and keep everybody stable. And this is almost exactly the same. If you mess with this global system, the natural cycle of things, you can't ever pull out. And that'll be the argument, right? Right. Can't stop us now because if we stop now, we're all going to burn up to death. Right, right.

Wow. Yeah, it's, you know, it's really shocking. When you look at, when you really dig into it, and again, this is all based on research by geoengineering proponents. So this is not coming from me. This is coming from their research and what the results of their research is. So it's really important for people to be aware of. And so on that note, I can put out a legal update on this comment. and shared ICAN's comment,

which was posted on the Federal Register, and then encouraged people read ICANN's comment and you have the opportunity to make your own comment heard. You can actually put your comment on the Federal Register for NOAA to see when they're reviewing this petition. So we encouraged people with the legal update to do that. So just to give you some perspective of the impact of that. So before we put out this legal update,

there were under 100 comments that were posted on the federal register. The comment period had been open since September, and we published ICAN's comment on November 14th. On November 15th, we released the legal update. I can't put out the legal update. And then offered that link for people to do their own comment. Thousands of comments poured in over the next four days. Wow. And so it, and it, they don't post all of them. You can see that it was around 10,000, I believe, comments were received. So we, if we weren't there, under 100 would have been there by reaching out to our audience, nearly 10,000 comments went in. Yes, and only about 1,500 actually get posted because they filter through them.

They don't post everything, and I don't know what their method is for that. But of the ones that were posted, we were able to look at some of them. And I just want to read a few because it's really impactful, and it's great to see that this is resonating with people. So this comment from Allison, you can see, she says, I stand with I can, all weather modification, attempts must stop as it is detrimental to all life living on earth from an anonymous person. I fully support ICANN in this and skipping down. I am grateful ICANN is demanding transparency and restrictions. I second the comments made by Syrian Glimb staff on behalf of ICANN citizens should not be blindly exposed to these airborne toxins and pollutants without their

knowledge or consent. And then this last one from Georgia. And she actually quotes from our letter or from the comment and states, Americans oppose weather modification and climate intervention. United States citizens respectfully request NOAA to conduct a rulemaking process in a manner that allows for a robust political debate on the state purposes, impacts, and consequences of weather modification and climate intervention activities. The public urges NOAA to prohibit SRM, solar radiation management, geoengineering, research, experimentation, and deployment, and to strengthen weather modification reporting requirements as a necessary step towards greater transparency and public accountability. Please refer to ICANN's letter with details and references as to all the reasons why you should stop SRM at once.

Sincerely Americans everywhere. Wow. Great letter. Yeah. Really impactful. And it just shows you that the audience understands what's happening. I mean, these are their comments, you know. This is them stating in their own words. This is what we know we think. This is what we realize you're trying to do and we're not okay with it. We're not okay with you injecting chemicals.

We're not okay with you messing with our environment. And they want things to be done more naturally. So yeah, that was. We have a smart audience. It's great. It's great to see. I mean, I've said before so active. So many people come on our shows, whether it's a give, send go or just a letter writing campaign.

Like nobody responds. I've been on CNN. I've been like everywhere when I was on the highway all of a sudden we got the response it blew up it means just it's amazing to have this great audience that we have yeah and it's just a matter of raising awareness it's just a matter of putting this information out there this is what they're thinking about doing this is why it could be good this is why it could be bad everyone read that comment and made their own decisions on whether or not they thought it was good or bad and they got to

publish their own comments on to the Federal Register which is now on there for anyone to see Right. So, good. And so I want to segue now. Okay. We've been talking about injecting chemicals into the stratosphere. We've been talking about using airplanes to do that.

So there's another way that... So are there planes that fly as high as the stratosphere? Because I always thought they were sort of below that line. Most planes do not fly in the stratosphere. There are personal jets that can fly. So typically a personal jet can get up to a ceiling of around 43,000 feet. So there are some personal jets that can fly in the stratosphere. the stratosphere. The military does have a few planes that can fly into the stratosphere.

How high is the stratosphere usually? It varies actually. So it can, it can be as low as 13,000 feet and then it can go up to above 70,000 feet. It depends on where you are. If you're near the poles, then the stratosphere is actually lower. If you're at the equator, the stratosphere is actually higher. So in those grants, they actually talked about this. They talked about the different levels of the stratosphere and why you would have to fly a plane at 70,000. feet, specifically above the equator, for it to be really impactful because they want the chemicals that are injected to remain in the stratosphere. If they were to inject them in the troposphere, they would fall down within a few days. So they wouldn't really have an impact.

The troposphere is the lower level, and that's where most commercial planes fly, or most planes, yes, in general, fly. If they inject the planes really, or excuse me, if they fly the planes really high or even balloons into the stratosphere and they inject the chemicals up there, that's when they can stay up there for a year or two, and that's when they can have that cooling impact. And again, this is modeled after what they saw happen when the volcano erupted and injected the sulfur really high into the stratosphere.

Okay. So we're not just looking at these planes flying high in the stratosphere and injecting chemicals. We're looking at low-level planes that are being flown in injecting chemicals and spraying as well. And so what we did is we did a deeper dive into the military spraying pesticides

and different chemicals. And so we actually have already released a legal update on this and received a really positive response to that in terms of people understanding the information and now they're going out and wanting to learn more about if there's any spraying in their local area. But basically, we discovered that the United States Air Force has a specialized unit that's dedicated

to just spraying these chemicals. There's over 20 dangerous chemicals that they're spraying. We know that these can cause health effects as severe as cancer. And so we went, the legal update explains all of that. But I want to kind of go into this a little bit more to explain the evolution of some of our research to you and how we've expanded our subject matter from just plain spring. So basically you'll see here, these are the C-130 airplanes. These are being loaded with chemicals.

This is from the Air Force website. You'll see here now the planes are spraying those chemicals. And again, these are at really low levels. And this isn't just, you know, out in a field. this is actually in residential areas that they're doing this. And the idea is for mosquito control and other measures. For example, on the screen, you're going to see a map. So we asked for the maps.

We wanted to know where they were spraying. And so this map, it just shows you how off balance this seems, right? So this map shows circled areas that they avoided when they were spraying. This is near Langley Air Force Base in Virginia. And this was for mosquito control. So they were spraying for Dibron or, Nalid, which is an organophosphate that will kill adult mosquitoes. So, and by the way, it's banned in the EU.

They don't even use it there. Our military is spraying it here. And obviously, if it's over mosquitoes, it's over people. Can we imagine that at least in this, I mean, it looks like in there doing it just like we would imagine describing chemtrail, these lines in the sky, does it leave lines? Is that, do you think the people looked up that day and saw what, you know, this looks like? Are they seeing lines in the sky when this is being sprayed? Yeah, so you can see in this image that in that particular image,

you can see a blue cloud, basically, from the spraying. It's not going to look like those lines that you might see in that image, but you will be able to see this spring. It's not just entirely translucent. So you would be able to see it if it's happening. But just looking at this map again, the circled areas, those represent areas that had bald eagles nests. So they avoided the areas with the bald eagles nest so that they wouldn't kill the baby bald eagles.

But they didn't circle any residential areas. That's amazing. Again, we're trying to protect from mosquitoes and mosquito-borne illnesses, but is the cure worse than the disease? Right. You know, so we really have to weigh that. But going on into the evolution of our research, so what we did is we looked not only at the fact that our military was spraying, but we looked at the technology that they were using to spray. And we saw that they're using a technology that was created by Battelle, which is a government defense contractor. They actually make vaccines as well.

Wow. And so we were looking at the technology, and we can actually play the video now so that we could see the technology and work. But basically, Battel developed a spray system, and this is what the nozzles are. We can see here. This is their facility where they do the testing. And these are the actual spray nozzles that they use. use on the military planes to spray the chemicals. You can see how fine the particles are, how really dense that spray is. And this is just them demonstrating how it works. They put it on a

panel like that and that basically gets attached to the plane wing. You can attach it to drones as well. You can also attach it to military helicopter. Maybe that's what's happening in New Jersey right now. Right. So you can see how advanced this technology is. So when we were looking into this spraying system, and we pulled up the patent. And so that's what I have on the screen for you now, is this is Battelle's Patent. And we were reviewing the patent. And when we looked at what could be sprayed with the patent,

it lists the different types of things that can be sprayed, antibiotics, anti-cancer agents, other pharmaceutical products, a vaccine. Protein and enzyme, DNA, or DNA fragments for other biological products, and anti-inflammatory, of vitamin and antiseptic, morphine, or other pain-killing drugs, nicotine, and so on, is what this apparatus is capable of spraying

from airplanes. Yeah, the apparatus that our military is using to spray organophosphates over residential areas. But they're not spraying the baby eagles at least. Right, right. So that's good for the baby eagles. That's wild. Yeah, so when we realized that vaccines could be sprayed,

that's when we started to look into, aerosolize vaccines. Like, why is that written there? Right? I mean, that just sets off a red flag. Wait a minute. Why would you, why would anyone ever consider we think of vaccines as like we injected every child or, you know, now of a sudden, oh no, there must be an area of research here. Right. So we started, that's when we started looking into aerosolized vaccines. So we started pulling grants and we could see that there was funding going to aerosolize COVID vaccines. But that wasn't the most shocking discovery that we made. This is what led us to the discovery that our government's funding research on transmissible vaccines or self-spreading vaccines.

And so the high wire covered this. Jeffrey Jackson did a report on this. And so what we've been doing is we've been building off of the research that was done to basically see what is going on with these transmissible vaccines. And again, as a reminder for anyone who maybe missed this segment, they're developing vaccines that would essentially act like a live virus where it could basically replicate itself into new hosts. And so the idea is that we know that viruses evolve and change, but our vaccines are static. So they wanted to create vaccines that would evolve and change. Good God. I mean, I know we've covered this, but you want to talk about playing God. And this is where, to me, it's just gone totally bonkers. So now you're so afraid of

the natural viruses that are in the environment that we've been living with and evolving with since the dawn of man. And now your solution is we're going to make self-spreading man-made viruses that will mutate and grow on their own to try and counteract the natural viruses. And there's, I mean, the idea that they can't imagine that their man-made virus could do more harm or evolve in a more terrifying way. And they're right. I mean, this technology is right there.

They feel like they can do this any day now, right? Right. And when we went and we looked at the stated purposes behind trying to implement the transmissible vaccines, they stay in their research. That part of it is overcoming the issue of noncompliance. The anti-vaxas. Right. Or the vaccine hesitant.

Right. Yeah, we need to do something that they can't avoid it any longer. Right. Right. So this also brings me back to the point that we made earlier. talking about knowing and understanding the right terminology when we were talking about geoengineering and climate intervention. So what we saw after we made this initial discovery is that we have to be really nuanced with the language that we're using in the FOIA request that we send out. We have to

pay attention to how that language is evolving. When we first started sending out FOIA requests, we were asking for information on self-spreading vaccines. And then we came to learn that they're actually using the term transmissible vaccines. So we've been sending out FOIA requests. We've been sending out FOIA requests on the left, you can see one that we sent out on behalf of ICANN for contracts to autonomous therapeutics. On the right, we started asking for communications to see what the government is saying to these researchers about these technologies and where they're at. But as we go through this process, we have to be so careful with the language that we use

in these requests. And similar to what we talked about with the geoengineering side, it's not like we send these FOIA requests, and even if we use the right language, they just say, here are all of our records. No, it's, well, we're going to go back and forth with you. We're going to ignore you. We're going to modify, but then we're not going to give you what you're asking for. We go through appeal processes, and sometimes they still won't give us the documents after that. So then the result is that we have to file lawsuits. So ICANN has directed us already to file five lawsuits now related to this space, and those are pending currently in federal court.

And so also playing onto that idea of the changing language, the legal update went out with that high wire segment. And initially, before the legal update went out, on the left is Autonomous Therapeutics website. On their website, they said that they are developing artificial immune systems that are inhalable and variant proof. That was on their website, right? Well, then the high wire breaks the story that they're getting funding from. the government and puts out a legal update, we go back to the website and, oh, wait, now they're developing precision medicines that are disease-activated and resistance proof. They took out that whole part about artificial immune systems and being inhalable.

That's kind of interesting. Wow, that is. So it just really goes to show you that, you know, raising awareness, again, on these issues is having an impact. So, you know, I want people to feel encouraged and inspired. that the things that ICANN are doing, the information that ICANN is putting out is making a difference. I mean, the company is changing their website. And this is after that information came out, and ICANN broke the story.

Fantastic. So, unfortunately, the transmissible vaccine issue does not stop at humans. Okay. So there's a department at the DOD called DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. And the DARPA has a program called Preempt, which is provision. preventing emerging pathogenic threats. And under this preempt program, DARPA is funding research to look into the issue of spillover or jumping.

And that involves diseases, basically, or viruses jumping from animals to humans. And so they wanted to look into the use of transmissible vaccines among animals to prevent spilling or jump over to humans. Guess what company they're using for that? Autonomous therapeutics that have got the self-spreading. Yep. Yeah, artificial immune systems. Precision medicine now.

Precision medicine now. Wow. So what we did is, and in this one specifically, the DOD is using Autonomous to study the airborne, highly pathogenic aviation influenza flu and viruses, and that's a quote. So that's bird flu. So that's what they're having. I keep thinking about the shows we did with Gert Van Denbosch out of Belgium, who was just really terrified of how we were pressuring the coronavirus with a failed and leaking vaccine program.

And you just imagine with all of their fear of a bird flu that jumps to human beings, if they start doing things like this like, you know, giving self-spreading vaccines, you know, man-made viruses to these animals to try and counteract it, what happens if you pressure, you know, you basically are teaching this, you know, avian flu to work, out and they very well could create exactly what they're worried about, pressure in a way that it actually just jumps to human beings and they advance it and accelerate what's taking place. I mean, it's just so short-sighted. Exactly.

And you're right on it, Del, because what they did as part of funding this and doing this research is they wanted to look at studying the use of transmissible vaccines for Merrick's disease. So if anyone is a chicken farmer or has their own chickens, they're probably familiar with Merrick's disease. And I'm going to explain what it is in just a second. But the only treatment for Merrick's disease industry-wide is vaccination. And on the screen is actually a $1.7 million grant that's going towards studying this. But let me tell you a little bit about the Merrick's disease vaccine and Merrick's disease itself.

So Merrick's disease was not always present. And previously, when we used to have chickens just free-ranging and being out in the sunlight, taking dirt paths, being exposed to the elements foraging, they didn't have this disease. This disease didn't come about until the mid-20th century when we had the introduction of big ag and industrial farming. And so you move the chickens into these crowded conditions that you see there. They're bred so that the chicken breast is so large that their legs break. That's what that image is right there.

Their beaks are, you know, trimmed down, or they're de-beaked, basically. They can't peck at each other in the close spaces. So these are really terrible conditions. So you can imagine that disease is going to fester and spread. And so that's really how Merrick's disease became a huge issue is because of big farming. And just to give you an example of the different in the eggs that they produce, at the bottom, you can see the egg on the left. That's from those free-range chickens. You can see the color of the yolk, and it just looks much better, much healthier.

It's got way more nutrients. It's much better for you. On the right side, that's an egg that's produced by one of those poor chickens and the big egg chicken farm. So the solution that they came up with for this issue of Merrick's disease just spreading, and it can wipe out a flock. So the issue that the solution was, well, we're just going to start vaccinating all of the baby chickens on day one against this disease. And so this is a video. Let's go ahead and play this video and watch it together. My name is Brian Jordan, and I'm an assistant professor here in the Departments of Population Health and Culture Science.

My job focuses on the interface of how our production practices influence our disease management strategies, and then how our disease management strategies can be incorporated into our current production practices. It's very important to think about all of our chickens, meat chickens, egg-lating chickens as well, ultimately the health status of those birds is going to translate to, you know, potential health factors for humans. For many of our poultry diseases, vaccination is the best control strategy. We produce so many chickens. You can imagine that we couldn't vaccinate these chicken individually. Our chickens are typically divided into groups as they come through out of the incubators and hatchers and come down the processing line. And then they are spray vaccinated with

one of any number of respiratory viral vaccines, some bacterial vaccine. On the coccidia side, I'm currently working on trying to design some assays to be able to profile and differentiate these strains, which will allow us to have a much better idea of how well our vaccines are infecting, replicating, and developing immunity in our birds versus how much of a field challenge we actually have. So if we can maintain the health of our birds, especially maintaining their gut health, then a lot of times we can prevent the prevalence, the distribution, and the growth of a lot of these bacteria. And if they're not growing in the bird, then they're not going to get on the meat, contaminate any kind of meat or table eggs when they go into the food chain. Any of the chickens that are at those large farms, they're getting vaccinated on day one for Merrick's disease.

Okay. With the Ruspins vaccine, or Rispen's vaccine. So let's talk about that. So Merrick's disease is a chicken herpes virus. Okay. And it's considered not treatable. It's considered preventable by vaccine. vaccination. And so the poultry farms, just like that one, use the wristbands vaccine, and that's the spray vaccine. And so they'll put it on some of the baby chicks, put them out with the other baby chicks, and then it'll spread. So that all of the baby chicks are vaccinated and then that's supposed to protect them from this horrible Merrick's disease. The problem is, and you were just talking about this, that the vaccine is leaky and it's transmissible. So it causes the disease to become more virulent. virulent as a process. And so what we see then is the, you know, again, it's an issue of, is the cure worse than the disease? I'm going to keep coming back to that.

Yeah. So this is already known and admitted among the science community. And so, for example, this article from PBS News, it states it right there for us, this chicken vaccine makes its virus more dangerous. The deadliest strains of viruses often take care of themselves. they flare up and then die out. This is because they are so good at destroying cells and causing illness that they ultimately kill their host

before it has time to spread. But when you have this vaccine that reduces symptoms but doesn't stop transmission or prevent infection, then it's going to actually cause the virus to evolve and become more dangerous. And so that's what we're seeing here. And this is from one of the researchers that's a part of this study at Penn State University,

that grant that we were just talking about, He says, vaccinating birds kill unvaccinated birds. The vaccination of one group of birds leads to the transmission of a virus so hot that it kills the other birds. Wow. It's just really interesting too, and we can go ahead and play this video just really quickly to show you the level of advancement of this technology. These are baby chicks being vaccinated on day one with the wristbands vaccine. This shows you the spray vaccination process of these little chicks. This video is actually explaining to you that you can actually, the vaccine canister itself has a chip in it.

So the farmer, well, the person who's controlling this big agricultural production can actually see the chain of the vaccination going. They can track it on their smartphone. Wow. So there's just a lot of money in this. So inside each one of these birds, they can actually track. There's something in there that's or is it just a chip of the group being sprayed? Yeah, it's a chip that's related to the tank that that vaccine comes from basically. But it's just showing you that there's a real level of depth and technology to this.

And so we looked then, we got this grant through FOIA. And so we looked a little bit deeper into this project, and this is analyzing Merrick's disease as a case study for use of transmissible vaccines on animals. And you can see here that the researchers are admitting transmissible vaccines are not. without risk. Reversion to virulence or recombination with wild-type pathogens could cause transmissible vaccines to make matters worse or complicate elimination efforts. And that's their own words. That's their own research. That's why I'm reading it to you. You know we're messing with Mother Nature here and we could make the problem worse. Yes, yes, they know it. Because the purpose of this, as it says on the slide, is to determine whether the transmissible vaccines could amplify vaccination

campaigns or whether they could cause adverse evolution. And so, So we looked at this project further and we looked at the research goals and just going through them quickly. They want to model the effects of transmissible vaccines on disease ecology. They want to use animal experiments in the UK to measure transmission potential. They want to enrich virus and vaccine data and they want to test these methods on virus samples. And then they want to, oh wait, aim for is actually redacted. So I can't tell you what the fourth goal is.

Wow. Now we have to fight about this one until we can find out what the redacted information is. Oh, wow. So that just goes to show you that process that we go to. It's like sometimes we'll get the records, but then they'll have all these redactions. And we've obviously seen this a lot with the COVID-19 vaccine productions. And so we have to just go back and forth to find out what's under that black box for aim for. Right.

You know? I mean, it's really scary because, I mean, and I think people might be sitting there saying, well, wait a minute, how do we get in back? I thought we were talking about, you know, planes and flying, but we've got to go back to the technology that you had the top of this. You have sprayers that have been designed by a company. One of the things that they say that they can spray is vaccinations. You're watching these droplets and spray being put on birds that's being used. Now imagine that just going up in the sky. And now we also see, as you pointed out, self-spreading vaccines and vaccine programs designed for aerosolized vaccinations. They can do it to birds. They can do it to us. And then look at the consequences that they're doing it anyway, even though like we recognize we may be making this virus much work. We may be making it hot. And as you've pointed out, that sort of ties this all together. Once you start doing this, you were making it impossible for all the birds that aren't vaccinated. For all the people that want to have an organic farm, you are making a disease now so deadly that'll just wipe out or, you know, organic farms that aren't vaccinating because these chickens, if they're come in contact with those chicks and they'll kill them. Right. And this is the model that they're

using to consider, you know, using transmissible vaccines and humans. Right. So you would hope that they see that it's not working very well. Yeah. Clearly for the chickens. Because they've done so good at recognizing that their COVID vaccine isn't working. Right. Yeah. I mean, and just wrapping it up, basically, we're just seeing from these are the results that are coming out already. This project It's still ongoing. It's funded from 2020 to 2025. So they've started releasing some of their results. And on the screen, you see two of those results that are released.

And just to end with this, this is out of their own result, and this is their language. I'll read it. We show that the direction of selection changes over time, such that initially, most emerging vaccine escape variants will be generalist pathogens that are better at infecting both vaccinated and non-unvaccinated hosts, but that over time most new variants will be specialist variants that grow better on vaccinated than non-vaccinated hosts. Wow. So they're admitting right there ultimately the vaccinated are going to be more susceptible to the future pathogens. Right. They're actually weak in the brisers we've talked about with

COVID, which Girt Van and Bosch has said in human beings. He's concerned that as coronavirus continues to mutate now that the ones at risk going to be the ones that got the vaccinations. Right. And here we see it in the animal models and animal world. The scientists that even believe in this, not us, it's in our opinion saying this appears to be a future issue. Right, right. Yeah. Wow. It's really, it's really shocking stuff. It's really amazing and I want to thank you for taking us on that. It's complex what you're doing and it's wild to see the rabbit holes that they take you into these other spaces.

When we look at this, eventually we got to a place where we were, you know, we've sued the government in the vaccination space and we've proved that they're hiding something. So right now, I think you listed about, we have five or six, or nearly ten different outstanding lawsuits just in this space for information they're not handing over yet. Correct, yeah. We have currently 11 lawsuits pending in federal court. 11 lawsuits. Yeah.

Wow. And it's unearcing things that we never expected. I mean, which is, it's fascinating. It's come sort of back around that, you know, here we're like, okay, well, let's put the vaccine. Here's the vaccine department. And then you're like, I'm going to go look at the sky. And then it just brings it back, wait a minute, aerosolized vaccines. And we're back into these people are crazy.

That's what, that's what it says to me. Yeah. Catherine, you're doing such amazing work. And I just, I want to thank you, you know, this is the first time we've ever met in person. We're usually on a Zoom like this going. through a PowerPoint like this. What are, you know, what were you doing before this? Working for the government, working for a court, and then in private practice as well, but always as an attorney. What do you think of this work? I mean, it's barely specific. I mean,

when you got into it. I will tell you that I never thought that I would be here doing this, doing this work. But, oh, it's such a blessing. It's so rewarding. It's incredibly interesting. Yeah. But most of all, it has the potential to be so impactful. And so I'm just so grateful to be able to work on all of this and to really just try to educate and raise awareness and to be able to prepare the materials basically so that ICANN gets to do that. And to see the response that people are having that these things would go unchecked, that they have like open to the public, but no one in the public knows that there's this comment period. Right.

Except that now you're looking at it and we are taking something. that would have had 90 people and making 10,000 people are weighing in, which I know is having an effect, at least slowing the role on this until we can hopefully get the government to start looking at this. Obviously, this is information I'm going to personally send over to Robert Kennedy Jr. as he takes over HHS and say, look at what's going on. Can you get on top of this? Can we, you know, figure out how we can, you know, stop this and get, you know, get sane about delivering vaccines. I mean, look, if they're vaccinating wild animals and pressuring viruses there, I really am concerned they're going to create the exact problem that they're so worried about.

And go, so see, yes, just like the Wuhan left. See, you know, we needed to be ready for a coronavirus. No, we didn't. You caused it. Yeah. Right? It's amazing. All right. Well, I can't wait to see what we discover in the next quarter in all this great work. I can't wait to see what's happening with these legal cases. But, Kathen, keep up the good work. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Dawn. All right, I really wanted you to take that journey with me today because it's mind-blowing,

and this is what you're making possible when you are a donor or sponsor to the Highwire and informed consent action network. Honestly, have you ever seen anything like that? Have you ever seen a group that is pursuing this conversation at this depth, at this level, you know, finding out where's the money coming from, going into those spaces, and then bringing requests? I think this is what I'll say. You know you're onto something when they stop responding.

When they start forcing you to bring lawsuits, now you know you're onto something. When they start sending you redacted sections, we now, we now know we're over the target. These are very exciting moments. I hope you'll continue to donate to ICANN, maybe even increase your donation. If this is an issue that matters to you, and by the way, can you imagine if we don't manage to do enough work to stop self-spreading vaccines, air-alized in some form of exhaust or spray coming from airplanes all over all of us. There's a lot of work to do here. This is why I don't like sitting around. I don't think we should get all comfortable. Oh, man, we're good. We got to stop this stupidity. One of the things that

we're doing for those of you that are out there that have been supporting, we're really into delivering more content. We have been really blowing it up with High Wire Plus. Right now, you've seen one of the most incredible discussions on the polio virus and the vaccine through Jeffrey Jackson investigates. That's one of the new series that is now out there. A lot of people are talking about it. If you haven't seen it, maybe you should become a recurring donor so that you can watch it on High Wire Plus. One of the gifts we're giving back to those people that help us do these investigations. If you don't know what High Wire Plus is, take a look. Welcome to High Wire Plus, the space beyond the Highwire,

where we're going to explore content made just for you. Highwire Plus is our gift to monthly donors to ICANN that will have news, entertainment, reality programming, all designed for people who care more about the truth than just another story. We're also going to be curating documentaries and films from some of our favorite filmmakers who deliver the truth just the way that we do.

Highwire Plus is your place to experience and explore truth like you've never seen it before. And look out for new content coming soon from Highwire Plus. And if you're on Highwire Plus, right after the show, we're going to have an off-the-reck with Catherine and Barra. I'm going to get a little bit deeper into what it's like to work at a company that can really come under fire. We get attacked in the media, attacked in the news. How is it that she, like so many that I work with, sort of had that courage to say,

this is where I want to work. I'm up for that. I'm going to ask you a few questions about that. You know, as we think about right now, the whole Make America Healthy again movement that's happening, one of the things is thinking about changing how we actually see health. I think so many of us talk about a sick care system is what we have. We live in a nation where health is being driven as a concept by the pharmaceutical industry, which every single thing they do is simply we have insurance that only pays when we're sick.

products that only work to, you know, sort of band-aid over when we're sick. And now if we're really on top of it, we can go and, you know, get tested for being pre-diabetic or pre-this, pre-that. So there's a drug for that, too. So in essence, we live in this world where every answer right now in medicine seems to be a drug. But is there a better way? Is there another way to look at health that is more holistic and has more of a biomedical approach? That is at the heart of what the American Academy of Environmental Medicine is all about. And they're having an event here in San Antonio that I'm going to be speaking at.

And if you want to come and check out a new way of thinking, take a look at this. Well, at the head of this conference is Barry Smelter who joins me now. Barry, it's good to see you. Thanks, Del. Let's just talk about the moment we're in. I mean, it's been a really incredible year. I think you were on, you know, was a half a year. It was a year ago.

I've lost track of times. A lot of it was happening. right now, you know exactly when it was, it was October of 2023. So just think about this. Oh, these folks. Guess what was happening at that time. We were talking about the new challenges in environmental medicine. Guess who else you had on that day? Michael Connett. Oh, wow. Talking about full-circ. Talk about full circle. Yeah. And think about what was actually happening from October of 2023 to now in the high wire, but in your life, in what's gone on, the campaign.

Yeah. It's incredible. It really is incredible. I think, you know, one of the things this, you know, they're calling it the Maha movement. It's being written about, you know, where do these people come from? At first they were anti-Baxers. Now they're looking at food. They're talking about, you know, holistic health.

Are they against pharma? All these questions. Every major news agency is talking about. Of course, you've got Robert Kennedy Jr. up for confirmation any moment now inside the Trump team. And then people he's picking like Dr. Oz, Marty McAry. And this conversation has shifted. What used to be sort of like this backroom conversation

or was being snuffed out. Now what is the future of health? I mean, in some ways I feel like, I'm talking about hitting it, you know, you've sort of gotten environmental medicine. First of all, what does that mean? the term environmental medicine. Well, it really hits on, I mean, to be honest, Del,

look at your program today. Look at all the things that, whether it's an acute exposure or chronic exposure and the health after effects, that's environmental medicine. It is, how does our environment affect our overall health? Well, you're hitting this from the exposure side in trying to expose. so to speak, what people are being exposed to,

and how is that then affecting them? Well, what we're doing at the AAM is we're actually hitting it from the other side. What do we do when they have gotten these types of exposures? How do we help them get back to health? How do we vet them to recognize that those exposures are what is triggering that chronic inflammation, the chronic disease,

the things that they're going to their doctors for and they're not finding out because they don't know what's causing that, you know, chronic fatigue or the headaches or their inability to focus anymore, their fatigue, all of those things that they get managed, their anxiety. I mean, think about it over these last few years. All of the things that are happening, what if there was an actual cause, but it's not the one cause, it's everything. That's why our focus this year is every day. exposures and what you can do about them. Fantastic. Well, I mean, for instance, right now, look at Los Angeles in all the areas. You know, I have friends there. We went through it ourselves. Even when your house makes it. And, you know, you go back to your home, it's still talking about environmental toxins, dioxins, these things that have been burned, the thylates, everything's in the air, do you have any recommendations for people just right now going through that daily experience?

Well, this is where environmental medicine really shines because people don't know what to do when it comes to these types of exposure. I mean, this isn't a chronic thing. This isn't acute. This is happening right now. People don't know what. And you can't get away. I mean, here's the thing is no matter what the environmental toxin. And I've said to people, I don't want to turn you into hypochondriacs. You're under a source. I say do as many things as you can do to avoid toxins. Try to not, you know, I try to eat, stay away from bread because I know it's got glyphosate most of the time.

I try to, you know, I try to have bottled water. I mean, you know, but at a certain point I don't want to drive myself crazy, but all the things we're missing, we need to deal with that. But back to the fire, you know. So in this instance, you're right. Most of the things that we're talking about are more chronic issues, more things that we are getting a little bit that's the drip in the bathtub that ends up over. were flowing. Well, this was the fire hose in the actual bathtub. And this happened so recent,

and this is where we've been focusing so much on these chronic things and working on getting our conference going. Well, unlike most academies in medicine where everybody plays in their own sandbox and nobody talks to each other, you know, one heart association doesn't talk to another heart association because there's a conflict. Well, when it comes to environmental medicine, we actually have partners. And one of our partners, is the National Association of Environmental Medicine. And it just so happens. One of their focuses is this type of acute education

when these things happen. And so they actually already came up with a set of things that people can do not just from a practitioner standpoint, but everyday things that for people that have gotten this kind of exposure, they can actually see what's going on. And this is for yourself and your family.

So this is something they came up. Think about it. This happened in the course of, what, three days? They literally had this out. So these are the type of organizations that we partner with, you know, their colleagues of ours, and they put out something because that was what their focus was at the time. Our job is to then continue to partner with them, but also educate them on the things that we're also working on,

And that is, what about every day? What about what's in your air? What's in your water? What's in your food? All the stuff that the higher wire has highlighted so much. And not only this reason why we wanted you to speak, because you've been such a crucial partner in this, but we've actually, one of our awards that we give out every year

is our Jonathan Foreman Award. And this year, we usually give it out to different researchers or different, you know, practitioners. And this year, we actually wanted from our Board of Directors to present that to you. Oh, wow. And it is something that we felt strong. You just blew the surprise, Barry.

I'm a surprise guy. You are a surprise guy. But really the reason we wanted to talk about this now is the fact that we want to get your listeners not only to hear what you had to say from a speaking standpoint, but to celebrate you. Because what you, and the high wire and your movement has done,

not only for the education to different, you know, the public, but it has helped my practice, it has helped so many environmental medicine practices actually be able to educate people in such a better way because we're hearing it, and I'm literally having people say, I heard this on the high wire, what do you think, Barry? Yeah.

And that then tells so much to what, your movement is doing. Well, I mean, that's what, you know, I want to do more of as we move forward into making America healthy again. I want to be a part of that. I pointed out why America is sick, and it's a lot of what the high wire does. It's groups like yours, events like this. You've got Aaron Brockovich speaking of this event. So just very quickly, you know, how many days of the event? How do people sign up for it? So the days of the event, we have a pre-conference going on on February 13th on advanced IV detoxification. techniques that's more for practitioners but for your listeners public is

welcome to come and the the actual conference is from the 14th so Valentine's Day we're gonna have a casino night for Valentine's Day right we are gonna have a premiere of another documentary that's talking about intoxicated from Mercury we're gonna have a actual Vegas Fest which is a technique to help control and regulate your autonomic nervous system with James Maskell. Oh, cool. So it goes through the 16th, and what we wanted to do was offer any of the high wire listeners if they wanted to go on to our website and sign up under the non-membership,

they can actually get it for 50% off using the code highwire. All right. I love it. Well, I appreciate it. Thanks for your work. You've helped me actually deal with some allergies here in Texas, This place is nuts. It is nuts. We are the allergy capital of the world. It's really outrageous. I know people like I've never had allergies before and you help me do that in a natural and

healthy way. I look forward to being there. Look forward to speaking. Thanks for joining us today. Thank you. All right. Thanks again, Del. We'll do.

All right. Well, as we've been saying, Highwire Plus is our gift back to you. And right now it is gangbushes. In fact, we had the biggest sign up to High Wire Plus just over the last month because of part one of this polio documentary. Part two of Jeffrey Jackson's investigation has dropped last week. If you don't know what we're talking about, we are getting calls from scientists, professionals, saying I've never seen some of those points. I've never seen it laid out that way. This is what that looks like.

Salk vaccine safe, effective. Along comes the first widespread vaccination campaign with the Salk vaccine. They were not going to let this vaccine fail with all the fanfare that was going into. They weren't careful about their manufacturing standards. They weren't careful about the testing. The Cutter incident was pretty much a disaster. The fact that they were making vaccines with monkey kidney cells, they discovered the presence of SV40, which is a mutation that can cause cancers in animals and humans.

When scientists located the SV40 and were trying to talk about it, they were threatened and harassed. In the early 50s, the SOC vaccine, in the late 50s, the SAVE Index. And everybody got it. Because, you know, why wouldn't you? Nobody ever heard of vaccine injuries in those days. Polio was caused by both, the injected and the oral polio vaccine. You could have an injection of a polio vaccine and still be a carrier and spread polio.

So when it comes to the definition of polio, anything that limped or had a cough or anything, before the vaccines came out in the 50s was pretty much polio. Afterwards, the criteria changed. Before the vaccine, there was something called non-parallytic polio. After the vaccine, they termed that aseptic men in joste. no laboratory testing was required before the vaccine. After the vaccine was released in order to make a diagnosis of polio, a lab test was required. For anyone who says, my aunt had polio, we have no clue what it was.

Some of us have got to be willing to face the ugly truth. Polio is one of the ugliest. There has been scandal, there has been propaganda, there has been failure, and there's been injury, and it's been covered up. Well, the mainstream world does not know what to do with us. look at what's happening. We're on to fluoride now. We've got people asking about the safety testing around vaccines.

We are looking into geoengineering, and now we've got redacted documents that says there's something they're trying to hide from us. And guess what? Aaron, go get them. We're going to find out the truth on all these things. We're really only getting started, man. Have we found a groove?

And then to really top it off all this week, what a weekend this is about to be. of course, all the inauguration celebrations are happening. You got Robert Kennedy Jr. in line to drop into HHS and really start making transparency happen again, if you will. Science needs to be saved. I'm so excited about that for the part that every one of us have played for this moment. I hope you celebrate, whether you're a Democrat or Republican. I mean, just look at what Zuckerberg said.

you know, in any of the interviews he said, you know, because of this, you know, new president, we're changing our philosophy. We're not going to censor anymore. Obviously, these are good things. These are good things. Maybe, you know, you can have all the judgments you want, but really spectacular things are afoot. And I hope that deep down, all of you say, you know, no matter what, changes upon us, great things are happening. And maybe it's time to just do the Trump thee dance. What do you think? You do that. this weekend and I'll see you next week on the high wire. They're doing that stupid dancing guys. Just stop it.

I stop what you're doing because I'm about to ruin the image of me that you used to. I look money. A king bee making honey see deep state I hope you're ready for me. Now gather around. I'm the new sheriff in town. All my people rise up and stand your ground. Now drink up all the diet coke you got in your show. So just let me introduce myself. My name is Trump D. I like my nice potatoes lumpy. Lumbie, fake news, oh how I like the punk thing. That little sniper on the slope tin, he took a shot but he missed me.

I don't fall, y'all. I'm lucky ever ready buddy. Still going strong and spunky. Oh, let's do the dance. Just watch me do the trunk-de-trump, yeah. My favorite dish is a double Big Mac, because I find it quite delicious. I ate up all your fries because they scrumptious.

Hey, yo, my squirrel, peanut, are you listening? Yeah, they took you out like a rap. Why they treat you like that? It never would have happened out with me And yet safe to assume The communist agenda You're gonna end up in a tune Whoa, crazies, I always fully faze

You never can't because you're just too lazy And join me in my home events Because this is how we do the dance And Trump de Trump Come on and do the Trump de Trump Come on and do the Trump de Trump Check me out y'all We do the trump de Trump

Just watch me do the Trump de Trump Do you know what I'm doing Trump is come to do the Trump to do the Trump to do the Trump de Trump, yeah, black people do the Trump to Trump, they do the Trump to Trump. Doesn't he know any other steps besides this? This shouldn't freak everybody out.