The Highwire with Del Bigtree - Episode 410: AIDING AND ABETTING

Episode Date: February 8, 2025

Del gives updates on HHS confirmation hearings; Jefferey Jaxen Reports on the USAID fiasco, and the unprecedented attack on Farmers globally; Dr. Neu Breaks Down the Mawson Study, the MAHA Movement, and the coming MAPS conference for medical Professionals.Guest: Dr. James NeuenschwanderBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

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

Yes. Action. Good morning, good afternoon, good evening. Wherever you are out there in the world, it's time to step out into the high wire. Well, things are ramping up. You can feel the tension and the excitement all across this country as President Donald Trump is in action in ways we've never seen it before. And while that's going on, incredible confirmation hearings are taking place. And of course, the one that most of us that are here at the Highwire

and those of you watching the Highwire are the most focused on, of course, the confirmation of Robert Kennedy Jr. Well, this week he was finally had the vote from the Finance Committee that he had sat before just over a week ago in some grueling multi-hour sessions, both with the Finance Committee and then the Health Committee, but the Finance Committee is the only one that gets the opportunity to vote for Robert Kennedy, Jr. to go to the floor for the full Senate vote, and this is what that looked like. Mr. Kennedy, if confirmed, we'll have the opportunity to deliver much-needed change to our nation's health care system. He has spent his career fighting to end America's chronic illness

epidemic and has been a leading advocate for health care transparency, both for patients and for taxpayers. Mr. Kennedy has given us no reason to believe there'll be anything other than a rubber stamp for plans to gut Medicaid and rip health care away from the American people and be a yes man if ordered by Musk or Trump to take an illegal action. At a rally a few months ago, Donald Trump said that he was going to allow Mr. Robert Kennedy to quote, go wild. Of all the things that I can think of that I'd like to see a Secretary of Health and Human

services do, go wild is not on the list. I hope he goes wild and instead of having the discussions that we have had for the 10 years that I've been in the Senate of making Medicaid work and making people on Medicaid healthier, I hope he goes wild on food safety discussions so that we can actually improve our food safety supply. I hope he goes wild on the health care supply chains to make sure that drug prices go down instead of bludgeoning pharmaceutical companies, get everybody in the room and make sure that we do this right. The clerk will call the roll. Mr. Grassley.

Aye. Mr. Grassley. Aye. Mr. Cornyn. I. Mr. Thune. Mr. Thune. Aye.

Mr. Scott. I. I. Mr. Cassidy. I, Mr. Cassidy. I, Mr. Lankford. Mr. Lankford. I am Mr. Daines.

Mr. Dane's. I am Mr. Young. I'm Mr. Brassau. Mr. Brassau. Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson. I, Mr. Tillis. Mr. Tillis.

Hi. Mrs. Blackburn. Aye, Mr. Marshall? Aye. Mr. Widen? No. Mr. Wyden? No.

Ms. Cantwell? No. Mr. Bennett? No. Mr. Warner? No. Mr. Warner? No. Mr. White House? Mr. White House?

No. Ms. Hassan? Ms. Hassan? No. Ms. Horton? No. Ms. Cortez Masto? No. Ms. Warren? No.

Mr. Sanders? No. Mr. Sanders? No. Smith? No. Mr. Luhon? No. Mr. Loonon? No. Mr. Warnock? No. Mr. Warnock?

No. Mr. Walsch? No. No. Mr. Chairman, vote, aye. Mr. Chairman, the final title was 14, eyes, 13 days.

The vote was 1413. The nomination is reported. Well, a very exciting moment. Also, lots of tension in the room. I was in the room, but I had not seen Cassidy, who I guess had tweeted out just before that beating that he had come to some understandings with Kennedy and I think President Trump.

And so I guess a lot of people knew where he was going to go, I didn't. I was waiting with bated breath to see how that vote went. And as was really expected, I guess, it came down party lines, which means history will tell that every Democrat, at least so far in the Finance Committee, was a voting against making America healthy again. As I said last week, they all admit that we have a broken health care system, that we have corruption inside of our regulatory agencies. They admitted that our kids are the sickest we've ever seen them. They were the sickest nation in the world. They said, we agree with you. We've got to get the chemicals out. We got to get the corruption out, but not you. You're not

the one to do this. And basically, and we just saw in that vote. So very interesting. One of the things that I want to talk about, we'll talk about some of the issues around this moment and vaccines and and, you know, is autism and vaccines, are the related? Is the science settled? I'm going to talk to a that's in the middle of that because he works with autistic patients and developmentally disabled patients all the time. Dr. James Nguyenchwanda coming up a little bit later in the show. We're going to talk about where the science is actually at, what you can say, what you can't say, at least from maybe a slightly more open-minded perspective in medicine. But the big question right now, one of the things I saw posted right afterwards,

and people were writing to me, Del Hooray, he's HHS Secretary, he did it, you know, and I saw a couple posts go out, and said, ooh, no, he just got out of finance committee and is now up for a Senate floor vote. Now, there's a lot of questions. A lot of people are out there asking, so when is it? Many of you thinking, if you want to go to Washington, D.C. and be a part of this historical moment, when is it? There's speculation it's Tuesday. There's speculation it's Wednesday. I want to explain to you something that while I was in Washington, D.C. just a couple days ago, it was explained to me. And I can tell you this, we don't know what day it is, and here's why. Let's just go ahead to the official record so you understand how this works.

None of us, I assure you, study this in high school or probably college. Senate procedures to confirm nominees. This is exactly what is going to happen. Absent unanimous consent, so we know there is not unanimous consent, the steps to confirm a nomination include. The Senate votes on a non-debatable motion. to proceed to executive session to take up a nomination on executive calendar. So they're going to basically put it on the calendar. The majority leader or his designee files cloture on the nomination.

The Senate must wait two session days before voting on closure, absent unanimous consent to alter this ripening period. They call it a ripening period. The Senate can conduct other businesses during these two days and it usually does. Leave that up for a second. So let me make this really clear. The majority leader has got to vote for this cloture on the nomination. But the Senate must wait two full session days, meaning if today is Thursday, they have to wait through Friday. And then Saturday would be the first time that they could actually begin the cloture vote.

And then we go on. Two days of sessions later, the Senate votes on cloture. The rule requires that the... vote to invoke cloture be a roll call vote. If a majority of Senators voting support cloture, then cloture is invoked and further consideration of the nomination is limited. The Senate conducts post-closure debate on the nomination for all but the highest ranking nominations. The maximum time for consideration of a nomination after cloture is invoked is two hours. Once cloture is invoked on a matter, the Senate can consider other business during the post-closure period

only by unanimous consent. After post-closure debate time expires or when no senator seeks to discuss the nomination further, the senator votes on the nomination. Confirmation requires majority support. The motion to reconsider the confirmation vote is routinely by unanimous consent considered made it laid upon the table. This final parliamentary step prevents the possibility of a re-vote on the nomination and immediately returns the approved nomination to the president. So essentially here's what's about to happen. Tomorrow we understand that many of the representatives are leaving town. So there is nothing happening in D.C. tomorrow on Friday, which means their weekend begins

after tonight. So what has to happen today is this boat to move towards cloture. If that boat happens today, there's the ripening period of two full session days. to skip a day and then the next day they could vote for cloture. Since we're going to a weekend that can ripen over the weekend is my understanding, which means if they invoke this vote for cloture today and they all agree it begins today, the ripening period happens over the weekend. And then on Monday, they can vote for cloture.

And then there's 30 days of talking about it. I mean 30 hours, in 30 hours they can have the final Senate vote. So the soonest this vote can take place is somewhere around Tuesday night. If there's a Monday morning cloture vote, 30 hours later, they can have the final Senate vote. So the earliest that will happen would be Tuesday night. Now, if they don't manage today, and so far as I know, we haven't heard that they haven't called for this cloture voter to begin this ripening period, if they don't do that today, that won't happen until Monday. which means on Monday they'll call for this two-day ripening period, which means Tuesday will have to pass,

and then Wednesday they can vote for cloture, and 30 hours after that, as soon as Thursday night into Friday, would be the final Senate vote. I hope that clears it up. It is a really weird system for those of us that have never looked at it, but it's sort of two chunks. There has to be two days and then 30 hours.

And so hopefully, I think we're all hoping, I'm sure the Trump administration is hoping that today we get to that call for cloture and move into that ripening session over that ripening period over the weekend. So there it is. I hope we got that right. I'm pretty sure we did. Someone will probably write it and say, No, Dale, you messed it up. But that's my understanding of it. I think so the earliest we're looking at Tuesday night.

And look, they could keep pushing this down the road. That means there has to be the sort of beginning of the vote to move it. All right. There's a lot to get to today. So why don't we get rolling with the Jackson Report. All right, Jeffrey, that was clear as mud as all politics appears to be. The highway goes to Washington these last couple weeks, yeah. Right. It's amazing because, you know, people, I think people assume because, like, we're reporters is something that you understand these things. I've never really, we aren't, we're not a government, we're not a political show. So a lot of this is kind of brand new. We're coming from.

this health perspective and then trying to understand how the politics around all this works. But it's been a lot of fun and super interesting. Yeah. Well, speaking of fun, there's a lot more fun going on in Washington. The United States Agency for International Development, that's USAID, has been under a mass audit by Elon Musk and a team that was chosen to go in there and do clearance to look at the books, if you will. And just give people an idea of this organization because there's a lot of questions about what it's supposed to be international development. Well, in 2014, you have democracy now, and they publish, now this is normally a left-leaning primarily media organization. They published

this headline. Is USAID the new CIA? And this is kind of the consensus. This is a cover for the CIA operations. It says agency secretly built Cuban Twitter program to fuel anti-castle protest. So that's regime change. And there's a lot of people out there saying what USAID does is dual use. So they'll go in and try to help, but they'll also do something for a central intelligence agency to gain a foothold for the American interests. Well, Trump has went in there. Just to catch people up to speed here. Trump suspends U.S. foreign assistance for 90 days, pending review. So he walked in there and suspended these payment systems for the USAID. Musk moves in there. And then you're seeing headlines like this, again, even out of the hill, which is more of a left-leaning organization, conservatives are

correct. America's foreign aid system is broken. So there's this consensus now of like, well, maybe this money wasn't going to the exactly all of it was going to the right things. So Marco Rubio is now in charge of this agency. He was installed in there. And he went out on an interview and he was making some headlines. He says, Rubio says no choice but to bring US AID under control. An agency takeover. He says there's rank insubordination within agency.

There's a lot of just ignoring for records requests. An audit was just completely out of, out of, no one was going to do that because this agency was is somewhat rogue. And we're just now beginning to see kind of the feeder roots that go out where this organization was really had its hands into. And we can go for hours on this conversation about some of the ridiculous things it was funding. But let's stick with, let's stick with a focus of our audience. So Gavi, that's Bill Gates, Bill Melinda Gates started Gavi. This is the Vaccine Alliance, Global Vaccine Alliance. And we look into the books here for the U.S. AID payment system. And you can see just from the screenshot here, Gavi, Gavi,

there's another now this is over several years but four billion dollars the us a id was paying to gavi and you go down there a little bit another 880 million dollar payment you see the world health organization in there a little over 700 million dollar payments so there's a lot of a lot of money going to really bill gates the world health organization it's interesting because as soon as trump suspended the payment system for this 90-day review and must moved in you saw bill gates do a media And it sounded like this. So I'm a little worried, particularly with this USAID stuff. My foundation partners with USAID on nutrition and getting vaccines out.

And there's incredible people. They're not actually worms that work there. So hopefully we'll get some of that work back in shape. In fact, if we don't, you know, you could have literally millions of deaths. I mean, we report on this guy all the time, Jeffrey. I think it's questionable whether he does good. There's international lawsuits now against his vaccine programs, accusations of things like sterilization programs going on.

There's real questions on whether his polio vaccine program is causing polio. I spoke with Robert Redfield that has some concerns on that. So, you know, but all things being equal, I think one of the conversations that came up is we all heard when Bill Gates went and met with President Trump at Mar-Lago, everyone's like, oh, my God, they're buddying up. You know, he's going to start working for Bill Gates again. And there was real concerns in, you know, in our audience, in our movement. But I would say, you know, if you're just going to like read the tea leaves here, after those meetings, President Trump has pulled funding from WHO. He's just shut down USAID for a deep. review, which you're about to get into, which clearly none of this works in Bill Gates's favor. So for those of us that were really questioning, what happened in that meeting? Well, whatever happened, it does not appear that Bill Gates set his hooks into President Trump and has got him on a leash of any kind. In fact, so far, everything seems to be going against Bill Gates's agenda, which is, I think, we're just noting that. Is that the permanent structure?

I don't know, but that's what we're recognizing right now. And Bill Gates is pretty clear character. He's kind of a one-trick pony. Anything that seems to subtly threaten him, you'll see him do a media tour and just go, millions will die. Sorry. And then you'll hit this headline was made on that same interview. Bill Gates says the odds of another pandemic in the next four years are 10 to 15 percent.

We're not prepared. So he comes out, people are going to die. Another pandemic, you know, basically do not cut my funding. And we saw that during COVID as well when the vaccine hesitancy was coming. He was kind of playing the same game there. And so there's Bill Gates. Mr. Sweater. And we also go into the funding of the Wuhan lab. This is USAID as well. A lot of people don't know this. This was in the intercept. They did an investigation. Documents linked potential COVID

patient zero to U.S. funded research in Wuhan. This is Ben Hu. And we can see that this is the actual, this is from white coat waste. They're a nonprofit. They FOIA to get this document. But we can see this funding structure here, $41 million when you add that up of USAID to the Wuhan Institute of there and to Ben, who was working in there during that time. And just to give people another memory on this, we have Ram Paul. He was in a hearing. He brought forth Samantha Powers at the time, the administrator of USAID and asked her some questions about, you know, the gain of function, about equal health alliance. Take a listen. Okay. Ms. Powers, did USAID fund coronavirus research in Wuhan China? We did not fund gain of function research. That's not the question. The question is,

did you fund coronavirus research in Wuhan China? Before my time, there was the Predict program with which you're familiar, which ended in China in 2019. This is a $200 million program, and the GAO has also identified that some of these grants went directly to the Wuhan Institute of Irology, where there is a suspicion that the lab leak began, that began the pandemic. Has USAID awarded funds, to the Academy of Military Medical Sciences in China? I, not to my knowledge, but I'd have to give me. I think the answer is once again, yes. GAO has found that there have been sub-awards of NIH money

as probably as well as USAID money that went to the Academy of not just medical research, military medical research in China. Now, part of the unknowns here, there's we can't get the records to look at this. So I've been asking for months and months for records. In September of last year, I wrote Ms. Powers, the USAID, a request asking for records from the PREDICT program. These are not classified. These are simply records of scientific research, and we want to read the grants to find out what they were doing and whether the research was dangerous or not.

The response I got from your agency was USAID will not be providing any documents at this time. They're just unwilling to give documents on scientific grant proposal. We're paying for it. They're asking for $745 million more in money and we get no response. This is such a, it's really such an important dialogue happening there. And, you know, kudos to Rand Paul. By the way, I had a really nice conversation with him at the Maha ball just two weeks ago. But to have pressed in here and it shows it's finally coming to fruition.

And what he's saying, USAID, I mean, billions of dollars are being put out. They work for the American people first and foremost. and then our representatives get to oversee what you're doing and you're saying no. You're saying no basically to your CEO and to the people. You don't get to see our work. You don't get to see what we're up to. That's insane that this has been allowed to go on the way that it has. And that video should be really a reminder to people saying this is an agency that's on the up and up.

We shouldn't be disrupting it. It's going to cause, you know, death around the world. Well, remember how they acted. I mean, they were stonewalling. hearings they would not give the the coronavirus conversation where that started is is and was that one the biggest conversations in the world and they're not going to even step up on that come on so what's also happening during this this expose i guess of government funds is the public and the government is reaching in to see where just government funding is going for the most part and we go to the media now

and this is a headline that was made just recently over the past couple days doge cancel political's government funding after $8 million in subscription contracts revealed. So they've had millions and millions of dollars. So this is basically the U.S. government propping up Politico as an organization, a media organization. And there's a lot of government agencies in there that had these pro subscriptions. One of them famously was 37 people at the FDA totaling $500,000 in these pro subscriptions.

So it seems to be some type of laundering operation where the U.S. government is propping up these, you know, again, these kind of dead corporate media outlets that people go, why no one's listening to them? How are they still, how are they still functioning as a business? This may be one of the reasons. But I want to go back to USAID at this point because that whole government funding media conversation is going right now. Well, I mean, just before we move on, it's kind of important because we've been saying here on the high wire, what you're watching on your paid news is propaganda. What we're now seeing is proof of that evidence that funding is coming from your government.

into your news agencies. You're under this impression that they're private organizations that aren't controlled. I mean, but then you look and, oh my God, you know, there seems to be government funding. We already know there's pharma funding, this corporate funding that is already manipulating this, manipulating the agenda. But more and more, as this is unpacking, it's like, do we have news? Because I think this is key. I've always, I've been saying to people as I walk around, look, in Russia, you know, they have propaganda. They don't have news. In North Korea, propaganda, that's not news. The only difference I think between the United States of America and those countries is their citizens know it's not news. They know it's propaganda. Our problem here is that if it's propaganda, but we still think it's news, we are at a severe disadvantage for understanding our place in this country and our place in the world. Absolutely. And it's a fact that USAID has propped up media and journalists and independent media around the world. And so you have to wonder, is that a quick prokro? What's,

what are they paying for? What kind of messaging are they getting out? We know it's in Ukraine as well. But they also in 2021, I remind people, Foundation for Freedom Online had FOIA requests and received these documents, which was the USAID disinformation primer. So they in 2021, middle of the pandemic, when everyone was being shut down, they put out a rosetta stone on and this is really, this should be in a time capsule because it's kind of like they're looking at the information space and they're going, oh, this something's happening here. We need to really change this. This information primer was basically kind of the blueprint that was sent out and given to all of the organizations, Meta's Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, Google, and this was kind of the marching order.

So there's a lot of quotes here. I just want to pick out some specific points on this because they're looking at the nature of how people access information. They're finding out this has changed and we're in the middle of a pandemic and we can't really control it anymore. So it says in this quote down a little bit, it says because traditional information systems are failing, some opinion leaders are casting doubt on media, which in turn impacts USAID programming and funding choices. So it's, hey, people aren't listening to corporate media anymore. Free thinking is getting in our way is what that says. Free thinking is getting the way of USAID's agenda.

We need to insert ourselves. Absolutely. And this couldn't be more clear. So it goes on to say it leads to a loss of information integrity, whatever that is, online news platforms have disrupted the traditional media landscape, which is supposed to be good. Government and officials and journalists are not the sole information gatekeepers anymore. That's a problem for USAID apparently. It goes on to say to users, these spaces enable them to collaborate and validate their own claims and interpretation of the world that differ from mainstream sources.

That's great. With this individuals contribute their own research to larger discussion, collectively reviewing and validating each other to create a populist expertise, justify, shape, supports their alternative beliefs. This is crowdsourcing information. This is what social media is what X is doing. And we see how successful that's been. Again, USAID does not like that. that. So then they start going to this next conversation, which gets a little darker, and they start kind of wargaming. How do we stop this? Well, they said, cutting this financial support found in the ad tech space would obstruct disinformation actors from spreading messaging online. Efforts be made for

their advertisers and basically say, look, this is going to be a threat to your brand safety. You shouldn't do this. And it goes at the bottom, aim to redirecting funding to higher quality news domains. So you can see just straight up right there. They're going after. how these people are being funded, which a lot of people have talked about that. I mean, Alex Jones is one of the first examples, how people just cut their advertisers left, cut their funding, they intimidated their advertisers. But then it goes to this, and this is one of the most creepiest. It says pre-bunking, so they have all these ideas of how to really disrupt the information space that's forming. Pre-bunking, as a measure to counter disinformation and make debunking

more impactful, Donovan recommends pre-bunking, what she defines as an offensive strategy that refers to anticipating what disinformation is likely to be repeated by politicians, pundits, and provocateurs during key events and having already prepared a response based on past fact checks. So I want to move on to the next section here. And that's RFK Jr.'s hearings with that pre-bunking in mind. So we know these hearings are coming up. And it was interesting as I started to see, as these hearings were the days ahead of these hearings, I started to see the New York Times specifically, but other outlets as well, they're starting to do pre-bunking stories. They start writing stories that kind of had no, no relevance of what they've

ever been reporting on. Maybe once or twice they reported on it. All of a sudden, these headlines come up and you go, well, this isn't breaking news. We've been talking about, been fighting to get this information out for 10 years. Here's one of them. New York Times headline. Yes, some vaccines contain aluminum. That's a good thing. Where did that come from? What are you talking about? Well, specifically, that's right before the hearings. And this has been a big issue because as a lot of people who's watching the show, there's no really good studies out there that show that injecting aluminum through a vaccine is healthy, is safe. And actually, I can sued the CDC, sued the NIH, and said, show us the studies that allow these aluminum adjuvants to be in vaccines. They were

unable to provide a single study to support that, to support the safety of injecting aluminum adjuvants despite widespread use in the childhood vaccines. And then we have another problem. So there's aluminum adjments in these vaccines, but there's different levels. So there was a study by Chris, actually one of the world's largest experts, biggest experts on aluminum. And he looked at that study. And he found that there was, the vaccines were containing widely different amounts of aluminum. He said we found only three vaccines contained the amount of aluminum indicated by the manufacturer. Six vaccines contained a statistically significant greater quantity, while four vaccines contain a statistically significant.

lower quality. So it's all over the board. So again, I can I can ask the FDA, by the way, can you confirm the level of aluminum adjuvants in these vaccines injected in babies? Because there's quite a few of them. Do you have a monitoring system? What's going on here? They've never replied to us. And so this is, so when the New York Times just pops up a headline like this, they're going to get slapped down. And what's interesting, just on this little side conversation we're having, the aluminum adjuvant, until they find something new, they have to defy the this ingredient in the vaccines. Which by the way, on all of our research, all of our investigations I can that you have funded out there, those of you that support I can, we can't find a single study of a human being, a human study looking at the safety of injecting aluminum.

We, you know, I've seen Brett Weinstein's out there talking about a rabbit study he found. We've referred a lot to a rat study, oral studies, not injected studies. I mean, this science is really lacking, especially when we think about, you know, day one old babies, hepatitis B, 250 micrograms of aluminum, which appears to be 10 times the amount ever approved in an oral rat study. So this is a problem. It's a problem. And when you don't even know how much is in the product, it could be more, could be less, and you don't know what its safety profile is.

These are the types of things that those of us with blood still moving through our brain cells want answers to. And the industry wants to move away from aluminum, and we know that because there's studies going on to find other adjuvants. Remember, adjuvants, they create an inflammatory response to kind of wake up the immune system when these vaccines go into arms. And so here's MIT scientists are using a new type of nanoparticle to make vaccines more powerful. It says in a study of mice, the researchers showed that this MOF that stands for metal organic framework could successfully encapsulate and deliver part of a SARS-CoV tube spike protein, while also acting as an adjuvant once the MOF is broken down inside cells. So think about this.

Remember, the lipid nanoparticles that were in the COVID shots were going all over the body, the brain, the heart, liver, kidney, ovaries. Think about this. If all those lipid nanoparticles, which were supposed to be inert, now that they're saying, we know every one of those encapsulating

the SARS-CoVi tool create an inflammatory response wherever it goes in the body, I don't see how this can end well. And I guess God help us if that's the future of vaccine technology. Are they like, in my mind, it's like they're building a metal cage now inside the liquid. So now it's not just a liquid nanoparticle. It's got like a little cage around it that they hope dissolves.

I mean, you've already made this spike protein and these, these, you know, MRIs last longer. You're protecting them from the immune system. Now let's put an aluminum or metal cage around it. I mean, I don't know. I mean, I know, I'm sure the scientists know exactly what they're doing. We should just stop asking all questions. And certainly there should be no need for safety tests. Just go right ahead.

Let's call it safe. Let's get a move on, move on. Okay, of course. So off on a little tangent there. Let's go back to the media kind of response to RFK Jr's hearings. So as soon as the hearings were over, we have our friend, Lena Wend. Remember, she was the carrot in the stick person during COVID. She told us that freedoms were at the end of a syringe if you wanted them back.

And then she said, I'm sorry. I was wrong. Well, it looks like she's jumping in again. This is Washington Post opinion. RFK juniors confirmation hearings were even worse than expected. So here we have more gaslighting. People that watched the hearings probably didn't come away with that, but she wants you to believe that. And then you have other headlines coming around here. RFK artificial die risks impact on food giants. So we're getting some kind of fear headlines there. And then another one, vaccine stocks fall as Senate panel advances RFK Jr's nomination for HHS secretary. So we're probably going to see a lot more of that in the coming week. So I want people to be aware that's media

literacy. When you see the media all of a sudden narrowing on these fear-based kind of not real conversations to try to shape the hearts and minds of people for major events that are happening. Yeah. I was really interesting. I came out of the, you know, of the hearing and, you know, you got approached by, I don't know, five to ten different news organizations as you're trying to walk down the hallway. And I have to say you get this impression that they're all out of to just try to make you say something stupid because they are on attack. I mean, it's odd, isn't it, that there doesn't seem to be anyone in support of getting chemicals out of food.

There's no one into deeper scientific research and transparency. None of these news organizations seem to care about the corruption in the regulatory agencies, which you feel like they should. It's just, I'm talking to them, just thinking, who do you work for? Like, how did we get to this point? And I thought, like, isn't your job to be like, at least, hey, you know, what do you think? We get a guy in there that's going to challenge all these things. Anyway, we're used to it, but it is a surreal world that I think is actually is shifting.

I think it's clear that the movement of the people. And you've got to ask yourself, are these mainstream news organizations, are they just going to become like the leaders of the minority, the propaganda for the minority as the majority of America starts to wake up and say, hey, I like the transparency. I like that you're looking at USAID. I like that you're looking at an HHS secretary that's going to go wild on chemical companies. You know, how long will they remain, you know, irrelevant and hold on? And especially if they're not getting USAID money, what is that going to go? Exactly, exactly. So I want to try to tackle a big narrative here and move forward into a deeper dive.

And this is, you know, having researched this and with the team as well, It's almost like it's like a mini documentary segment here. So I want to talk about the climate narrative. And there's a lot of conversation about what we are told the climate narrative is the net zero agenda. We have to reach this net zero agenda. But then when it gets down to the level of the common public people, it looks a lot different. And this is one of the headlines that sparked this thought process. 10th of farmland to be act for net zero.

This is in the UK. Now, in the UK, under Prime Minister Kier Starrmer, they are taking, they're having a generational wealth tax on the farmers. They're trying to buy out the government's giving lump sum payments to buy out the farmers. They're having problems giving it to the next generation because of this tax. They're full attack. And this is also happening in the European Union of various attacks on the farmers. And you have to question why. So we go to this article and it states more than 10% of farmland in England is set to be diverted towards helping to achieve net zero and protecting wildlife by 2050. The Environmental Secretary will reveal on Friday.

Swaths of the countryside are on course to be switched to solar. farms, tree planting and improving habitat for birds, insects, and fish, not people, but those organisms. So again, we're talking about Kier Starrmer, and Tucker Carlson and Pierce Morgan just had a conversation on this topic. Take a listen. All right. I've never seen anyone lose such political capital so quickly. Yes. And he did it because he came in and decided that the strategy he would do is to say The Tories were so awful that the country's now in a terrible state, so bad that we're going to have to do all these punitive taxes, and we're going to have to whack the pensioners, and we're going to have to whack the farmers and punish all these groups of people.

And everyone was like, wow, you've waited 14 years in opposition. And this is what you're doing? What did the farmers do wrong? I never understood that. They make our food. I mean, it's ridiculous. Most of them live literally. Because British food's not good?

Is that the problem? Most of them lose money farmers. And the idea, he created the impression that a lot of pensioners can afford it, a lot of farmers can afford it. Actually, most of them can't. Most of them can't. Why would you target, I mean, it's just- Inexplicable. But it's happened throughout Europe and the United States attacking farmers. And it seems like part of a- Should reward farmers. Farmers are the lifeblood of any civilized country. Right, but if you're looking big picture, if you're opposed to famine and you're for human flourishing and people,

then you'd want to do whatever you could to have enough food. I agree. And if country by country by country, Germany, Great Britain, Denmark, Holland, they're all attacking farmers, the United States, maybe there's a bigger anti-human agenda at work. Does it do you see that? I just think it's a pretty dumb to legal agenda that's been pursued so far. It's not just dumb, it's like weird. Yeah.

Of all the groups you'd attack, white farmers. Makes no sense. It does make sense though, doesn't it? Why? Well, clearly there's an effort. to reduce the human population. It's a, if people should go and watch that, you know, uh, interview, because you're both reporters, right, you have Tucker Carlson and Pierce

Morgan and they're really, you, it's wild to watch it because there's really two types of people in the world. Those that, you know, like get triggered and go, well, this must have an agenda and trying to figure out that agenda in Tucker Carlson saying, I mean, you can't just, you just want to just say it's stupid. It's beyond stupid. There's clearly it's a worldwide agenda. to shut down farms, feed animals, not people, while we talk about famine being concerned with

global warming. These two things don't go together unless, you know, you're depopulating. And further it goes on, Pierce Morgan just sits there like befuddled that you could make that conglues. I don't, you know, how are you coming to that conclusion? This is wild, right? Two different perspectives. And I guess it's an argument about journalism. Are we supposed to just be so completely agnostic that we can't even make you know jump into an assumption of what what what does this all lead to i don't know but it's it's a funny uh interview to watch because both smart guys but definitely see the world or approach journalism very different ways yeah and you see peers either he either can't go there because it's too dark or he just doesn't have the information and he just just

kind of freezes and goes it's just dumb it's dumb please next question right and so i want to go further here um i want to build on what Tucker was saying and go really and look at some historical data points as we move through this story, because there is evidence of what he's saying. And one of the first data points we're looking at is a man named Thomas Malthus. Thomas Malthus wrote an essay in 1798.

This was one of the earliest conversations here. And it's titled an essay on the principle of population as it affects the future improvement of society. So you get this idea of, well, man can improve society. And so, let me remember, read this paragraph and see what you can pull out here. He says, the power of population is so superior to the power in the earth to produce subsidence for man that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race. The vices of mankind are active enabled ministers of depopulation.

They are the precursors in the great army of destruction and often finish the dreadful work themselves. But should they fail in this war of extermination, sickly seasons epidemic pestilence and plague advance in terrific array and sweep off their thousands and tens thousands should success be still incomplete gigantic inevitable famine stalks in the rear and with one mighty blow levels of population with the food of the world so he's saying there i mean he's saying a lot there but he's saying epidemics there's a lot of stuff that can really depopulate the planet but the famine that's the home run hitter when bases are loaded that can do it one swing of the bat and so Thomas mouthis is installed as the head economist in something called the East India Company.

Now, look in the record books. This is a fascinating study. The East India Company was the largest monopolistic organization in the world at that time. We're on 1,600 to about 1800 and middle 1800s. And they had their own private army. They were ruthless. And they took over the East Indies and the trade routes. And they monopolized everything.

So, Thomas Malthus, with that mindset, sits in the wheelhouse as the economist controlling the purse strings of the largest organization on the planet. And so what happens? Well, the East Indies, I'm going to read the BBC article here, how British let one million Indians die in famine. It says the East India company helped kill off India's once robust textile industries. So a shutdown industry, pushing more and more people in the agriculture. This in turn made the Indian economy much more.

dependent on the whims of seasonal monsoons. The Indian and British press carried reports of rising prices, dwindling grain reserves, and the desperation of peasants no longer able to afford rice. All of this did little to stir the colonial administration in action in the mid-19th century. It was common economic wisdom that government intervention in famines was unnecessary and even harmful. The market would restore a proper balance. Any excess deaths, according to Malthusian principles, were nature's way of responding to overpopulation. So you literally see that paragraph, that huge paragraph I just wrote,

that Thomas Mouth has put in his essay. You see that in play in India. And this wasn't just one famine. These were sweeping famines. They happened every couple of years. And the British kind of a stance towards that was the world will take care of itself. Hey, if we're depop, if people are leaving the planet,

that's a good thing. And so obviously. Let me just understand this. So basically, the Malthusian principle, they took away the diversity of economic function in India, took away textiles and things that would have gotten them through where maybe we're not growing as much, but we're making plenty of money in our textiles and we can buy food and we can stay as a balanced nation. They took away that stabilizing factor pushed everybody into agriculture

where the whims of weather and monsoons and everything could devastate them when they were having bad years, and that was all a part of like a destabilization process. And a guy that celebrates just too many people on the planet anyway. Right. And you have this East India company squatting on the East India is literally taking away their food. They're shipping away their grains and their rice. Wow. So you have this kind of multi-faceted situation that's forming. And the people of the East Indies are the losers when the Monsu season comes because they're all kind of kicked off and they're small substance farmers and they don't have, the weather doesn't

cooperate and it's not like you can just go to the grocery store at that point i mean it's it's do or die and so thomas malathus what influenced charles darwin also francis gaulton who was the father of eugenics and led to a lot of bad things all the way up into uh nazi germany so darwin and gulton were actually related which is interesting and they pass they they they pass that ideology to julian hugsley julian hugsley was an evolutionary biologist brother of aldous hugsley the good the author that we know about of brave new world who we all I always wondered, was he a part of it and just saying, this is where you're all going?

Or, oh my God, my family's up to some crazy stuff. Let me write some novels to explain it to you. All right, really wild. Exactly. So yeah, no, there's a lot of familial relations here, which is really interesting. That's a whole separate study. But Julian Huxley is, so World War II is over,

and the United Nations forms. And this is going to bring us up to modern day. The United Nations was formed, so let's never have a war. Let's all get together, let's unite the nations. And we're going to do that in New York, 1945. We're going to have the United Nations form there. Well, in England, we have the United Nations kind of arm there, which was UNESCO. And Julian Huxley was its chief operating director of UNESCO.

And he writes a book, kind of, he calls it UNESCO, is purpose and philosophy. So kind of the ethos of UNESCO, this organization that he's now running. And he says this, at the moment, it is probable that the indirect effect of civilization is dysgenic instead of eugenic. And in any case, it seems likely that the dead weight of genetic, stupidity, physical weakness, mental instability, and disease proneness, which already exists in the human species, will prove too great a burden for real progress to be achieved. Thus, even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the

eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable. Wow. So again, World War II is over. So he's saying we're probably not going to get the world to sign on a eugenics after what we just went through. Yeah, Hitler, Hitler put a bad name, you know, just put eugenics in a bad light. So we have some cleanup to do. Absolutely. And he's saying my job at UNESCO is to press wrap the public's mind to make the unthinkable, at least thinkable, when it comes to eugenics. So now fast forward, we did a long report on the Club of Rome. That's Forum Club of Rome and some of the founding people.

They basically choose the environment as the most important thing. Humans are bad and that's the environmental kind of push. But now we bring it to 2022 and you have this idea here. This is actually a paper, a research article. It's titled Environmental Malthusiasm and Demiore. says environmental malthusianism, the idea that human population growth is the primary driver of environmental harms and population control, a prerequisite to environmental protection, is experiencing a resurgence. So remember, famine is the, according to Malthus,

famine is the best thing to get this unhinged eugenic dream accomplished. And to do that, we need to consolidate control, cut off resources, and always there's this behavior modification. in any form it can happen to accomplish these goals. So the climate crowd, you know, for decades, it's been behind schedule. And that paper is in 2022. And then we have the COVID pandemic. And it's interesting, we have a paper here in 2020 in the journal, Cell. It's written by Dr. Fauci and David Morins, his kind of right-hand man.

And it's talking about how we got to COVID-19. And he's saying this, this is Fauci writing. He's saying, living in greater harmony with nature will require changes. in human behavior as well as other radical changes that will take decades to achieve. We're building the infrastructures of human existence, from cities to homes, to workplaces, to water and sewer systems, to recreational gathering venues. And such a transformation will need, we will need to prioritize changes in those human behaviors that constitute risk for emergence of infectious diseases.

So now you see this merge, these two lanes, environment and infectious disease are merging for this idea of this Malthusian idea of whatever heading they want to put it under, we're going in that direction. And you can see this merge here perfectly in 2022 in the Hill. Coming soon is the headline climate lockdowns. I mean, that's literally merging two worlds together in a headline. And then you also see this headline. This is British broadcaster and biologist Sir David Attenborough. And he says the world would do better if humans weren't here. And the byline says he's branding the human race as intruders. as he explored the impact lockdown restrictions had on the environment and the climate crisis.

Because remember, it actually helped according to summer studies. So a lot of people are going, wait a minute, we can use this. And so this is the Brownstone Institute, Jeffrey Tucker. We had him on just recently. Social distancing was supposed to be forever. He really investigates this concept. But then we have an author and retired university college of London professor, and he takes this a step further. This is in 2024. UN author says, call of humanity only realistic way to avert climate crisis. And he put out a ex post. He actually took this down, but we still have it. He said, if I'm brutally honest, the only realistic way I see emissions falling as fast as they need to to avoid catastrophic climate breakdown is the calling of the

human population by a pandemic with a very high fatality rate. You see the article he links to is from the guardian. And what are they talking about? Talking about the bird flu. So you're seeing these these two really dark ideas emerge of this kind of depopulation via the climate narrative and depopulation via some pandemic and this is a this is dangerous territory so when peers morgan when you see his brain kind of fry and go well that's a stupid idea i hope he sees this because there's history for this and this is something we really need to look at as kind of next step next level when we're seeing the propaganda of net zero and they're turning they're turning acreage of farmland in a solar panel That is amazing. Jeffrey, what a, I mean, fascinating dive. I sit here, and I hope those of you

watching. I know this looks like it's in the weeds. I wonder, are we all as attentive to listening what's happening there? But really, what you're seeing is control of population, this idea of eugenics, there's too many people on the planet, and ways in which you remove people from the planet, you know, we think we left it with the Balthusian perspective around East India. But then you see UNESCO UN making statements through Julian Huxley. I've got to reinvent now. We've got to do work now in the years ahead to figure out how to get us to accept eugenics as a concept again because Hitler just gave it a really bad name. And then climate, as we pointed out, Club of Rome, all that. Climate becomes a thing. Make people hate themselves. So the vote against their own

safety will start taking away and out of climate. Now we're saying, you know what's causing you the biggest climate problem, your farms that feed you. We need to take those out and put in solar farms as far as you can see because covering the planet in glass is more important than you eat them. This is what they're doing to our farms. People, does this make any sense whatsoever? And by the way, don't the plants have chloroform? Aren't they, you know, converting CO2 into oxygen? but this idea 10% of farms, it's a huge 10% of the food you're processing in England. We're seeing it here,

coaling our chickens, looking at coaling cows, China, people buying up Bill Gates, buying up farmland, is it going to stay farmland? All of this, you know, at least, at least I think I sort of share Tucker's perspective, which is we better start asking some questions here.

Is there a gender, are they really just stupid? Because it sure seems like this stupidity is spreading fast, in a very efficient way with a set of these stupid rules like take away your farming. Anyway, Jeffrey, it's this kind of dive that we've been doing. That was like, you know, 15 minutes in this issue. But what we, you know, we were all saying, Jeffrey, you've got to go deeper with these things. You've got to, you know, flesh out some of these conversations we're having

because there's just not enough time here on the high wire, which is why, you know, your new show, Jeffrey Jackson investigates, has been so. So huge. We've been through the polio part one, part two. Tell me a little bit about what's coming up next. Right. So we have, I investigated really the mental health crisis. It was it was already moving at a really bad rate, a really high rate before COVID. And when COVID hit, this thing hit just global alarm bells. Things need to be done. And people are ready like never before right now to search forward to honestly look and throw off and get to the bottom of some of the, some of the worst parts or some of the ineffective parts of our health care system. And mental health is the number

one conversation when it comes to that. So I'm excited for this episode because what I'm doing is breaking down the aspects that aren't working. We know a lot of those, but I'm going very deep into those with the evidence. And then I'm talking about, talking to experts about what is possible. How can we move forward? How can we fix this? Again, a one-stop shot for anybody. that wants to send this to a family member or send it to a congressman or a senator and say, look, we know there's a lot of issues. This encapsulates it. This may be a way for, please get this out. So I'm happy. This is going to be launching, I believe, on February 16th. Super happy episode two. I hope everyone checks it out, and it's going to blow your minds.

All right. Well, let's take a look at just a little excerpt from that. Mental health. Mental health crisis. What was mental health leading into the COVID pandemic? It was really bad. I'm seeing more patients that kind of just can't handle life. The resilience is not bad. For campus, it's actually the center of our mental immune system. And famously Prozac here in America was one of the biggest blockbuster drugs of all time.

Not so much when I became aware that yesterday could make people suicidal. I definitely teased Jeffrey. I'm just so thankful for all of your work. These are exciting times. And I really feel like we're landing. He used to say, you know, it's landing on deaf ears. We're landing on more and more open minds, open ears. There's a movement now.

Even watching, seeing so many of the memes and posts of people watching this USAID breakdown, people are waking up going, what the actual, you know, that's probably what we should have called your show. What the actual? Jeffrey Jackson, thank you so much. We'll see you next week. And for those of you out there, you know, you know, A $5 donation, if you're being $5 a month, that qualifies you for all of the, to sort of watch

anything that we're producing for Highwire Plus. This is our gift back to you, those of you that are making all this incredible reporting and the legal work we're doing happen. So I hope you'll sign up right now. It's super easy. You just go to the top of the page, go to Highwire Plus, get involved. There's QR codes that we keep showing you that you can sign up, become a really. recurring donor. And then, you know, I mean, just think about it like this. What do you pay for your

cable bill? I mean, and we're all doing it, by the way, right? You got your Paramount Plus now. You got Disney. You got Fox. You can't figure out if any of these have a football game, by the way, which I'm going to try and figure out this Sunday might actually have this Sunday off. But you're paying all of these things. And then you're like, well, what about, well, how about, how about just one of those little things, Highwire Plus? How about Highwire? How about the fact that one of these agencies that needs your help actually assuming your government, is actually making change in the world, is actually, you know, bringing back your religious exemption like that has been achieved now. There's only four states left. We're, you know, out to free the four. And working hard at that

when you are, you know, funding us and getting to watch this content, all of that. This is something has never been done before. Your excitement about the issues we're covering, we're not just showing you what's wrong in the world, we're actually trying to fix it with the dollars that you're giving us to watch this content. So we're looking for $25 a month for 2025. It's so important right now. As I said, when I walked out of the hearing room on the vote in the finance committee earlier this week, you know, many of the questions from the news was, well, now what, now what are you going to do? Now what is Del Bigtree up to where I can or the work that you do? I said, oh, we're not going to stop. Let me be perfectly clear. Just because Robert Kennedy Jr. may be the next HHS secretary,

we're not all going back to sleep. In fact, he just represents the people. The people are the reason he's there. It's our pressure that you are now recognizing, you know, sort of, you know, is walking in the body of Robert Kennedy Jr. But we're not going to stop. We're bringing FOIA requests every single day. And if those FOIA requests don't get answered by some department, And for some reason, we will bring a lawsuit. And guess who will be at the top of that lawsuit? Just by the way it works, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert Kennedy Jr.

will be being sued by ICANN. Now, he's well aware of this, but this is how you make transparency, right? It takes organizations like this demanding that evidence in science so that it can come out to the public. If you feel like we're going to go to sleep, anything, you know, it couldn't be further from the truth. We are driven. We are focused. We need your funding right now because this is the moment of impact. We really need to

keep the pressure on and let this government know that's, and the bureaucracy that's all around Robert Kennedy Jr. Oh, no, no, no, no, no. We didn't go home. We're going to surround your building all the way along and keep chanting and praying and asking for scientific evidence for what's taking place. That's what the ICANN is going to, that's what ICANN is going to be leading here. So your donations, every single month, buy mail, buy your stocks, international transfers, crypto, vehicles, gift cards, points, legacy giving. Any way you can think of it, we will turn that into investigations. We will turn that into legal work.

We will make sure that those funds get spent protecting you, your children, your family, and our future. It's what we're dedicated to. We are not stopping. We're excited. Our foot is fully down. Pedal to the metal. full speed ahead, take no prisoners.

That's the high wire. All right, a lot of conversations are coming up around science and medicine inside of these hearings. And I wanted to sort of get to the bottom of it. There were several doctors on the health committee asking very serious questions, but you get this impression if maybe if you're just watching the high wire for the first time that every doctor knows that the studies

have been done, there are a lot of branches of medicine. There are a lot of doctors and scientists out there that don't exactly agree with the mainstream perspective or are doing specific work working with autistic children, working with a lot of autoimmune disease. They're investigating that and saying, look, there is a disconnect from the education that I got and the children and the people that I'm trying to treat.

There is something in the way. We are not getting proper science. And it appears that because some of the science we're told is making us healthy may actually be making it. making us more sick, or at least some of us. Anyway, to get into some of the details of that, we want to talk about that. What are we talking about?

Well, this is what it's looking like. As I understand it, dozens of studies done all over the world that make it very clear that vaccines do not cause autism. Numerous clinical trials, rigorous studies, and review by an independent panel of experts that show vaccines are safe and effective. Vaccines are not associated with autism, an evidence-based meta-analysis of case control and cohort studies. An article from Autism Speaks titled, quote, do vaccines cause autism, end quote. And I'll note that the first sentence states, quote, vaccines do not cause autism.

Will you reassure mothers unequivocally and without qualification that the measles and hepatitis B vaccines do not cause autism? all over the world say it does not. What do you think? He's relitigating and churning settled science so we can't go forward and find out what the cause of autism is and treat these kids. Convince me that you will become the public health advocate, but not just churn old information so that there's never a conclusion. When you continue to so doubt about settled science, it makes it impossible for us to move forward. So that's what the problem is here. Life-saving vaccines are safe and effective. The scientific community has established that.

That COVID vaccines save millions of lives. If you come out unequivocally, vaccines are safe, it does not cause autism. That would have an incredible impact. That's your power. The evidence is there. That's it. Vaccines do not cause autism. Do you agree with that?

I was sitting in the room watching that and I want to say this. To have this conversation, I truly believe that everyone that we just showed in that montage absolutely passionately believe that this science is settled. They passionately believe that it is dangerous to relitigate something that they believe has already been covered. It's been extensively looked at. They are good people. and rightfully so, they're as passionate as I am in saving children.

The question is, are they right about the science, what they're looking at? Has this been properly litigated? That's what's on the table. So I just want to say right up front, my heart goes out to the humanity inside of everyone involved in this conversation right now because they're not evil people. And I hope that they don't see Robert Kennedy Jr. and people like me and those of us that think there's a conversation to be had here as evil people. I would guess we're both looking at each other like, you're misguided. You're just very misguided.

But it's obviously up for debate. The fact that this conversation is happening inside of the finance committee and ultimately the Senate is going to be discussing. This means this conversation is happening whether we like it or not. but to get a little bit deeper into it, I'm going to go to a Maps doctor that sits at the center of this conversation. Dr. James Newen-Schwander, they didn't write it on my board. What is Maps saying for?

It's supposed to be right there. Oh, here it is. Medical Academy of Pediatrics and Special Needs. Yes, yes. You know, we just watched this firing line. Yes. As to the question, let me soften it just a little bit. Is the science settled and is relitigating the science holding back the advancement in getting

to the answer around autism? Well, the science is clearly not settled, mainly because the science hasn't been done. I mean, you well know when these vaccines were developed, what the safety trials look like. And you can take a doctor and just tell them, did you know the hepatitis B vaccine was studied for four and five days? And they'll say, you're making that up until you actually pull out the package insert and read the section and they won't believe it. And a smart doctor, a doctor that really wants to know the truth, will go investigate it.

And I have yet to have any of these doctors come back and say, wow, the science really is settled. I found 27 articles on the safety of the vaccine schedule and how they studied it for the outcome in these children. The science just isn't out there. Right. How is it? What are they pointing to? Like when you're seeing, I mean, they were like, you know, Bernie Sanders had a, what I thought was sort of a comical line. My understanding is that there is dozens of studies that show. So he's not even saying, here they are. I've read them. Will you read these? He's saying, my understanding is from somebody that's told me this exists. We don't live in a world of an orally passed on language and testament. We write things down. Right. Well, again, the studies he's referring to primarily are about the MMR vaccine and an ingredient

that used to be in vaccines, thimerosol, which is a mercury-based agent that was in vaccines. So when you look at those 12 or 13 studies, the ones on MMR, I mean, you well know one of those because you did a movie called Vax all about that study. So that was one of them. But the other studies, they're population studies where they're saying, you know, we had X amount of autism, and then we had all these vaccines, and we added the MMR into it, and it didn't seem to make a big difference. Yeah. I mean, you've covered this extensively on your show. You know, my favorite metaphor is the, you know, scotch doesn't cause intoxication because we did a study with everybody got 16 shots of vodka and these people got one shot of scotch.

and guess what? They weren't any more drunk than those people. Therefore, it doesn't cause it. You know, we call it tobacco science because... Well, that's... Tobacco science, that term. I mean, really, it's science that is done with the end point being the driver. Our goal is to prove this,

therefore, how do we build a study to prove that? This is my biggest issue. When we think about the scientific method, it's like anything. It's like a crash test study. I'm supposed to be able to take. take your car and see if I can make it fail. I'm going to hit it in any way that maybe you didn't even think of.

I'm going to do crazy things to say, oh, see, I caught you. If it's hit at this angle, everyone dies, right? My job is to press it and push it. The only studies looking at vaccines and autism are done by people or are setting out that are funded by farm or funded by the government that's already pushing this product to prove an endpoint, which is what we see in Vaxed. What you see in Vax is, oh my God, we are seeing an increase in autism in, you know, in our, you know, compared to this control group and the timing and everything that's going on. Let's change the study to change this outcome.

We don't see people that actually, you know, go in and say, let me prove how the MMR would cause autism. Let me prove that. And then a person that tries to prove it can't, can't show that MMR causes autism. now you've done a real safety study as far as I'm concerned. Right. Right. I mean, that should be the foundation of true science. You have a theory.

You should then have experimental protocols. You should be gathering evidence to try and prove your theory wrong. Right. Right. So the whole idea of the null hypothesis is that you are trying to create the evidence to prove yourself wrong. Not right. Right. And it's only when the odds of your theory.

being wrong are less than a certain number that, oh, well, yes, that theory is correct. Right. Because the theory exceeds the evidence for the null hypothesis. Right. So they're doing the opposite. They start with the program to prove that it doesn't cause autism. Right. Not does it cause autism.

Which is what this panel just did. And I mean, I don't want to put anything on this, except. to say it sounds to me they're demanding we don't want anyone inside of HHS that's going to challenge this like it's never happened or maybe they think it's happened but we know it hasn't right this is a product that is never allowed to have someone do a challenge study that says I'm going to try and prove that this product causes this problem a true safety trial if I can't do it and by the way I know how Robert Kennedy Jr. is wired because I'm wired this way which is is if I honestly was able to do the study of vaccinated and unvaccinated and

and press it as hard as I can, I would be the first one to say, I have just overseen this study. I brought in scientists to do it as well as it could be done. I set out to prove that a vaccine or a group of vaccines could cause autism and I couldn't do it. Well, and you have to remember, we didn't just wake up one morning and say, oh, I think vaccines are involved with autism. You know, this is from sitting knee to knee with parents who over and over and over again say, you know, vaccine X, vaccine Y, appeared to cause my child's eczema, my child's asthma, my child's autism, my child's ADHD.

So, you know, there's a saying in pediatrics, you know, ignore mom or dad, ignore them at your own peril, right? So you want to listen to what parents are telling you. And if they're saying that vaccines are somehow related to what happens. to their child, then maybe we should be doing studies to investigate that rather than ignoring what they're telling them. Studies to prove that what they're saying is wrong. Correct. And instead, they're just gas-lining, oh, no, you're mistaken. Oh, no, they were always that way. We've always had this amount of autism. The rates aren't going up. I mean, this is an epidemic. You know, if, I always say if autism was COVID, we'd be shut down forever. Because right now the rate is

2.8% it's 1 in 36, 1 in 38. We don't know, those are 8 year olds. We don't really know what the current number is. It might be 1 in 20, right? And so it's very, very concerning. We have to wait for these babies to get the 8 years old. Right. They won't evaluate until they're 8 years old, so they're sure about the diagnosis. Because, you know, you can diagnose autism early on, but people will doubt the diagnosis. So the standard is 8 years old. Okay, So you have an eight-year-old cohort, and then they have to evaluate the evidence for a few years. Right. Because the last data we had, those kids were born in 2012.

Right. I mean, it's 2025. So even if you're talking eight-year-olds, we should have 2017 or 2016 data. Interesting. We don't. They're supposed to publish it every two years, okay? Every two years. So we should have had at least two more numbers.

They haven't published them. What's going on? You know, it's always very suspect when they start doing that sort of. What is it about, tell me a little bit about MAPS so that we know, like, how you're coming into this conversation. Well, yeah, I mean, MAPS was born of an organization called Dan. So, Dan was defeat autism now. Okay. And the idea behind Dan was, what the heck is going on?

We've got this epidemic of these kids. We don't know what's going on. This is something new. How can we figure this out? So the idea behind Dan was they were going to bring together parents. They were going to bring together researchers and practitioners. So Dan conferences brought them all together and just said, what are you seeing? Is anything you're doing working?

What are you doing? Is anything over here working? And trying to bring people together so we could get to some of the basics of how can you treat autism. Is autism treatable? Right. Because, I mean, in mainstream thinking in medicine, autism is considered a psychiatric disorder, meaning the only solution is therapy and psychotropic drugs. But we know autism is far more than just a psychiatric disorder.

There's a lot more going on there. So what we were trying to figure out was, you know, what's going on with that. So Dan sort of fell apart in the late 2000s, and from that came MAPS. So MAPS was mainly just practitioners, started in 2012. And again, the idea was we're looking for evidence. We're looking for science-based interventions that we can better understand autism. also ways to treat autism and even better to prevent autism, right? Because if you have a parent that has a child who's autistic and they want to have another child, these parents read, okay? If your risk of

autism just randomly as one in 36, great, if you have a child with autism, that risk goes way up, right? It's going to be more like 15%. So, you know, you really want to know what can I do to prevent autism. Well, they don't teach you that in medical system. I would, can I assume that that? that this concept of preventing autism is heresy in the political establishment. Because that statement assumes that there is some controlled environment, like something that we do that is bringing about when it seems like mainstream is still trying to say

it's mostly genetic or something. Or are we shifting? No, well, we may be shifting. I mean, genetics, you know, it's like what's going on with cancer. We've spent billions of dollars trying to discover the genetic sources of autism, the genetic sources of cancer, treating it based on genetics. But that really isn't the answer. I mean, it appears to be, genetics always are involved with anything we do to a certain percentage, right?

But most of the time it's how those genetics are expressed in the environment, something we call epigenetics, which, by the way, you can inherit epigenetics as well. But it's how those genes are expressed in the environment that determine what kind of outcome you get. So if you have a child, I mean, if you look at, you know, what causes autism, you're talking about, first of all, you're talking about spectrum, so not every kid's the same, right? But most kids, and it's maybe 60, 70 percent, something in that range, most kids on the autism spectrum have some type of brain inflammation that is affecting their development, all right? So you have a kid that's developing normally, something happens, it creates inflammation of the brain, it destroys. disrupts the brain ability to prune connections, to establish connections, and the outcome is what we call autism. So we know that there are underlying biochemical pathways that are involved with this.

We know kids on the spectrum don't detox very well. We know kids on the spectrum have trouble with certain fundamental biochemical pathways like methylation. And the bottom line is we can do something about that, right? I don't have the ability to change your genetics. You know, we haven't figured out CRISPR yet. But, you know, I don't have ability to do that. But I do have the ability to alter what those genetics do. And at the end of the day, the genetics haven't changed. You know, there's no such thing as a genetic epidemic.

Right, right. So clearly that's not why we're seeing the numbers that we're seeing. And, you know, the issue I have with these hearings, because, boy, when you put those people back to back to back to back, It was a lot harder than just watching the whole hearing. Okay, thank you very much. I needed to take blood pressure medication during that sequence. But the problem there, it's the same 12, 13 studies that everybody's referring to.

Right. They've never studied DPD. They've never studied Previnar. They've never studied Hep B. They've never studied Hep A or any of the other vaccines on the childhood schedule. Right. And they really have not studied the entire schedule for causing autism. Right.

They haven't. Yeah. They have not. And Bernie or anybody else in that committee, any reporter out there, if you have the articles, I'll take one that says the vaccine schedule is not associated with autism. I would sure like to see that because I can't find it. I can't find it either. And as Robert Kennedy June, I think people thought you're evading the questions like, show it to me. If I read it to me, I think he went as far as to say, not only will I read it, not only will I stand by it, I will apologize.

to the world for anything that I've said. Now, Bernie Sanders is going nuts at that kind of, like then, but why won't you state it right now, based on, as he put it, my understanding, based on my understanding of science right now, will you say unequivocally? So let me ask you, unequivocally, do vaccines cause autism? Let me ask you this. Are vaccines the cause of autism? Okay.

Are vaccines the cause of autism? Unequivocally, no. Why do I say that? Because I have patients who are completely unvaccinated. autism so it cannot be the cause. Okay, hold on a second. Hold on, let me just take a moment. You're watching the high wire right now.

I want to make this clear because I'm sure there may be reporters watching right now. I'm interviewing a man who looks at autism all the time that just said unequivocally, vaccines are not the cause of autism and more specifically how does he know that? Because there are people and children he's looked at that have autism that haven't been vaccinated. I just allowed that to be stated on this show. Okay. I'll never be invited back. You may never be invited back.

But I mean, okay, I just want to say, what they write about this show, they act like, oh, they just have this agenda, this whole thing. I'm going to agree with you just from my research. I've interviewed families that have come forward when I was out on the road with VACs. The bigger question is, are vaccines a cause of autism?

And for that, I would say unequivocally, yes, based on experiences with the patients that I see, based on the biochemistry and the underlying mechanisms of autism. If I'm going to say that 60 to 70% of kids have autism because they have chronic brain inflammation, what is that? Chronic brain inflammation is encephalitis. Now, not infectious encephalitis, like, you know, from a virus like equine encephalitis, you can get from a mosquito, but an autoimmune encephalitis. So if you look through the package inserts for these vaccines, how many of them have encephalitis as a side effect? Here we go.

This is boostrix. There it is. One of the side effects isencephalitis. MMR2, encephalitis, encephalopathy. Endericks, encephalitis. What is it? Fluad quadravalent. Encephalitis.

These titles are a little bit high up for me. Inverex. Encephalopathy. There it is. Havericks, same thing. Gartacill, there you go, acute disseminated encephalitis from compavax HB, varivax, encephalitis, you know, there you go. Those are the childhood vaccines in the incident.

So is it safe to say anything else other than vaccines that causes brain swelling in a child, especially in infant, encephalitis, could have a resulting symptom, if you will, of autism? Right, because again, autism is not, We don't do a biopsy and diagnose autism, right? Autism is a set of behaviors that we diagnose it by. I mean, that's everything in psychiatry. And unfortunately, autism is not alone in this world. I mean, schizophrenia, bipolar, major depression, ADHD, all of them have a percentage of

the patients that have those disorders. Brain inflammation is part of those disorders, right? So the issue here with the encephalitis and the reason why people say, you say, you know, how on earth could a tetanus shot cause autism, right? It's because the tetanus shot can create the encephalitis that we know is at the root of many cases of autism. Not all of them, but many cases of autism. Yeah.

Okay? Yeah. So you have this. Yeah, it can cause this. There is a mechanism, a plausible mechanism. And if that's there and you have a lot of eyewitnesses, i.e. parents telling you this happened, then why aren't we researching the heck out of this with studies to determine can we prove that that doesn't happen?

Have we ever done studies? I mean, do you, I mean, I haven't, I don't know if I've really looked at where we follow kids, vaccinate them, and then do scans of their brains to see if they're having encephalitis events or at what rate? Yeah, as far as I know, that hasn't been done. You know, again, the, the, the, can I make a note to our team? I want to put in a FOIA request on. So the issue with diagnosing encephalitis is frequently you have to do it based on markers and spinal fluid, all right, which means you have to do a spinal tap on a kid.

All right, so you're probably not going to do that. Yeah. There are ways to do MRI scans to try and diagnose subtle encephalitis, but this is not the full-blown, the patient's unconscious because they have measles and cephalitis, right? This is much, much more subtle than that. So the study, the big study that showed it was autoimmune, that was an autopsy study, where they took brains of people that had autism that had died from other reasons and actually showed that the brain had the pathophysiology of an autoimmune encephalitis. Okay.

So that's where that information comes from. So obviously we're not going to do brain biopsies. Right, right. And it's hard enough to do spinal taps on anybody, but especially on kids. So they're probably not going to do that. The issue really is one of, you know, do we have evidence of the vaccine schedule being associated with autism? I mean, that's really what it comes down to. And they could have figured that out long ago.

I mean, we have these data sets, you know, the vaccine safety data link. That's where they got the data to do the aluminum asthma study. Yeah. They said, yes, increasing amounts of aluminum from vaccines are associated with an increased risk of asthma. Yeah. Right. Now that study did not have a zero. Right. They never show less compared to kids that didn't get any vaccines. It's always, well, the ones that got some, the more you got, the more is your asthma. Right. They never put in the zero. Where is zero at? What is the person? What is the average person that doesn't get the vaccine? So since we, you know, I've been saying this, we've all been saying this, you're sitting on databases at the CDC of the VSD with 10 million people in it, tens of thousands of unvaccinated individuals. We have, I mean, I'm pretty sure Doge, I'm pretty sure. I'm sure Elon has got an AI. We've got computer learning. It would not be hard now to like let computers.

And by the way, I've said it. Maybe it's what you ate the day. Maybe there's things. Did you take Tylenol right after a vaccine? Like, so there's a lot of confounding issues that may be making the perfect, you know, storm in certain children. If you take it all off the table, you can't figure out what those are, right? You can't say one thing is not allowed in this conversation. Well, and I like the one senator who said, you know, our continued emphasis that, you know, vaccines are causing autism is getting in the way of progress.

It's like, how are we progressing? I mean, to me, you walk into a room. We've been that, right, right. You walk into a room, you know, there's a dead person on the floor. They have a bullet wound. There's blood all over the place. And there's a smoking gun on the table. And we can investigate everything in the room.

except that smoking gun. I mean, that's kind of what they're asking us to do. Right. And I don't understand why that would get in the way of progress. Because guess what? There's no government funding going into the question of do vaccine? We are, you know, 40 years into full protections of, you know, the vaccine program, no liability, no lawsuits, can't get to the bottom of it. We have blocked the science since 2004, Vax.

That was the last study ever looking at vaccine. in autism. That was done in 2000, ended by 2004. So for the last 21, going to 21 years now, $0 spent on that investigation. So to their point, you're halting progress. Well, you have had the ball on your side of the team. You have been running your play, your way, with the assumptions that vaccines don't cause autism. And all autism is doing this. And all you keep telling us is, we can't figure out what it is. Well, how about that ball behind your back? I'll just bring that around here and take a look at that again. Is it just maybe somehow, some way.

There's a new study that got brought up in the hearings by Kennedy and is in exchange with Cassidy's, to benefit him, he said, hold on a second, let me look at it really quick. Now, looking at any study over five minutes is what it was, but I want to look at that because it came up, this Mawson study. The vaccination and neurodevelopment disorders, a study of nine-year-old children enrolled in Medicaid. So you've looked through this study just very quickly.

What were they looking at? So this was a study of kids enrolled in Medicaid, nine-year-olds, enrolled in Medicaid in the state of Florida. So 47,000 kids, over 5,000 of them were completely unvaccinated. So, you know, this is Anthony Moss, and he published an article back in 2015-2016. It was the first one that looked at the whole study, but it was 66 kids.

it was a phone survey, and it got trashed. But it definitely showed a link between vaccines and autism. Show us not signal if you. We're talking about like looking for a signal. Is there a signal at all? Is there anything here at all? So here's that old study, right? This is the first one he did.

This is what he saw out of 666. I believe there are homeschool kids and their mothers were pulled. 30% more rhinitis in the vaccinated versus the unvaccinated. 30 fold, not 30%. Oh, 30 fold. Yeah. Okay. 3.9. What is fold beam for those of us?

That means 39 times. 39 times. 39. And 2 zeros, 3900% of allergies more. Yeah. So that's, this is, you know, if you've had a vaccine, you're 39 times more likely to have an allergy. You're three point times, I'm sorry, three point times more likely to have an allergy. You're 30 times more likely to have alert. 30 times right now. Okay. And you're four times more likely to have ADHD.

four times more likely to have autism, three times more likely to have eczema, five times more likely of learning disability, and 3.7 times more likely to have a neurodevelopment disorder. Now, I want to be the first one to say, because that study, as you said, got really beat up. They're like, it's only 660 kids, right? 66. I don't know why they couldn't have had it in a color. Not as that world's best number. Come on. But I also want to point out, as I showed the hepatitis B vaccine insert last week, 147, children. decided that that vaccine was safe. So when they're screaming numbers, I'm screaming numbers too. 147 children's study is not enough to prove that a product is safe. But now we have a new study by the state that I'm off.

So this study was over 47,000 kids. They're all nine-year-olds in the Medicaid system in Florida. And that represents actually over 50% of the kids in Florida, 50% of the nine-year-olds. So of those 47,000, 5,000 were completely unvaccinated. Now, you know, they also looked at kids. kids born term and kids born preterm. So one of the scary numbers off of this was kids that were born preterm had a risk of a neurodevelopmental delay of almost 40%. It was 39.7 or 8 or something like that.

If they were vaccinated? Yes. Okay. Well, this was all of them, whether they were vaccinated or not. Okay. It was all of them. So number one, that's a crisis. So even the term kids, the overall number of neurodevelopmental delay was 27.

for all of them. When you look at the kids that were unvaccinated, it was 11%. But it's still 11%. So this is what I'm trying to say. If all you're going to do is research vaccines, you're missing the story. Yeah, 11 is still really high. It's toxicity, basically, is what's driving autism, right? It's environmental toxicity on a system that cannot detox adequately and is susceptible to that type of autoimmune encephalitis. So it's not just vaccines. There's other things. But the point is, percent in the group that had been vaccinated and 11 percent in the kids that had not been vaccinated. So that's a big difference. Yeah.

So this is where you get, this is where you get these numbers. So, you know, it's 2.7 times. Remember, we're looking at 47,000 kids in the vaccinated group and 5,000 in the unvaccinated group. Is that enough to be statistically significant? Yeah, the P value. You know, we consider something statistically significant if it has a P value of less than 0.05, maybe 0.01.

These were like negative, they were less than 0.000-1. So very, very statistically significant. Because that's what you can get with these kinds of numbers. So you're talking about almost three times the rate of autism, the rate of ADHD, you're talking 3 and a half times

the rate of seizures. Now, you know, seizures are not something that we're better at diagnosing, right? I mean, kids have seizures, they don't have seizures. But they also looked at tick disorders. They looked at learning disability, And that was about six and a half, seven fold, increased risk.

And then you have, I'm sorry, learning disorders, 6.8, there you go. And then the risk of having any, you know, any neurodevelopmental delay was around threefold. And all of these numbers were worse if you looked at preterm infants. And an important thing here is, you know, if you're going to talk about vaccines and benefits of vaccines, I mean, we know with any medical intervention, there are people that it does nothing for them. and there are people that are harmed by them, and everybody in the middle is what you want to have happened. So it's the same with the vaccines.

If you don't have, you have people that don't respond to vaccines. I mean, we know that. There's a percentage of people who don't respond to vaccines. It makes sense that there's going to be a percentage of people that overreact. Overreact. Right? And those are probably the people who are damaged. Because if the job of a vaccine is to create inflammation, which it is,

what if that inflammation happens in the brain? I mean, it seems just like such a simple question. With Bernie and all of them, I'm just like, how is this so far out of your frame of reference? But it's because they have experts, as Bernie said, my understanding made by the experts coming to my office is this is impossible. Right. But again, the experts are counting on those same 12 or 13 studies. The experts did not, or if they did look at this, they didn't tell Bernie about it. And they didn't print it so that you and I have seen it.

Right. We can't find them. But the point is this is a large population-based studies. Okay. You can argue, hey, you know, it's a population. study those are always one of the worst kinds of studies you can argue that it's Medicaid patients so right away you have a different demographic yeah much higher rate of African-American kids and Hispanic kids still you that you have a control

group inside of there like I mean you could say that if you were just saying against population norms yeah but against their own norms you have a control group inside of the same Medicaid population that kind of erases that but it's also dose dependent right wasn't there sort of yeah so that's the most damning thing of this whole study was They looked at just one vaccine increased your risk of... By the way, it was one visit? One visit.

I'm sorry. I keep saying one vaccine. So, yeah, they were looking, the way they did the study, they looked at the number of vaccine visits. So if you had one vaccine visits, so I'm assuming you're getting more than one vaccine. Right. But the risk of just one vaccine visit, increase your risk of autism by 1.7 fold. So it's a 70% increased risk. If you have four vaccination visits, your risk went up to 1.000.

1.9. If you had five or more visits, you had 2.7, 11 or more visits. Which is basically the schedule. That's the full schedule. You were up to 4.4. 4.4. So this is what we call a dose-dependent curve. Right. So when you have a dose-dependent curve, it's not just correlation, right? You know, correlation doesn't mean causation. Right. It's not just correlation. When you have that dose-dependent curve, it appears to be causative. The same thing happened with the aluminum asthma study was the more aluminum they got, the high. higher the rate of the asthma and it was a pretty nice. And that was a CDC.

That was a CDC funded study. Yeah. Yeah. And that was from vaccine safety data link data. Right. So again, but so when you see stuff like that, it's whether or not it's true, whether or not vaccines cause autism, you should be saying, whoa, we need to do some good studies, all right? Whoa, clearly there's the possibility that the science may not actually be.

settle. Right. Because there is a guy out there who is not, you know, may or may not be a fan, but is asking questions when we look at this group and we cut it at nine years old, which means everyone that's going to be diagnosed would have been diagnosed the full eight years old. Some of these studies is one of the cheats, right? They do it really early. We haven't seen the full population. You're making judgments on three-year-olds, four-year-olds, eight-year-olds, and about now we have the full population. We know who we're talking about. This is looking at that, showing a dose-dependent curve has issues like, let me point them out. Let me point out some of the issues. As you said,

population-based study, it's hard to, like, cut out all the confounding issues that might have been there. We also are only looking at vaccine visits, so we don't know how many vaccines they got while they were in there. So it's not like super-uber-accurate. It wasn't like we know when you got two vaccines. And then, five, it was just visits.

So one of the confounding issues, you could say, is this might have proved that vaccines don't cause autism. Visits with pediatricians do. Okay, everybody, he said that. I didn't say that, so. I'm obviously kidding, but those are the times, you know, that's, you know, but you, that's how science works. But we're seeing something that deserves more attention, for sure.

I mean, they have the data. They did a study on type 1 diabetes and they did a study on asthma. Why didn't they do a study at autism? Right. With the same data. Right. I mean, you have all the data right there. You do the same analysis.

Yeah. You just replace asthma with autism or ADD. He did it here. Like you see ticks. You see all the different categories. Why is the CDC when they're in the asthma study going, while we're at it, just check autism too at the same time? You have the manpower.

We're looking at it. They won't do it. They won't do it. They won't do it. And so, you know, maybe they're under a mandate not to do it. Maybe they've done it and they already know the results and they don't want us to know that. But, you know, with this new administration and it's not just administration, I mean, this whole Maha movement, this whole movement has woken people up.

And I'm talking, we call them the OGs, you know, the old guards, people that were there in the trenches from the very beginning. When they were saying, I think my kid regressed after they got this vaccine, oh, no, you're crazy. And, you know, they were gaslit and just ridiculed and all that. A lot of those people gave up. They gave up. They got tired of fighting. And they gave up. You know what?

this movement has woken those people up. And they brought them back into the fold. It's like, yes, we know. And this is really what MAPS is all about is we want to bring together practitioners who, and it's not just autism, and it's about everything, because all the numbers have gone up.

You know, I went to medical school in 1981. Okay. All right, 1981. You look at the results of things from the 80s versus now. I mean, asthma 3.7 to 6.2, it's 168% increase. autoimmunity, 240% increase, you know, food allergy, 830% increase.

And I love the asthma number. I mean, the autism number, 28,000% increase since I was in medical school. That is crazy. And just anyone that challenges that says that's just diagnosing better. Right. And anybody that says it's genetic, let's look at Downs. Downs is a genetic disease. Look at the increase.

30%. Right. Okay. 30% increase. 0.1 to 0.13. Yep. So, I mean, that tells you that it's not just autism. We have an epidemic of just childhood illness. And we know that, you know, chronic illnesses. We know all those numbers. And, you know, you want healthy adults? You want a healthy America? Start with the kids. And that's really what we're trying to do with maps. Bring together practitioners that understand the way to health is not through a pharmaceutical.

And I don't have anything against them. Do you use pharmaceuticals sometimes? I do, I do. Just make you sure. But, you know, the problem with a pharmaceutical is the toxicity of the pharmaceutical eventually catches up and exceeds the benefit of the pharmaceutical. I mean, we see this with statin drugs, right? If you have heart disease and I put you on a stanton drug, I will reduce your risk of having

a heart attack by 30 to 40 percent. Not that that's a great number in my mind, but still it's 30 to 40 percent reduction. Okay. If you then say, okay, you're reducing my risk. heart attack, that's great. So I take this medication for the rest of my life. Does it increase my life expectancy? Now, technically the answer is yes, but according to a couple big studies, it's yes, two days and four days. Instead of dying on Monday, you die on Friday because you took a stanton for 20 years. I mean, that's not, that's the problem with pharmaceuticals. You're not

getting the underlying cause. So MAPS is really all about, okay, you have asthma. Why does your kid have asthma? Did the asthma fairy visit one night? and create asthma? No, your child is asthma because the immune system is dysfunctional because there's something going out of the gut, the environment, you know, all these things that we look at as MAPS practitioners. And the thing about it is we've sort of resurrected MAPS in the last two or three years because we know there's a need. You know, pediatricians don't, I mean, we, we were at the American Academy of Pediatrics conference. Believe it or not, MAPS, was that American AAP? This is like the godfather of all pediatric conferences.

thousands of people there, every single major vaccine manufacturer is there. I had to take a little valium those days, but I do okay. But still, they're all there. And, you know, pediatricians come by and they were fascinated with what we're doing. It's like, wow, that's amazing. I don't have time for it. Can I just send all my patients to you? Right.

It's like, no, no, no, no. You know, there's only so many of me. How many maps doctors are there? You know, at this point, I can't even tell you. We have a membership of somewhere in 1,000 to 1,500 range. We get maybe 3,400 participants at every conference, but the number's doing this. So how many we have right now is not where we want to be. I mean, basically, we want to map doctor in every community.

I'm kind of shocked, actually, not to make this about money or anything, but when autism's doing this, when asthma's doing this, when autoimmune diseases are doing this, you would think, you know, supply. If I'm a doctor, like looking for something I want to get into, there's plenty of business over there. Well, the, the, I mean, I'm not, I'm not to reduce it to that. No, no, no, I'm, I'm, I'm, I always say. How are there not more people?

No, I always say, thank you Bernie Sanders, that's job security. Right. For me, right, right. But the, the, the, part of what we're trying to do is get, I, I can't imagine what it's like to be a pediatrician right now. I mean, you have 10, 15 minutes, you're, you're, you're a puppy mill, you're pushing vaccines, you know, a kid has a runny nose, you're putting them antibiotics, you know, you know, you know, you know, you're you're going to diagnose sinusitis, put this kid on an antibiotic, you know they're going to be back in six months with sinusitis again, right? I mean, that's the Casey Means story. Yeah, she was an E&T surgeon and figured out, well, this surgery is going to work for a year or two, and then the problem's going to come back because we haven't done anything for what's causing the problem in the first place.

So that's what we're trying to do to train these physicians. It's very difficult to go from a practice where you're a corporate doctor. You are working for a company, and you have quoted. you have to meet, to walk away from that and say, time out, I'm going to talk to my patients, I'm going to figure out what's going on with them, I'm going to treat them at that level. I mean, it's the most, you know, fulfilling thing you can do as a doctor. This is why we all became doctors is because we want to help patients recover and restore their health.

MAPS is all about that, and people are coming to us. It's like going from being a meter made to a homicide detective. It's a big joke. but in the other way. I'm in the investigation side. No, exactly. This isn't a science where it's just, oh, 15 minutes, you do this, like conveyor belt, you're slowing it down.

You have to listen. Every patient's different. I got to do a deep dive. We're going to do analysis. We're going to go through a slow process. We're now involved in a lifetime process of trying to work with you, not just cranking through the mills. It's what I meant by that.

The investigation side of it. It is. Probably not the best. Great metaphor. No, so we have, you know, again, we have people all of a sudden waking up and saying, wait a minute, you know, I remember that, you know, what that was like to go to that root cause. Those are the people coming to maps. We have, you know, and this is what I tell parents, because it's really hard to get the doctors.

Parents can get the doctors, right? You know, you need to go to a Maps conference because I promise you, if somebody comes to a Maps conference, they're going to get their minds blown. That's just what's going to happen because that's how we design it. They're going to be enveloped in a family of people that are interested in the welfare and health of our children. Wow. And I'm pretty sure that's why everybody goes into pediatrics. It ain't for the money.

Right. All right. It ain't for the money. You talk to any pediatricist. Yeah, I get really tired of that argument. Oh, the reason they're doing it is because they're getting paid. It's like, it's not that much money. I've looked at it.

Yeah. Money is not. Right. It's truly, and I meant that about all of the Bernie Sanders and all. of them. There's a true passion for what they do. They really believe they're doing what's right. I do believe pediatricians are in there wanting to do what's best for their patients. They're just really, I think, misinformed by a lack, like a bold and all the statements are made. We unequivocally know this. No, you don't. You really don't. The science isn't there,

unfortunately. Yeah. And the trouble with the human mind, I mean, if you say something enough times you just believe it. And so, you know, we call it the Church of Vaccines because safe and effective is not a scientifically proven point. It's a belief system. Yeah. And maybe it's true, maybe it's not true, but nobody's proven that, right? And it's mind-blowing.

I would say that it's a religious statement because nothing is perfectly safe and effective. And what I find shocking in any hearing or any conversation like this is, can we all admit it's not safe and effective for everybody. Right. Like I mean, the question is safe and effective for how many or for what percentage? And that's what they cannot say, they'll say most, that it's not a scientific term. Well, and you can't, again, in medicine, everything is risk benefit, right? Because we know every intervention we do has a risk.

Every pharmaceutical we prescribe has a toxicity. Right. You know, there's no free lunch in that, right? So why is it in vaccines that we have something that you give a, to a child and there's no potential for side effects. I mean, they know their side effects. They know that. They're taught that. But they ignore them and they say, well, you know,

we've been using these for how long and if these were horrible, we'd know by now. But how do you know that that's not at the root, not just of the autism epidemic, but of everything? You know, we need, you know, there's a group of physicians. We were our autism coalition. It's now called six layers. It's six layers.org is their website.

But what they're bent is, is to understand that we call it flipping the script. So the script is autism is genetic. There's nothing you can do about it. You do therapy. You do psychotropics. That's it. Flipping the script is, autism is a biochemical problem that is foisted on a system that can't handle the toxicity that it's exposed to.

Whether those toxins are vaccines or something else, but that's autism. which means, A, autism is treatable, B, autism is preventable. So if we could do something simple, there's something called cerebrofolate deficiency. It's a cause of seizures in kids. It's also one of the things that can cause non-speaking autism. And the answer is really, really high doses of folate. Okay, we're talking a B vitamin. We're not talking brain surgery, right?

We're talking a B vitamin. And so we know about 70% of the kids on the autism, have autoimmune antibodies directed against the receptor that transports folate into the brain. Wow. Right? So wouldn't you like to know if your child has that? So you could start them on high dose folate like at birth or even better in utero, right? Right.

Because frequently the moms have those antibodies, you know, while the child's in utero. So if we can prevent it, this is 5.4 million people in the country have autism, right? the average cost is something like two or three million dollars per person. So there is a financial incentive to do something about this. Because the numbers are doing this. They haven't changed. You know, we need to flip that script. It's not a, woe is me, genetic disorder that we can do nothing about.

It is something we can change. And that is what MAPS is all about. And we need practitioners. We need an army. We don't. You know, we have a regiment right now. Army? If someone, first of all, do you take donations?

Is there somewhere where someone to go to help? Yeah, so MAPS is now, we are a nonprofit. You can go to the MAPS.org, the MedMaps.org, website. We do have a donation link there, the QR code. But it's, again, medmaps.org is our website. Everything's on there. MedMaps. MedMaps.org.

You'll know you have the right website. You can see you. There it is. Beautiful picture of me. That guy. Yes. So and and we also you know we have a conference coming up. We do two conferences in the spring and the fall You know like I tell people this is here you go everybody if if you're out there and You're either a practitioner that is now waking up and saying I am seeing many of these patients and I want to know is there something I can do about it

You want to be this conference if you're a parent that has been getting the run around And and and not really have doctors that know what to tell you here's where you go So it's March 13th through the 15th, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. I'll tell you, Dr. New, I think this is my favorite conversation I've ever had on this topic. You know, it's such a third rail, like coming into it. Like, I just don't want to say the wrong thing. I know. I don't want this.

Like, we've got Robert Kennedy Jr. is in the middle of hearings. We don't want anyone. Like, everyone is so sensitive around it. It's, you know, would you say 2.8% now? Yeah, well, yeah, it's around 2.8%. In that study, I think it was 2.6%. But it's 1 in 36. It's 2.8%. Wow.

You know, so you, you, we have to do something, right? I mean, there's going to come a point when, and I always say, you know, they say, well, are you going to retire? I said, not that we fix this problem because who the heck's going to pay for my Medicare? Right. It's becoming very personal for me, right? Because we're not going to have people that can work. We're not going to have people that can staff a military. We're not going to have people that can practice medicine, right?

Because you need a skill set that you're not necessarily going to have, well, if you're on the spectrum. So we need to do something about that. And that's really what we're passionate about. We're passionate about teaching this to people. We're passionate about convincing parents. Look, there are alternatives. Don't listen to what your doctor's saying. And what they're saying is all you can do is ABA therapy and prepare for a long-term nursing home.

Yeah. No, I mean, these kids are in there. We can recover them. And really for the government, it should be about prevention. Yes. Right? You don't hear about spina bifida anymore because people figured out folate deficiency caused that. So they put folate in all the pregnancy prenatal vitamins, right?

That's why that went away. Well, what if there's something like that for autism that we could get of every pregnant woman that would prevent autism? That's the kind of science we need. Then we won't have to have these arguments about do vaccines cause autism or not, right? Because once we have the science, once we have the knowledge, you know better, you do better. And then we can discuss the merits of each vaccine individually, right? Rather than saying we're going to do this whole schedule, we're going to do nothing. Right.

So, but no, I appreciate being here. I appreciate the platform you've created. I appreciate the work you're doing. But we need to take care of these kids. really what we're all about. Dr. James New and Swander, really awesome work. Thanks. Keep it up. I know today I know we just inspired more doctors to get involved. So thank you for making that happen. Okay. All right, I'm going to get a little more personal with Dr. James New and Schwander and off the record just one of the things we

offered to you on Highwire Plus. Take a look at this. And I'll see you next week. And that's the wrap. The viewers have spoken and we have listened. I'm Dell Bigtree, and it's time to go off the record. This is what we couldn't talk about on the Highline. With a brand new show exclusively for our donors. I actually want to dive into a very sensitive topic. Guess we're getting right into it. With more personal questions.

I'd like to bring up probably one of the most heated conversations, if you don't mind that we've had a germ or terrain theory. What the hell is this really about? To get the answers you won't find anywhere else. One last question. white privilege. Telling the truth that they don't want you to hear. We're pissing nature off. Is anyone telling me the truth? You have no obligation to be honest with these people. No doctor wants to say that they're killing people. Yeah but doesn't every doctor want to stop killing people?

You have no freedom, you have no liberty, you're a slave. It's silly to call people anti-vaccine. It's nonsense. Yeah, all of that's BS. We will have full discovery power. Watch what happens when we go off the record. You are not gonna want to miss this. Well, I want to thank Dr. James Newen-Swander again for just an amazing conversation. We're going to get a little bit deeper in just a minute off the record. But for a lot of you, I know when I'm out there, I keep hearing, wait, when's the hearing? When's it going on? Is it being broadcast? All of those things?

Well, look, the high wire is your solution, right? It's super easy. We have been broadcasting all of these hearings whenever the cloture and the cooling beer, the, you know, all of that happens, whatever, whatever's going on next week, we'll be tracking it. And when it's time to watch that hearing, it'll be here on the high wire. But if you're like, but I'm not going to be like walk around the highwire all day. What do I do? We text you.

This is one of the things we do for you free. We will text you. We'll let you know going live right now. Here's all you have to do is text Dell, me, Dell to 72022 right now to get on that list so that we will text you when important hearings. By the way, we're just thinking about what's going to happen, you know, should Robert Kennedy Jr. be, you know, confirmed this week. All of the hearings in the future, all the conversations. We want to see when they're live. Don't you want to just get texted? Like, oh, my God, there's another one. You could be at work. Just throw it up in the corner going. What are they talking about? I'm like, you know, that's what we're doing for you. We're also fully transparent. The high wire will remain. We're going nowhere, folks. We're doubling, tripling down. Pedal the metal, as I said. But we want to make sure that you understand what transparency means. And we want every other media agency out there to know what transparency means. Show your work. We want to see we're never ever going to allow, certainly on the high wire, I hope CNN would make this mandate for themselves. We will never again allow a Tony

Fauci to say to us social distancing, six foot distances science. And if you question me, you're questioning the science. I want CNN to say, we're sorry. We're never going to consider that science again, we're going to ask for a study or a trial from Tony Fauci. That's what we do on the Highwire. We do it every single week. Whatever we're saying, we prove our work. All you have to do to receive all of our work every Monday, every single. We call the Highwire Protocol. That's what it is. You know, just go to the highwire.com. Scroll down the page, put in your email right there. Put your email address right in there. And from then on, you're a subscriber, which means every single show, We send you the videos we're linking to.

We send you the peer review science we're talking about. We send you our evidence. And then you can take it to any scientist, any doctor. And if you think we've misread this science somehow or cherry picking, we'd love to hear from you. Because that's the scientific method. Prove me wrong. That's science.

That's also journalism. Prove me wrong. That's what I'm here for. I am presenting to you the science as we're finding it. We are challenging the established, you know, dogma, status quo, if you will. We are bringing science to science. We're seeing it from, yes, our perspective. We're looking to prove certain dogma wrong, certain hypotheses, which is where we're at right now.

I want to say this. The fact that vaccines don't cause autism is a hypothesis. I don't think you can call it there. I don't think it's made it. I think it's under, I think it has to be personally. I think under what we're seeing, the lack of science is there, whether you can't say it's every vaccine because every vaccine hasn't been studied. We've proven that.

You haven't seen the entire schedule. And if that study exists, any reporter, any representative in government right now, send me that study of the fully vaccinated. and the unvaccinated as Mosson just did. And sure, attack Mosson study as you will. That's your job. Your job is to say, you know, I'm going to prove that study wrong. Here's the problems with it.

And I'm going to do a study just like it, but with more people, more robust, and a bigger data system with more powerful computers, do it. That's all we're saying. Do it. Stop dreaming about it. Stop acting like it's happening. Stop assuming what that would be. Stop having to say what Bernie says.

My understanding is. I don't care what your understanding is. What is the science? What is the science? Can it be challenged? Can anyone break the code and prove it wrong? Let the best try. And if they fail, now we're on to something.

Now we're close to be able to calling something settled science. But if a guy like Boston can go out, just take a swath of nine-year-olds, all of them in a Medicaid system, stack them on top of each other and say, look, vaccinated, look like they're sicker, and I can show you a dose dependency. Once one person can do that, your settled science is now unsettled. You have to answer to it. You need a bigger study that does exactly the same thing some way and proves a different result. In fact, I think you need multiple studies to undo one.

This is what we do here at the high wire. We're a science news show. We're asking a lot of you. We get into the weeds. I want to thank you for sticking with us into these very deep conversations. I know you're here and our numbers are growing because so many of you actually care. And I think you're saying to yourself, as I do many times, wow, I guess I am smart enough to understand some of this.

I'm understanding more and more, the more that I watch the high wire. The more I start understanding the language, I start really thinking back because we get so far away from that high school science class or even that college science class. It's been a while. We're not focused on it. But yeah, I do remember studying this. I do remember the importance of a double-blind placebo trial. I am interested to know if there's none being done on certain problems.

products. We're going to keep doing this. We're going to be doing it hard. We're going to be doing it long. We're going to be doing it right. This is the high wire. Before I sound like some adult channel, join us next week. I'll see you then.