The Highwire with Del Bigtree - Episode 417: WHERE THE TRUTH LIES

Episode Date: March 29, 2025

Del’s holding back an epic rant—but not for long. Stick around ’til the end of today’s jam-packed episode to catch it!First, Mary Holland, Esq., CEO of Children’s Health Defense, on the Texas measles outbreak, MAHA, and HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s leadership so far. Then, Jefferey Jaxen Reports on MAHA making waves in multiple states, and as we hit the five-year mark since the COVID pandemic began, has anything really changed? Then, the growing controversy and emerging stories of harm in the gender transition space—from sports to the surgical table.Finally, Dr. Suzanne Humphries steps into the studio fresh off her explosive interview with Joe Rogan. She dives deep into the history and myths of measles and polio while celebrating the release of the 10th Anniversary Edition of her book Dissolving Illusions.Watch now—and don’t miss Del’s fire at the end!Guests: Mary Holland, Esq., Suzanne Humphries, M.D.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

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

Yes. Action. Good morning, good afternoon, good evening. Wherever you are out there in the world, welcome. And it's time for us all to step out into the high wire. Well, I'll be honest with you. I watched a lot of the social media this week. Lots of negativity, actually, over Robert Kennedy Jr.

and the CDC pick and, oh my God, it's all over. This is it. It's a disaster. He's a sellout. I have a lot to say about it. I'm going to be honest. I feel a rant coming on, but I'm not going to lead the show out with it because I think we'd just throw it all out of balance.

So I'm going to try and cool off a little bit, prepare for the end of the show. But I just want to say this. If you are one of those people that would say, Maha is dead or RFK is a sellout, or if you know those people that thought that was an important thing to post, make sure they're here for the end of the show because I've got something to say to them. Anyway, I have a huge show coming up. I've got, you know, Suzanne Humphreys was just on Joe Rogan. You want to talk about the world changing.

Watching Joe Rogan's transformation over the years, a guy that, you know, wouldn't even touch this subject. Now he, you know, basically just stepped on the third rail known as Suzanne Humphreys, one of the, certainly the author of Dissolving Illusions, and one of the greatest scientists in discussing the most controversial part of these issues around vaccines. she covered polio a lot with Joe Rogan. I want to get into measles because that's what we find ourselves in the middle of now. So you're not going to want to miss that. But first, just a couple of days ago earlier this week, Mary Holland, the director and CEO of Children's Health Defense,

dropped by and take a look at the studios, and we had a nice conversation about Robert Kennedy Jr. What she thinks of the first 30 days. I mean, she was there working with Children's Health Defense and has known Bobby for years as I have. I wanted to just see what she felt about the lay of the land and what was going on. It's a huge part of what we're all involved with right now. Are we going to be successful or are we not? How are we going to be successful? Are we going to be critical?

Are we going to be positive? All of those things are very important. And there's no one better to talk about it with than Mary Holland. If you don't know who that is, then you haven't been paying attention. Here's Mary Holland. Mary Holland. Mary Holland, President and General Counsel of Children's Health Defense. She's the author of a new book called Vaccine Epidemic.

A research scholar at NYU School of Law. She has spoken in Congress, state legislators, internationally on informed consent and vaccination. My interest in this as a lawyer and as an advocate stems from my personal experience. I watched a child reverse in their development. I have a young adult son who regressed after getting his MMR shot. They lose speech. They lose certain digestive ability.

They become panicked. panic-stricken with any kind of change in the routine. It was horrifying. What happened to my son is what I've heard happened to thousands of parents. What then should happen is there should be rigorous science that science hasn't been done. The risk and death profile of these injections is unprecedented. We must demand that we will not be experimented on. It is inconceivable to me that an 11-year-old can adequately research and understand

the potential benefit to risks of a question. risks of a COVID-todd. This is nonsense. This is the pharmaceutical industry coming in and exploiting children. What Dr. Offutt and Professor Reese are suggesting that there should be no free consent for vaccination. I think that's a very serious departure from medical ethics, and we have to look at it for what it is. This is not just about tort liability. It's about informed consent. We were deep platform from Facebook. We were deep platform for Twitter. We have already in the last four years seen the creation of a censorship industrial complex and it must stop. We live in dangerous times if world governments and their collaborators continue to flout the Nuremberg

code and to censor those of us who criticize the big lie. We know where this leads. It leads to atrocities. It leads to a legacy of ashes. Well, it's my honor. And absolute pleasure to be joined now by the president, CEO of Children's Health Defense, Mary Holland. Great to be here. It's really great to have you here, Mary. You know, we go way back. I've been, you know, stood on stages with you for years.

Probably the big one when we blew our lungs out in New Jersey. New Jersey, unforgettable, right? Just an incredible moment. I honestly think looking back at that, that felt to me, it felt like we won the World Series that night in many ways and to have and for people that maybe aren't aware what we were you know it was a several weeks of protesting the removal of the religious exemption there and that last and Bobby would go and we thought that would be the last day and then it was still going and then I would go and then you would go and finally you and I landed there the final day the

final hours to vote on that and we managed to keep the one there's like one remaining vote is one vote from voting we had I think they said between five 10,000 maybe even 15,000 people. Some people said all chanting outside of the Capitol all day long. I blew out my lungs, but it felt like in that moment we'd turned a corner. I think we did. We all called it the Battle of Trenton. Yeah. And it was freezing cold, right? And we were sort of leading the chance. You were leading the chance. No, we were. We were both standing there at the front of the queue. And then we got that sign from inside, right? And, you know, the flag was upside down. And then they let us know that we won, right?

We push back that repeal. And then within two months were the lockdowns, right? Within two months was COVID. And who knows whether there was a connection there or not, but it did feel like that was a big win. And the people were with us. And we showed that to the world. Yeah, I mean, and that was New Jersey,

which is really the pharma. I mean, there's a state that is a pharmaceutical capital of this country. Of the world. I think of the world, literally, of like the different major global brands there in New Jersey. It was really something. And there were some courageous lawmakers who did pay a price, right? Absolutely. Yeah, the, you know, the lost her positions, but so did the main

person pushing that bill lost. And that's the guy who came in. I think he paid like $200 for his campaign and he won and he's now looking at higher office. So pretty exciting. Yeah, really amazing. But you've been at this, I mean, probably since, you know, since the birth of your son, right? birth but my son is now in his late 20s and he regressed after the MMR he's gotten the thimerosol shots in the run-up so I'm a lawyer by training and you know sort of said what can I do after really focusing on biomed and it was like oh my god these laws are insane right we're never going to be in good shape with these laws because you can be compelled and then you can't go to court and so if something goes wrong there's no feedback loop so it's pretty

clear pretty early on of like we better get mobilized here Yeah, and it's a, what kind of legal system is that? Yeah, it's not a legal system. It's not a legal system, right? And so, you know, working with you and Bobby and Brian Hooker and Lynn Redwood and Laura Bono and just going around the country and speaking to state legislation, you got to keep a religious exemption. That's the only tiny bit of choice people have. You have to have real medical exemptions. And then we have to have free choice, right?

Informed consent is about free choice. It's not about compulsion. So we've been at this a long time. I do feel like, like 2019 and Trenton was. as an inflection point, we're definitely at an inflection point right now. Yeah. You know, it's been hard. I'll be honest with you, as I'm going to tell you, we've had our ups and down.

Yes, we have. It's been exhausting. It's been exhausting in many ways. But listen, I really feel like we're riding a wave right now. You know, we have Bobby Kennedy as HHS secretary. None of us could have predicted that. I don't think Bobby could have predicted that. Like, that's so incredible.

And, you know, there's headwaters there or headwinds there. But yeah, but this is really about the kids. This is not about us. This is about people coming into this world and they deserve to have the best start possible. And, you know, the program we have just is not based by science. It's not backed by science, not based on science, there's no justice in it.

So we gotta change it. Before we get into, you know, HHS and Bobby being there, I always think of, I mean, you and Bobby and CHD and even before that World Mercury project, You've always been so well connected. How did you first meet? You know, it's a funny question. So I was in New York City, and some of my parent colleagues of vaccine injured children had figured out that Bobby might be an ally at Pace Law School.

Okay. And so we went ahead pretty much without Bobby's assistance to get a little bit of money from J.B. Handley, to do research in the decisions of the vaccine injury compensation program. We brought in some law students, which were going through it. And then we went to the law review, and they had said, oh, yes, we want to publish your article. And then, of course, when they saw it, you know, it basically shows that the government knows that vaccines cause autism. They were like, no, we've sort of thought again. We don't really want to publish your article. I think that's when I went to Bobby, and I was like, we need your help here.

And Bobby helped. And we was also working on the thimerosal book. So I was able to give him a little bit of support on that. He had started. I wasn't in the very. The very first was sort of Lynn, Redwood, and Laura Bono, and Safe Minds. And I sort of admired them from afar, but I was sort of in the second group, if you would, and we were really focused on how outrageous this compensation program is, that it's denying people

compensation when they absolutely know that it's merited. Yeah. So I got to know Bobby when he was at Pace, and then I was invited onto the board at Children's Health Defense, where it was just changing its name for me from working in 2018. And then my law school where I was writing articles and going and speaking in state legislature, they sort of let me know of like, you know, we love you. We want you to keep teaching. But you better like never say that you work at NYU when you talk about vaccines. And just by the way, you can't do any research with our research assistants.

Don't use any of our, you know, any of the assets here, like the internet, like the telephone. And I was like, you know, I think it's time. Right. So that was a big sign. That was like in the spring of 2019. And I had always wanted to work full time for the movement, but it really hadn't really been feasible. So I came to CHD as general counsel.

And then beginning of 2021, I took over as president. Yeah. How do you think, I mean, you were part of the campaign, as was I at some points, and we crossed paths there. And as you said, none of us could have imagined this ending, here. I think we all agreed running for president. I would never have supported him if I didn't think he had a shop. I was going to take some wild set of circumstances we knew. But when I was in the Oval Office and Bobby was swearing in, I just remember thinking, like, this is even sweeter

than if he was being sworn in as president. I so totally agree, Del, because this is really what he has been focused on for 20 years. It really is. We've got to stop making kids sick. We've got to to put our kids ahead of our hatred for one another politically. This is his mission. This is what he dreamed about. This is what he asked God to help him do. So I agree with you. I mean, who knows what's ahead?

Not that he wouldn't be the most amazing president. Not that I didn't support him the president. He would have been like the greatest difference. But yeah. But I think this is what he dreamed about. This is where his expertise is. This is where he has a network. This is where he really does have background.

So I'm thrilled that he's in this position. And as you and I've said, it's not going to be easy. People need to understand. that he can't do everything overnight that he wants to do. I think anybody who reads what he's written over the last, when he was at Children's Health Defense, he wrote, Letter to Liberals, the real Anthony Fauci, the Wuhan cover-up, and we promoted Thy Marisol.

And then he read a couple books since he's been on the campaign, American Values, the real Robert F. Kennedy Jr., anybody who reads these books really has a deep understanding of where this man is coming from. He really does have a vision of a holistic, health for children and real informed consent. I mean, that's just what he believes. Is it hard? I mean, when you see, there's a lot of comments,

and I've talked about it on the show, I said, look, Bobby would be the first one to say this is a free country, judge, you know, as he will, but knowing how hard we've worked, how hard he's worked, and then you see some people feel like they're really getting let down. For instance, let's talk about it. So the language around the measles statement, you know, You finally, one of the first statements coming out of the administration and, of course,

from HHS secretary, and it appeared to be promoting, you know, the use of MMR vaccine, but also vitamins. What was your initial reaction? Del, I was very closely dealing with the situation in California in 2015 and New York in 2019, which are the last two times they ran the measles playbook, right? That results in the repeal of religious exemptions. And we had that threat in Hawaii of repealing the religious exemption. So for me, the fact that Bobby did not follow the narrative, everybody stay home and get your MMR and get two or three MMRs, that's not what he did.

He said, you have a choice. MMR can stop measles. It can prevent measles. That's true. It can. And it's absolutely up to you. And there was nothing about lock yourselves in your house until you've had your MMR vaccine. It was radically different.

than what happened the last two go rounds. So are some of our people disappointed that he would in fact say an MMR vaccine, Measles, Mons Rebell can prevent measles? I understand that. It's a very injurious vaccine. It's the one that really tipped my child over the edge. I get it.

It's not a good vaccine. It's three live viruses. You'd never encounter that in nature at one time. It's a problem, but it's the only vaccine that is out there and it is somewhat effective against measles. I mean, that's the truth. So to me, Bobby Kennedy did what he had to do, And he stood in the truth.

What's most important is he acknowledged you have a choice. It is a personal decision. No head of health services or president has ever really, you know, really drilled in that message in the context of a, of an outbreak. Yeah. I remember we were in a think tank, you and I, a bunch of great thinkers. Was it maybe North Carolina several years ago? Yeah, it was North Carolina in the spring of 2019. And I remember one of the things we were all, because everyone comes from different positions.

I, you know, wasn't vaccinated. I don't vaccinate my kids, so I don't have an injury story. There was injury, families, parents there. And I remember we were all trying to come to, you know, what is it we all agree on? If we're all going to be fighting for this thing, what is it that we would say that's absolutely the fight? And a lot of discussions, I think it's like a half a day. But it really came down to what we all agreed was the right to choose. No mandates.

Yeah, no mandates. No mandates. I say if there's no choice, it's not medicine. You know, coercion is not medicine. Medicine is first do no harm. You have to have the consent of a person to engage in any kind of medical intervention. It just doesn't make sense otherwise. And it's obviously not for the individual's benefit.

It's for the society's benefit, which is social control, it's societal control. So no mandates, you know, no coercion. We've got to get away from that. That is not medicine for the 21st century. Dave Weldon. Oh, such a disappointment. It's such a disappointment. I mean, just, I mean, and I, what's so frustrating is that here's a guy that I think

he was still giving vaccines. I think he's still a doctor. He gives vaccines. He gives vaccines. And I know he locked up with Cassidy, and I don't want to get to, like in the name calling, but simply because you're like, I'll look at it. I will have said for decades, I will look at this connection between vaccines and autism and that just somehow?

Yeah, it's so interesting that that is the flashpoint, Dell. They've been telling us, you know, since Andy Wakefield, since for 20 years, they've been telling us, vaccines don't cause autism, which doesn't mean anything, right? There's a gazillion types of vaccines. There's a gazillion brands of autism. Right, exactly. It's a nonsense statement. It is an absolutely nonsense statement.

But that's what they're going to live and die in. And I think that article from Reuters that got picked up in the New York Times about, oh my God, Weldon's going to do a study and it's been debunked and, you know, Cassidy's against it. don't really think that that was from legitimate sources would be my guess. I agree. You know, that was a plant to go out of Weldon. I didn't share that story because I was like, ah, this is a hit piece. This is designed to attack Weldon. It did work. It worked. It's a huge disappointment because Dave Weldon, I remember going to D.C. early in my journey to hear Dave Weldon speak

at a National Vaccine Information Center conference. And he spoke so eloquently of like, we've got to look at this. He had bills in Congress with a Democratic member to to just investigate, to do a prospective study, to do what we've been saying for 20 years has to be done. This is a common sense doctor who knows his way around DC. So it's a big blow. It's a big blow that he didn't get in. But what he wrote, his letter to me was very instructive.

And I think he wrote it off the cuff when they said, you're not going for your confirmation hearing tomorrow. He basically said it's vaccines and autism. And we know, Dell, that vaccines not just autism, right? We know that vaccines set children up for all kinds of real chronic health conditions, allergies, asthma, ADHD, all kinds of problems, you know, bipraxia, dyspraxia. So they're guarding it. This is a racket, right?

Pharma knows. This is like just the trigger point and then clients for life. What's amazing about it? And I think the argument from Bernie Sanders, Warren, Cassidy, you know, those is this has been decided. You know, there's a mountain of evidence, which, you know, I've said there's an amount of mountain. There's not a hill. There's not a mohat. There's really not a whole lot there. And there's so much science now in studies showing that, you know, a connection. But no matter what, what I think is shocking is that it's literally the definition of insanity. Our government is losing ground on this.

They know they have. They've lost this battle. It's over. People are not vaccinating now. They are really starting to question it. They don't trust the CDC all-time low. And they somehow believe if they just stick to the talking point. Vaccines are safe and effective. They do not cause autism. That somehow are you going to get out of this? I mean, you would hope they would recognize that getting thoughtful people in that will do proper science that if they're right and vaccines don't cause autism, you will finally end this forever.

And, I mean, I guess, I mean, I know for a fact, if Bobby finally does the well-powered steps done the way that we've always wanted them done and it comes out and as it, it turns out vaccines aren't implicated, he'd be the first one to say it. 100%. And, you know, the government is sitting on mountains of data that they've only given us a mole hill, which is just related to MMR and thimerosal, lousy studies, really lousy studies. They haven't done what needs to be done. And I do think that we do know there's data in this vaccine safety data link. And one of Bobby's driving motivations is let's open that up.

We think that's 10 million records. It's going to tell us what we need to know. It's like, who's healthy and who's sick? It's that simple. We've got AI now. It probably won't take very long for Grok 3 to figure out what's going on there. You know? So of the things that he's been in just over 30 days now.

But amazing. I mean, in some amazing things like Operation Stork Speed, right, looking at baby food, something that's, you know, these heavy metal, these reports that kept coming out, like piles of sugar and heavy letters. Yeah, but lead, candy and murk. I mean, not looked at by Congress since the late 90s. Right. Crazy. Yeah.

No, I mean, I think he's done for whatever it is. I don't even know if it's 30 days, to be honest with you, tell, but it's not very long. Yeah. He's overtly saying, I'm going to look at SSRIs, I'm going to look at geoengineering, I'm going to look at electromagnetic radio. Who the hell has ever done that before? Cell phone, statements on cell phones, and watch the attacks on even that,

like looking at it. Like, who would not want studies to be done and finding out that you mean there haven't been any done on this? You know, it's just money, you know, industry doesn't want people to scrutinize this stuff. And he hasn't backed down on vaccines for people who are disappointed that he hasn't ended, you know, the childhood schedule or that, you know, he said, you know, you can take an MMR. He has not backed down. He is saying, we're going to look at this, you know, we're going to look at everything.

So, you know, he's up against a lot. He doesn't have his full team assembled yet. But I'm, you know, he's working hard. He is a really hard worker, as you know, Dell from the campaign. This guy, you know, doesn't, he does sleep some, but he really doesn't stop thinking about these things that he cares deeply, deeply about. I loved what he said most recently is, you know, healthy people have a thousand dreams. A sick person has but one. Over half of our kids.

That means over half of our kids have just but one dream. How tragic is that? Which means they don't have the American dream. Well, they're not pursuing anything other than trying to get through the day and figure out how to feel better. Yeah, so, you know, I think we're blessed that Bobby's in office, and I think, you know, those of us in this movement have every good reason to support what he's doing. If it turns out in one year, he's gotten nothing done, which I can't imagine, well then, okay, then let's, you know, get somebody else. But we've got to give this guy a chance. And I think he's showing that he's going to go after all the things we care about.

But politics is the art of the possible. He is not in a dream world where everybody's suddenly going to line up and go, oh, yeah, I'm going to give away my trillion dollars. You know, it's just not how it works. Yeah. Yeah, well, it's amazing. You've been such a, you know, supporting person in his life. And as we said, this is an amazing moment. So much work.

What is CHD focused on now that you've got? Because, I mean, I've had the concern, you know, I think we all do that. You know, the movement, if you will, behind it that's gotten Bobby there. They're able to say, all right, well, he's inside. the president you know he's inside the white house and we're good we can all go back to sleep and you know we still have a lot of work oh my gosh we're you folks absolutely not you know bobby can't do what he's going to do alone we have to there has to be a moving behind him and i'm so glad that we're here together del to project that we are all here as part of the health freedom movement we're all

part of the make america healthy again we're here to support bobby's agenda to the extent that it aligns with us and it does at this point so i'm all in on that we really sort of stepped out of our original lane during COVID because we had to, right? Because we were the victims like you of censorship. Yeah. Because these experimental shots were being pushed on the whole population from top to bottom, the age it all the way down to six months. So we really felt like we had to step into that COVID space and just deal with everybody. Now that knock wood, a lot of the emphasis on that has receded, the masks, the testing, the experimental shots, people aren't taking them. We're refocusing on children, Dell. It's all about children's health. If we can protect the children who are the

most vulnerable, we'll protect everybody. Right? So we're really refocused again, not just on vaccines, but that's absolutely our primary focus. I'm thrilled that Maha is really taking on food. That's great, but I think other people can take on food. Not many groups have really tackled, like ICANN and CHD have really the vaccine. It's so we're going to stick on vaccines. We also have really been hard at work on electromagnetic radiation. That is a really important area. We started this back in 2019, and we're now pursuing really groundbreaking litigation in this space. We tried at the state level without much success, so we're now starting a challenge called 704 No More, which is Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act, to really go after federal

preemption. It cannot be, but local cities and state governments can't control their own health of their own citizens. It just can't be. So we're working with a broad coalition on that. We've also started to look at geoengineering, to really look at what. What is the impact of what they're spraying? What are they spraying?

Why are they spraying it? Is this something that the governed have consented to? So we focus on vaccines and very much the childhood schedule, but we're also looking at these other issues that absolutely impact health. If people want to donate or see the work that you're doing, where is the best website to go? Come to children's health defense.org, and that will take you to lots and lots of different pathways.

Fantastic. It's great just having you invite. You are truly a warrior. Just keep up the good work. Thank you for having me, Tell. Thank you for your courage. All right, well, it's time for our favorite part of the show. The Jackson Report.

All right, Jeffrey. You know, there's opinions everywhere, obviously, and that's a free country. But what's really happening in the news, despite, you know, what people want to say about it? Yeah, there's a lot coming together. It's great to see you and Mary sit down like that. I mean, these are two powerful organizations, the highway and Children's Health Defense, just combining forces after this pandemic and moving forward. So that's such good news.

But also the pillars of agency heads are now being installed. So we have J. Badacharya and Dr. Marty Makari. They are now in the FDA and NIH heads that they have been confirmed. That's our tweet there on our ex post at Highwire. And if you don't remember who these people are, if it kind of slipped your memory about how groundbreaking this really is, Here's a couple of clips. Here's Professor Jay Batacharya in his opening statements to the hearing committee.

Right. I will establish a culture of respect for free speech in science and scientific dissent at the NIH. Descent is the very essence of science. I'll foster a culture where NIH leadership will actively encourage different perspectives and create an environment or scientists, including early career scientists and scientists that disagree with me, can express disagreement respectfully. Fourth, if confirmed, I'll carry out President Trump's agenda of making the public science institutions of this country worthy of trust and serve to make America healthy again. Thank you.

You know, is Hollywood ending is, I'm sorry, go on. Yeah, no, I mean, I think what's amazing about that, right? And a lot of what my energy around today is, there's been a lot of Debbie Downers all week long about, oh, R of K, it's over. Obviously, Mary Holland addressed that. But I just want to say if all you did as getting HHS secretary was to take one of the leading voices of the great Barretted Declaration, free bold heroes in Sinatra Group, Jay Badacharya and Malton Kordorf, that came together to push against the entire worldwide scientific community, pushing for lockdowns and vaccines and masking and destroyed our world, to see one of those individuals. one of the authors of that moment actually stepping up and being confirmed this week as the head of the NIH, that alone, we should be dancing in the streets for months.

Four months. And were we able to pull up the email? I want to remind people that Jay Botta Chari, the very end, the Great Barrington Declaration, the former head of the NIH, wrote this email that we're going to look at right now. This is Hi Tony, meaning Fauci and Cliff. This proposal from the three fringe epidemiologists who met with the secretary seems to be getting a lot of attention and even a co-signature from Nobel Prize winner Mike Levitt at Stanford. There needs to be a quick and devastating published takedown of its premises. What were its premises? That lockdowns are going to do more damage than this virus will ever do. It's going to destroy people's lives. It's going to destroy our education system.

It's going to ruin the lives of our children. It's going to create rises in suicide, in alcoholism, in child abuse, in spousal abuse. All of these things happen. It's going to ruin our economy. It will not be the move going forward. Three people against the entire world were in that. And the former head of the NIH was saying, we need to destroy that concept. The court sees backing down now.

There needs to be a quick and devastating take down. Email show how Fauci and head of NIH worked to discredit three hours. experts who penned the Great Barronton Declaration, which called for an end to lockdowns. Do you realize where we would have been had Jay Batacharya had the job at that moment? We wouldn't even be here. So anyone that's like, oh, what's really going on there? Robert Kennedy Jr. just got Jay Baticharya confirmed. And for everyone that was, you know, is concerned about the vaccine and autism issue,

well, that came up in the hearing. I want to remind everybody, this is what Jay had to say. I've been told that you have said that we need to invest in IH resources at looking at the link, a possible link between measles vaccine and autism. I've not heard that directly. It's hearsay. Any comment on that? What I have seen is that there's tremendous distrust in medicine and science coming out of the pandemic. And we do have, as you know, Senator, of a sharp rise in autism rates in this country. And I don't know, and I don't think any scientist really knows the cause of it. So I would support an agenda of a broad agenda, a broad scientific agenda based on data to get an answer to that.

I mean, I actually just was told Dell bring it down a notch. They all heard me. I mean, honestly, Jeffrey, I was ranting and raving before the show in our war room. I told people I'm going to save it for my rant at the end of the show. Let me take it down to knots. Let me hand it back to you. But what an amazing moment. We actually have a head of NIH that is willing to say, basically, I'm going to put a lot of,

put it all on the table. We're going to figure out what's happening with autism. Oh my God. Finally. Thank you. Delh, his Hollywood, his, his, his, Bada Chari's Hollywood ending is now complete. He literally has assumed the job, the position at NIH, the director position of his predecessor who tried with all the power at his hands available to him through U.S. government to destroy Bada Chari, to destroy his career, his voice to silence him on big tech platforms. And he rose up above that. to take his job. I mean, this is as America as it can get. And that's not just him. We have Dr. Marty McCari. And here is Dr. McCarie. Take a look. Half of our nation's children are sick. And nobody has really been doing anything meaningful on this front until we have gotten new momentum

and enthusiasm from Secretary Kennedy and President Trump to finally address the root causes of these diseases, general body inflammation. and generalized insulin resistance. And food has a part of it. Food has a big part of it. We are drugging our nation's children at scale. At scale. We have to reassess what we're doing

because we're not on a good path right now. This is a job I'm doing to serve the American public. I believe in more cures and meaningful treatments, healthy food for children, and rebuilding the public trust. I've had an opportunity to spend a little bit of time with Dr. Macri And what a spectacular. First of all, that was a tour to force if people didn't watch that hearing. I mean, just amazing. It's fantastic that he has the background in television as being an outspoken doctor for many years on television. But just another superhero stepping into the space and it is going to bring about real change.

And we have Dr. Mehmet Oz. He's going to lead CMS. So that vote should be happening sometime next week. he passed the Senate Finance Committee with a vote of 14 to 13 directly down party lines. Yeah. All Democrats voted against. So, I mean, these are, these are the margins, really, we're talking about here. This isn't something like unanimous. It's super tight. Yeah.

And so that brings us to the CDC. Obviously, as you talk to Mary Holland about, we had Dr. Dave Weldon. He in the final hours before his confirmation hearing, he was pulled by the White House, only now to be replaced by Susan Monterez. This is NBC News. Trump picks acting CDC director, Susan Monterez Lee, the agency. So she has been acting CDC director for a couple months now. She was going to be if she confirmed the first non-physician that would head the agency in 50 years.

Just some quick background on her. She served under the Obama and First Trump White House in the Office of Science and Technology Policy. But she really, the last couple of years, has been leading the Advanced Research Projects Agency, or ARPA. And this agency uses through technology to focus on problems. with health and medicine. And so this appears to be kind of the low-hanging fruit, perhaps why Kennedy may have picked her, where she can apply this machine learning,

this artificial intelligence, to a lot of the questions that we have, like vaccine safety. And I want to remind people that in 2007, way before artificial intelligence ever took hold before we had the technology we do now, VERS, this vaccine adverse event reporting system was automated. So an agency within HHS paid almost a million dollars, paid almost a million dollars for a three-year project to automate VERS. So right now, when you

have to do a vaccine injury or perhaps a harm, a doctor has to basically file this VERS report or a patient with the doctor's information, the hospital has to do it. So they automated this. They sent anybody with a vaccine that has any type of issue down the road in this window, we're just going to stamp it and automate it. And they did that with 715,000 patients. And they found, this was the quote, less fewer than 1% of vaccine. events are reported. They found that a three-year study. So think about that with the basic technology of the time. If someone, I mean, if the hope like Monterez could come in with AI and wield that type of power on the vaccine safety data link on VERS, on all these other systems

within and these aggregating systems, what can be done? What is possible? And so this is one of the hopes that people are kind of pinning on this, this woman. She has a PhD, but she has not a medical doctor. And Bobby actually took to X to post this tweet after because there was a lot of pushback against her. Obviously, some people wanted Jolodipo. There was that floated for a moment, but was off kind of off the radar pretty fast. But he said, I handpick Susan for this job because he's a long time champion of Mahavalu's carrying compassionate, brilliant microbiologists and a tech wizard who will reorient its, reorient CDC toward public health and gold standard science. I'm also grateful to President Trump for making this appointment. So that's kind of the shake up there in the CDC.

Well, I think that shocked a lot of people, right, that were trying to say this was forced upon him by President Trump and or the deep state and all of the usual sort of conspiracy theories around what's going on. I would say that what I have said that I've witnessed in the moments that I've been around them is that President Trump and Robert Kennedy Jr. are incredibly aligned. I think you can look at President Trump. He has made very public statements, even upon the moment of signing Robert Kennedy Jr. into office saying, we are going to get to the bottom of this autism issue. He has said that he wants an investigation of the vaccine program. So I was shocked to see how many people said, oh, Trump's making his decision. Bobby has no choice in there. I can tell you, these two guys are getting along very well. Just like they've tried to divide Elon and Trump.

Trump doesn't have people around him that he doesn't like. doesn't choose people that he can't work with. And there's an amazing dance going on in there. And it's just amazing to me how quickly people want to go to a knee-jerk reaction or into a negative space. We may not understand why Robert Kennedy-Gene. We're all speculating right now. She has a background.

He obviously said, I care about that background in her research abilities. But again, I think good things are happening and we should try to stay positive. Let's go over some of those other spaces in the American health space, particularly. So just a couple of weeks ago, Kennedy sat down with the heads of the largest food makers. And this was in Politico, the headline that was, this is a closed door meeting, by the way. Kennedy gives food companies, CEOs, an ultimatum. The ultimatum was basically clean up your food, or government's going to do it for you. And just a couple hours after that meeting, you saw this headline get posted.

This is his movements through the FDA, and that would be Macri at that point. RFK Jr. seeks to eliminate FDA's grass, has generally recognized. a safe loophole to improve food ingredient safety. So right now, this is a quick silent. There's a process called self-affirmation. So if you're a big, major food company, you can conduct your own safety evaluation without FDA, without notifying FDA.

You need to do it. You don't have to tell them that you're doing this. And that assessment can be, there's no requirement in FDA that has to be reported that this assessment is happening, and this enters the food supply, because it's generally recognized as safe. So this is going to be the low-handlinger, fringinging fruit here that is most likely going to be closed. They're going to take away the

self-affirmation pathway. So they have to go through proper channels for proper science. Put that to the FDA. And the FDA may even have, I mean, one of the conversations that they may even have an independent body come in using the FDA to look at these things. So there's not this complex of interest with big food. So that's a positive thing. But at the state level, again, at state levels, no one's waiting for Kennedy or the FDA or anybody to do anything. The state levels are moving on their own. In West Virginia, they've become now the first state to have a sweeping ban on food dyes. Seven artificial food dyes are out. This is gone now. So this is the first state in the nation to pass this, this what's called a sweeping ban. Remember, there's been long link.

These dyes have been long-linked behavioral issues, endocrine disruption, cancer. And you can see here, this this this not just west virginia it's not just california we look at this map here it's almost 30 other states that are posing that's a movement right there that's what's important right it's the people that's what makes the difference there as mary holland said i mean nobody's in government's going to do this on their own that's where we're going to do it by pressuring our local governments to do something about it and then that just opens up and makes it a lot easier where the federal government has to you know go along with it i mean it's it's the power is in the hands of the people We need to keep remembering that it's our job to get this done more than anything else.

Yes, and this is plug-and-play activism. So they're not just going to stop it. Food dies or soda and snap. I mean, these are people that can be leveraged that this idea is going to gain momentum once they start having these wins. And they're also kind of training their activist immune system, if you will, because this next headline is what they're up against. Some of these new families that are protesting and going to these states, are meeting the corporate lobbyists. So this headline here talking about West Virginia says Big Soda Flood State Capitol in unprecedented fashion to lobby against Maha. The American Beverage

Association, who represents Pepsi Cola, Coca-Cola, and a plurality of other non-alcoholic beverages and soft drink corporations in America have had national representation in West Virginia's capital, Charleston, since the bill's passage, says it's very uncommon for ABA to send D.C. lobbyists to Charleston Barrett, who rolled his own bill banning synthetic dyes and school lunches into the larger Senate bill told the caller, the lobbyists have been threatening lawmakers with job losses and barren grocery store shelves. So this is what you're up against. You have these lobbyists coming in, just throwing out all types of fear, threatening job loss and threatening economic disaster because you're going to ban some food dyes. I mean, these are the overreactions.

Just to think what happens when we start really pushing on some nerve centers, people are going to see what we've seen for the last decade. And what these activist parents have been seeing for the last several decades when they go to those state houses and see the pharma lobbyists who are just canvassing all over the place. So this is what's happening. And again, as I'm going to stick with this theme today, as we want to be incredibly judgmental and, you know, from our bark loungers in our living rooms, you know, I saw posts like, you know, red dye number three didn't cause autism, as though getting these chemicals out of our food is just a waste of time. I find that to be incredibly short-sighted is the best words that I can come up with it. They're allowed on television. But I want to

just say this. There's multiple things that are going on here. I'm shocked we have to talk about strategy. But not only are you seeing huge sweeping changes that are actually going to make people healthy. And for those people that do remove these products from their children's lives, many of them when they have a vaccine injured child, when they recognize how bad this food is and start making a shift away from these foods, they talk about how it changes the health of their children. The autoimmune disease epidemic is definitely being fueled in a major part by this food. We are spending billions of dollars because people are eating this stuff. So the costs are going to come down. But number one, Robert Kennedy Jr. right now is trying to build a natural. National coalition for change. He's not on a vengeance strike to, you know, stand for Republicans and piss off every Democrat. He knows full well as. I mean, I think he still considers him a Democrat, himself a Democrat in the original Kennedy's sense of the word.

But what he recognizes is I need the whole nation with me as I make these changes. As we make changes, if they're going to be lasting, they will not last. We've watched it over and over again. If only half this country's along with it, it's a sand painting. And when it's all over, it switches back to the way it always was. Right now, with chemicals and food dye, he is building a coalition of every parent in America has to say right now, geez, that's a good idea. I mean, I thought this guy was a crazy guy, and I may not agree with his vaccine position,

but I have to agree with this. I'm really happy he's cleaning up my food supply. Oh, my God. I didn't know that EMFs were a problem. I mean, he's opening up conversations in places to meet them where they're at, to talk about something they can understand to gain confidence in what he's doing so that it can move to bigger and bigger and bigger projects and ideas, but with a coalition that's unstoppable and will produce lasting change, folks. This is a journey. I know we all want it to happen overnight, but we're not children anymore.

Nothing worth, you know, doing is easy. Nothing worth doing happens overnight. It takes time. It takes strategy and we have one of the best people in the world making this happen. And I mentioned up there Pepsi Cola, Coca-Cola. A lot of people don't know, but Big Tobacco got its playbook from Coca-Cola when they're basically covering the effects of some of their drinks, which are basically sugar water with a bunch of chemicals in them. And a lot of people say, I mean, we talk about these things with our team a lot. A lot of our team brings up like, well, I have friends and they do this and they say, well, I drink, you know, I just, I drink a couple cans of soda a day or I eat some of the stuff with food die, but whatever, what's the big deal?

Well, you know, besides diabetes and cardiovascular risks increase in that, we've known that for decades. Here's another study that just came out making headlines. Shock study discovers popular drinks can cause deadly mouth cancer. So we look at the study and look at the findings of the study, and it says this cohort study of 124 oral cavity cancer cases from 162,602 women who participated in the nurse's health study found that oral cavity cancer risk 4.87 times higher in participants consuming one or more sugar sweetened beverages daily compared to less than one sugar sweetened beverage monthly.

So if you're drinking basically a can of soda daily, you have a 4.87 times higher risk of oral cavity cancer than if you're not drinking them but once a month. That's a pretty big deal. And these are the kind of studies. I mean, this is just one study, but when we see what kind of studies have been hidden from us. When the actual real studies start being done, I think people are going to be shocked what they see when it comes to, I mean, everything from our food supply to vaccine safety. This is the real revolution and people really need to buckle up for this.

Yeah, amazing. And let's move over now to the United States into another hot button conversation and topic. This is the high wire. So we're talking about the gender conversation here in the United States. And just a couple weeks ago, President Trump signed an executive order. And this is the headline that came from that. Trump signs executive or banning trans women for women's sports. Now, this concerned federal funding. So it's the power of the purse. They can pull federal funding using this executive order if they're not complying. But that's about all they can do. But there was a bill that was going through the House and it was killed. All Democrats voted against it. Bill to ban trans athletes from girls and women's sports teams

failed to advance in Senate. And this was trying to enshrine this into Title IX. Title IX is sex-based discrimination in education programs. So they're trying to basically say that the participation was based on a person's reproductive biology and genetics at birth. And that did not happen. But we look at the New York Times. Really, how big is this conversation? How popular is this conversation? There's a New York Times poll, and we look at, we really dig into this poll and you look, and they're talking about athletes, the question was, athletes who were male at birth, but who currently identify as female, do you think they should or should not be allowed to compete in women's sports. And you can see here the total 79% said they should not be allowed to compete

women's sports. Obviously there's a split here 94% were Republican, 67% were Democrat. So that's one of the sub-conversations in this space. But one of the big conversations that we entered into it as was the medicalizing of children, often against their parents informed consent and the children's, you know, the children's choice. And last year, there was a medicalizing of children's children's, and last year there the CAST report in the United Kingdom. The CAST report was this expert body that got together and looked at all the evidence that showed, is it safe to give puberty blockers and give these hormones and drugs to children to transition them? They found that the evidence was lacking. And so what happened, NHS England stopped prescribing puberty blockers. That was a gigantic step.

They followed a lot of other countries that were doing that as well. America still is doing this in a lot of hospitals. But now what's happening in the UK, so they said there's not a lot of of evidence to do this. What's happening in the UK is they're saying, well, let's do a study to create some evidence. This is the headline, unethical fears as children to be given puberty blockers a new 10.7 million pound trial. And we have Dr. David Bell, he's becoming out a whistleblower. He's a former psychiatrist. Dr. Bell penned this article in the telegraph, why I'm sounding the alarm on the next puberty blocker scandal. He makes an amazing point. He says, I've witnessed firsthand the grave dangers posed by the rush to medicalize childhood gender distress.

As a former psychiatrist at the Tavistock and Portman-NHS Trust, I was one of the whistleblowers who raised concerns about the practices at the now shuttered gender identity development service. What we uncovered was a service driven more by ideology than by robust clinical reasoning. Many distressed children often same-sex attracted with autistic comorbidities were put on medical pathway to transition by some clinicians who had been captured by trans-isand- ideology and as a result, cast aside ordinary sound clinical judgment, a clinical trial risk repeating these ethical failures. To be clear, the prescription of puberty blockers in the context of a trial would in effect introduce a known risk of systemic physical harm to a physically

healthy child. To put it mildly, this is a divergence from normal clinical trial practice. And that is what's happening. It's amazing, Jeffrey, when you look at this, one of the arguments why they don't do proper placebo trials and vaccines is it'd be unethical to somehow deny a child this brand new product that hasn't been tested for safety, but they're so sure it's going to be great. Yet here we will do a trial literally castrating children to see if they turn out better in the future. That's ethical. I guess at least in England it appears that they want to try to do that. It's just it's unbelievable the double standard here.

And just to remind people, the conversation that parents get, when they sit down with a gender transitioning doctor or one of these centers is, all right, your child feels like they're possibly trapped in the wrong body. We can fix that because if we don't fix that, the science says that they're going to have mental health problems in the future if we don't change this. If we don't use our medicine and our techniques to change this problem, they're going to have issues with depression and suicide. Well, a new study just came out completely refuting that conversation.

surgeries increased risk of mental health conditions, suicidal ideations. That is the headline. We look at this study and it looks at people that have went and undergone this surgery, full transition. And it says this, from 107,583 patients, match cohorts demonstrated that those undergoing surgery were at significantly higher risk for depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation, and substance use disorders than those without surgery. Males with surgery showed a higher prevalence of depression, 25.4% versus 11.5%, and anxiety 12.8% versus 2.6%. Females exhibited similar trends with elevated depression of 22.9% versus 14.6% and anxiety 10.5% versus 7.1%. Feminizing individuals demonstrate a particularly higher risk for depression and substance

use disorders. And that is the science. Over 100,000 match cohorts. So that's what we're looking at right now. And the big question really is, are these kids, I mean, this is one of the conversations when I look into this, are these kids coming into this decision by themselves? Or is this more of a conversation about the power of suggestion by parents and teachers and health professionals? Well, that question is now completely 100% answered in a New Jersey hospital. This is the headline of the New York Post. New Jersey Hospital asked parents to identify pronouns and sexual orientations of newborn babies. So I don't know. it's not like you get a checklist is it it is like you get a checklist here's the checklist

you literally the parents can just look the kids are out of this equation at this point who cares what they think they just came into this world and they get a checkbox next to them Dell we've entered the s and l skit of what sex was your baby assigned at birth do you identify your baby as which of the following best describes your baby lesbian or gay straighter heterosexual bisexual zero describes please specify, furry, I guess. My infant self-describes themselves as I'm sure it's going to be a cocker spaniel.

I can see it in their eyes. I mean, this is... We have woken up in a cartoon. So this is the thing, though, people should understand. If the parents aren't fighting for their rights, the children are going to have any rights either at this point. It goes back to the parents now to decide this.

But really, the big picture here is, this is life-intimiting art or I don't know what it is, but we now have entered a Saturday Night Live skit from just a couple decades ago in New Jersey. It's playing out real time. Take a look. All right. Well, I have the results of your amniocentesis right here, and I've got some good news. Everything's fine. The baby's healthy. Dr. Hoffertz, is it a boy?

Now, Ted, wouldn't you rather be surprised in the delivery room? No, doctor. I'd like to know. Well, no. It's a girl. I love girls. See, Ted really wants a boy. This is our eighth try. We'll try again. No, no more.

Doctor, will this one need that operation? Yes, I'm afraid so. What operation is that, doctor? Well, every now and then, a little girl is born with a penis and testicles. And, of course, they have to be removed. and reshaped. It's quite routine.

Five of our seven daughters have had this operation. Doctor, what percentage are the babies that you deliver need this operation? Oh, I'd say 48, 49, 50, 51% in that area. I mean, funny, but so shockingly horrifying. And really, just to sort of be a little bit more serious about it, one of the contentions that I've made as we've watched this transgender thing

is really what is driving this. And this, if the parent is going to choose, this is what I think is a huge part of what's been going on. Not all of it, definitely pressure from teachers that I think have mental issues and psychiatrists have mental issues, but parents, and it really reminds me of this concept of Munchausen by proxy,

sometimes just Munchausen. But let me describe what this issue is. Munchausen syndrome by proxy. MSP is a specific mental illness most often linked to child abuse. It affects caregivers, especially caregivers of children. It is also known as a fictitious disorder imposed on another, an FDIA. Mothers of small children are most often affected by this condition.

Fathers or fathers or other caregivers can have it as well. Someone suffering from MSP will act as though the person under their care is sick. They often will falsify medical information. They may lie to medical professionals about the health or condition of the person in their care. People with MSP do this to gain sympathy or for attention. I'm going to tell you, Jeffrey, I actually know a few people over the last decades, some that I grew up with that I watched online go through this whole, my child's transitioning. And just my own anecdotal experience, a couple of those people are some of the neediest self-aggrandizing people I've ever met. They just needed attention all the time.

And now, boy, are they getting it now that their child is going to chop off, you know, their genitals or go through some sort of transition. I think this is a huge part of it. maybe focus less on the children and focus a little bit more on the psychology of these parents that are doing this to these children because we've known of this issue a very long time and nothing gives you more attention than coming out and saying my child is transitioning. So I'm just going to put it there. I think a huge part of it's Munchausen by proxy. I think I'm going to get myself a lot of trouble on this show today. I have come in this morning, woke up with a lot of my own opinions. Well, at the bottom, at the bottom of the line here, when you look at it, really, the science is not there.

And in fact, if you want to really go further on this, the science is looking like it is there. And it's causing mental health. It's causing mental health issues, fully transitioning. So that's a conversation, I think, for the medical community that really needs to be had in a truthful way and not worrying about people's feelings, but just looking at what is the best medicine to be practiced here. And I don't know if we've had that. We really fully understand that yet. And by the way, I mean, let the child go through puberty. You know, don't make the decision.

Give them the opportunity to change their mind. Maybe they don't. But then once they're 18 or they're an adult, it's their free life. And you and I and all of us that I can, I will fight for your rights as an adult to make a decision for yourself, whatever that decision is. But to do this to children and take away their right to have a choice when their mind has developed, when they have experience, when they understand what sexuality is and what their interactions with people are, let them grow up and then make a decision like this. It's really, this one tugs at my heartstrings a little bit.

Jeffrey, amazing reporting. Thank you for being on top of all these issues. Just so much going on right now. And frankly, really awesome great stuff. I guess, you know, and so many of us are celebrating it. But for those of us that aren't, I just sure wish they. would join the party and stop, you know, T-Ping the house. All right. I'll see you. Thank you. You know, a lot of the work that we do doesn't just stop it reporting on it. We have, you know,

one of the things, if you're brand new in Washington the High Wire, and we're happy to be growing every single week, thank you for everyone that shares these episodes or even the clips that we put out every week of our show and spreads the word that if you really want unbiased truth that's just going to go there, then you want to be checking out the highwire. But for those of you that are donating, for those of you that make this show possible, one of the things that we do is take, you know, a good, nearly half of the funds that come in go so that we can fight for the issues, change the world on the issues that we're reporting on, the problems that we're seeing. We have one of the greatest legal minds that's ever existed in Aaron Siri. And he has a team

of now 20 legal professionals that are doing the work to make. a difference in the world to protect our children first and foremost to protect our own rights to body sovereignty and the freedom of choice whether the government gives it to us or not that's a whole other story than this legislation but we're fighting on our own for the people this is the latest legal update in an effort to free the five ICANN has been supporting lawsuits around the country to continue to push out the precedent inch by inch that lays the foundation to assure that no No child will be excluded from school because they refuse to be injected by a medical product

that their parents do not agree with because of their deeply held convictions. With that, one of the legal proceedings that ICANN supported was a student excluded from Hofstra University who did not want to receive the MMR vaccine due to deeply held convictions. I can't support a suit and we're happy to report that the court agreed to Hofstra University had to afford a religious existence. exemption for that student to attend without an MMR vaccine. That builds on lawsuits that we brought around the country in California, in Mississippi, West Virginia, as well as another pending lawsuit that we have in New York as well.

All of this is intended to assure that everybody in this country will have the right to choose whether their child is injected with liability-free products. But we all know are not properly tested before licensure and efficiently tested after licensure for safety. Informed consent is a human right. It is a civil right. It is an individual right. And no government should ever take away that right, especially when it comes to a parent trying to safeguard their child

and make an informed decision regarding whether to inject them with one of these products. I want to just be clear that Aaron Sereen and Glimstad, the law firm that we use with the informed consent action network, takes on cases all the time, personal cases, especially around these vaccine issues. So if you're one of those people, you can certainly reach out to that law firm every once in a while. I can as a strategy. We look at specific cases that we think can start chipping away at the foundation of the dark castle that looms over, in this case, the state of New York.

This is a huge win, folks. This is how we do it. We do not usually celebrate lawsuits that we're taking on. Mostly when you're watching our program, we celebrate once we've won. This victory is now a major hole in the armor of the sort of, you know, pro-vaccine and forced vaccination programs that are in New York. You do not have a religious exemption. We've been talking about freeing the five, those five remaining states. And by the way, we're defending other states where they're trying to remove religious exemptions.

But New York obviously is a stronghold. Right now, this case, what this does, just in case you're watching for the first time, this is now setting a precedent. We have now shown that a student in New York deserve to have an exemption out of the vaccine program. Now we can go into a courtroom and say we've won on these grounds. We have set precedent and it starts stacking up. Again, I wish we could win this overnight for you. Every one of us wish that we could just march into New York and many people have tried to march right through the doors of City Hall and change this immediately. Things take times. It takes strategy. You have to have just

the right cases that they just have no way to defend that slowly break down the walls that are standing in your way. And then when it's ready to topple, then you bring the big case. Then you go to the Supreme Court and you win for New York and maybe for the entire nation. All of this is happening right now. We don't talk about the details because we don't give away our strategy. What we have is a strategy that's going and it's working. We brought back. I can is the reason you now have the return of the relationship. religious exemption in Mississippi. We brought that and fought that for years and years and years. That fight was only possible because of those of you that are donating to ICANN and the Highwire.

We don't do it without you. I am not personally funding this. I would have no way of doing that. It's you that makes that happen. And now we are starting to see weakness in New York. And California, we brought back to the religious exemption to college students. Is there every single UC school university in California now gives you a religious exemption? Is that the entire state? No, it's not. Is it the elementary schools and the basis of SB 277? No, but do you realize how much closer we're getting?

We are fighting a battle for you. We are taking on first the archers and we're surviving their arrows. And then they're sending the cavalry and we're made it through the horses. And now we are in hand-to-hand combat with the states they're trying to take your rights away and keep them away. We need your help right now. We are bringing that force, but this is expensive to keep these lawyers in court,

to keep fighting every case we think has promise. So $25 a month for 2025 actually changes the world you are living in. And if you are not one of those people that's donating right now, will you please get involved? Will you please make today the day you say, you know what, I want to be able to celebrate a win like that. I want to say I had some little part in helping that girl or that student or that person get back in the military or get back into school. I want to be a part of breaking down that wall in New York, in California, in Connecticut, in Maine.

I want to break down that wall. If you're one of those people that takes some pride in winning against the man, no one's giving you a cheaper opportunity to be involved than right here at I can. So whether it's $5 or $10 or even $25, whatever you can afford once a month, become a recurring donor so that we can continue this work so that over these next couple years, while we have a little bit of a poorest government, we can achieve more than we ever dreamed. You can do it by mail, by stock, international transfer, crypto, vehicles, gift cards, legacy giving. If you have some other idea on how you could donate to us, give us a call. We are working tirelessly.

Aaron Siri has built the greatest team ever to fight for your rights. We're the most successful nonprofit in the world at fighting the pharmaceutical industry and bringing back your right to body autonomy. I hope you'll become a recurring donor today. All right. There is a seismic shift going on in the world. One of the big shifts is the fact that legacy media lost the election. Simply put, I've said it before, legacy media hated President Trump, hated Robert Kennedy Jr. And did everything they could to sue them, stop them, lie about them, yell at them, scream at them, incense our country against them.

And still they won. How did they win? Because new media and podcasts now rule the day. And at the top of that empire of truth, the biggest podcast in the world, the biggest podcast in the world, is Joe Rogan. And it has been absolutely sweet to watch him slowly tiptoe his way into the vaccine space, to start recognizing COVID, like, you know, for so many, it started really helping him wake up. Then his attack when he decided to use some ivermectin, I think, really pushed him over the edge. By the way, these are the types of things I'm talking about. It could have been food dyes that

did it for him. Ivermectin didn't have anything to do with vaccines necessarily, but what it said is, Oh, my God. The same news agencies. In fact, Sanjay Gupta, who I've trusted his intelligence and his scientific integrity, has works for a company that said that I'm taking horse paste. I didn't take horse paste, he said publicly. He wrote to Sanjay Gupta. I went to a doctor.

I got a prescription. Why is CNN lying to the world? You see, that is a gateway interview. That is a gateway moment. and you don't know what's going to strike an individual that sets them saying, wait a minute, if they're lying about ivermectin, if they're lying about red dye number three, if they're poisoning me and not giving me opportunities to do the things that my doctor wants to recommend for me, or me to avoid products that I don't think it'd be properly safety tested.

That journey, once that starts, there's no stopping that snowball. It comes raging down the hill. And one day that snowball gets so big that a guy like Joe Rogan says, I should interview Suzanne Humphreys. Take a look at this. Joe Rogan podcast, check it out. The Joe Rogan Experience. Your book's called Dissolving Illusions.

I know I've talked about on the podcast a bunch of times. It's a page turner. You know, it's, I listen to it in my car too, and I listen to it in the sauna. it's one of those books that you kind of have to go over it a couple of times just to sort of digest it. I never expected to be here. I just wanted to be a healer. I just wanted to be a doctor. I wanted to be a nephrologist and teach medical students and make the world a better place for people. That's all I ever wanted. This is a nightmare for me. Actually, no doctor wants to be put in a position where their integrity is doubted, their sanity is doubted. I didn't have skin in the game. I didn't have vaccine injured kids.

I couldn't have cared less about it, essentially, except that it was something in front of me and didn't make sense. So I thought, wherever the truth falls, that's what I'm going to talk about. When you look at the historical timeline of polio, what do you think caused it to go? It's essentially not be a problem anymore. Okay. You don't think vaccinations had anything to do with that. Polio is still here. Polio was still alive and well.

Back in the 1940s, 1950s, the criteria for diagnosing polio were going to be. completely different to the year that the vaccine was introduced. The playing field, the goalpost, everything was changed. I read this crazy statistic, and I still can't believe it's real, that 95 to 99% of all polio is asymptomatic. That's exactly right. So polio virus is what we call a commensal, just like you have staff on your skin and strep on your skin,

and it actually serves a purpose. It keeps other microbes in check as long as you don't get it cut and have not a good immune system to deal from the inside out. Polio virus is a normal commensal. It used to be until we obliterated it with oral vaccines and replaced it with vaccine strain, but the wild strains are normal human commensals. So there's vaccine-strain polio that just comes from a vaccine

and is transmissible? Absolutely. If you were to drop a vaccine at a vaccine clinic onto the floor, the hazmat guys would come in. You're not allowed to just pick it up if it's a mercury-containing vaccine. vaccine. The hazmat people have to come and take that away. Yet we're okay to take, you know, set a portion of that vial and inject it into, you know, a child, a three-month-old child.

How does that work? It doesn't sound logical. If you look at what happened with COVID, let's just look at that. Like how did, how did they pass this off? Look at the media today. Do you know that they're giving COVID vaccines to six-month-old children now? That sounds like a religion. And it's been gone on. It sounds like a cult. It sounds like a crazy cult that the whole world's been sucked into. Giving a COVID shot to a baby today is insane.

Three of them. They get three by the certain... You'd have to look up the schedule, but I believe it starts at six months, and they get three of them kind of boom, boom, boom. I think for a lot of people, it's too horrible to believe, especially if they have an autistic child, that this was caused by a vaccine.

Every autistic parent, parent of an autistic child, will tell you this. Everyone that's tried to lobby and get to the truth with autism will tell you that the brick walls and the plexiglass and the lead walls that went down were intense and still are intense and the lying studies that they use to uphold vaccines don't cause autism are so easy to dismantle. But isn't it fascinating that they've done such a good job promoting this that people are going to get outraged at what you're saying? They've done

such a good job. Welcome to my life. And you've got a lot of courage. I don't want to commend you for that because writing that book and being here talking about it takes a lot of courage. Welcome to my life, Suzanne Humphrey says, well, as though she didn't or Joe Rogan didn't need to help, even Elon Musk has re-shared this incredible interview. There it is, my opinion on the subject. If forced to choose between greatly improved sanitation, vaccine sanitation matters much more. But vaccines essentially training your immune system for battle. Do work for all for addressing many diseases. The essence of science is continuously looking at evidence to lessen the air between your understanding of reality and reality itself.

There he is sharing it, which means now you are going to be absolutely viral. Suzanne Humphrey's come a long way. Yes. Well, we have, haven't we? Yeah. Yeah, we really have. You know, I don't think, let me just like, you know, first of all, everybody, we've got new editions of the most important book you will ever read,

Dissolving Illusions, and the companion reference book that you need really both. If you really want, if you want to get to the bottom of this, you will understand this issue. What's so important about the work that you've done is you take on the hard question. Well, what about polio? What about smallpox? And you just addressed it once again with Joe Rogan. How was it received? Mostly, I think it's been received well.

While I haven't gone back and watched the video because I have the cringe factor watching myself, I have gone and looked at the comments. And I'd say 90 to 95 percent positive. And then you have the expected person that says I'm a quack and that there's no foundation for what I'm saying. So, you know, whatever. It's pretty good, I think. And thank goodness for Joe Rogan to do that. And, you know, we're all very grateful for that.

You know, you and I were on the Vax bus. It feels like an eternity ago. Yes. You know, traveling the country with Vax, which was the film that sort of, you know, catapulted me into the middle of this conversation. And then you've watched as, I would say, this movement has grown. I mean, clearly we've gone from, you know, little, you know,

We had our little phones out and we were videotaping people being interviewed on the bus right after watching Vax, which would be tens of thousands of views. And now today, I mean, I think within 24 hours, you were at millions and millions and millions of views on this conversation. And we have Robert Kennedy Jr. as Secretary of HHS, someone that you also know well through this journey. did you imagine when you were sort of all alone writing this book about this crazy idea that vaccines might have an issue Did you think we'd get here? Did you? Did you You know see that we would eventually be this effective that we could take over the U.S. government, at least the health departments? I have to admit that I don't think into the future that way that way, but if someone had asked me back then, I would have said it's probably effective. chance on that. Yeah, like good luck everybody. Like we're such a minority and we're being

pummeled so badly and the rhetoric and the sound bites that make their way around the earth while we sit and try to tell the truth with great detail because you can't just do, we can't get away with the sound bites that the vaccine zealots can get away with. So it seemed like an uphill battle like a Sisyphus kind of situation. So I am surprised. I am pleasantly surprised that we are where we are today. And truthfully, we've all had a learning curve, haven't we? Like, I couldn't have spoken the way I spoke on Joe Rogan. If he had invited me seven years ago, I would have fell apart at the seams because I didn't have the kind of seniority and experience and being able to look at the big picture over the, how many years is it now, 15 years that I've

been looking into this. So I think the timing does seem quite good. Yeah. It's amazing, too, and I think about this, because it's something that I've been, you know, people ask questions, like what is it I'm supposed to do or you know I have a dream to create a new hospital system or I have a dream to this and and they come up to me as though like somehow I saw that we could get RFK Jr. into the White House run to HHS and the truth is it's what you said something motivated it's just telling the truth how it ends up you know if you I think if we set out to achieve something this big that one day I'll be doing interviews that will be seen by 10 million people

it would be so intimidating that would be hard to take that first step. True. Instead, there's something about just taking the step. That's right. So, and I've interviewed you many times, but what made you take the first step, even that this is a journey. I mean, that is a book. I mean, what made you put it all in the line and take a first step with no hope of taking

over a White House? or changing a political system? Well, I have total naivety. Had I known, like you said, had I known what that would entail to create that book and then do the next edition of it, I never would have done it. So ignorance is sometimes a good thing. I didn't know that the fierceness of the vaccine zealots

that would come at me had no clue. So what drove me back in the beginning was that I started seeing a reality that was was occurring in front of my face with my own patients. And then I was told by hospital administration that it didn't matter and they were making excuses like they do so well. The vaccine didn't have a chance to act yet,

that it didn't have anything to do with the vaccine. It was just bad luck, even it was just a few days after a vaccine. The same thing parents with autism were told. So it was happening to me and I didn't know anything about autism at the time. I'm here dealing with people with hypertension, with kidney insufficiency.

So you're nephrologist, you're giving the flu shot to patients. right. I know you've told the story a million times I must feel like it's been told, but for people that are brand new. There are so many brand new people that have no idea who I even am, so that's fine. Yeah. So you were a nephrologist, great doctor, treating people, and part of the protocol was when they get in the hospital, give them a flu shot. Yeah, whether or not I wanted it. That was the kicker for me because I got, I was admitting a patient. We used to do our own biopsies, our own admissions, so I admitted a patient for a kidney biopsy, which if you want to know what's really going on in a kidney,

you have to get a piece of tissue. It's very helpful. And so, And so I got up to the floor. It was an older woman who had an inflammatory kidney condition. So already she's in inflammation. And I see that there's an order on the chart for H1N1 vaccine and the seasonal influenza vaccines and that she had been already given it before I even got there to do the admission paperwork. And I thought, first I thought, this isn't the right chart. And I was like, nope, that's her chart.

And then I said to the nurse, there must be a mistake. Does this belong in someone else's chart? And she said, no, this is the new policy where the pharmacist comes up, counsels your patient with one of those little pink sheets single-sided paper on the propaganda of the wonderfulness of the flu vaccines and if the patient agrees then the the nurses now ordered to give the shot with my name as the ordering physician so i complained to the administration and they said we'll fix this for you we'll put the seat the um the chief of medicine's name as the physician i was like no no no you don't get this that's part of the problem but my patient has an inflammatory

kidney condition yada yada and long story just Did it just seem nonsensical to vaccinate somebody that was that unhealthy? Was that the simple perspective you were having? Why were you against it at all? Okay, well, the first thing, okay, so that was like the really bad situation. But before that, I had a patient sitting in front of me. I had been off for the weekend. I came in.

I lived in Maine. It's a tourist state. So you have people coming up for temporary dialysis because they have a house out in Bar Harbor or wherever. So I had a patient sitting there and I said, how long have you been on dialysis? And he said, I've never been on dialysis before. No one's listening to me. You know, my kidneys were fine. I was healthy.

I was fine until I had that shot. And I was like, okay. All right, let's back up for a second. What shot? And he said, which shot it was? And I thought, all right, well, as a nephrologist, if I have a patient that had a statin or an antibiotic like gentomycin who had kidney failure or a myriad of other non-steroid anti-inflammatory agents, stop it.

Everyone says, yes, doctor, we will stop it because that's what has to be done. So I went and looked and sure enough, I found it first time in my entire career that I looked at the relationship between vaccines and kidney failure. And I found that it does happen. It happens often. There are dozens of case reports back then and that there was some sort of understanding of the pathophysiology. So, look, flu vaccines are inflammatory. That's how they work. That's not controversial.

So do you want to put something inflammatory in a patient that already has such inflammation that you're going to have them on high doses of prednisone? and immune suppressing drugs that suppress their white blood cells and leave them open to all kinds of serious infections. Do I want to add to that? No. And I also knew that vaccines, I learned during that time, that they alter your coagulation profile. And there's been a lot of research into that.

And then after that, I had some patients get biopsied that bled afterwards and had big hematomas around their kidneys and required transfusions. And so after that, I started to look at the vaccine histories when I was called up on the floor. And the more you look, the more you see. And the more I saw, the more I just couldn't believe. I'd missed it all these years, A, number one.

Number two is that if all doctors took a vaccine history, they would make the same associations I would make. But it happened to be that the patients told me what happened. And why nobody else listens when a patient tells them that happened? I don't know. I think that's stupid because most of the time an adult patient can even tell you what's wrong with them. And a parents can tell you what's wrong with their kid. They can lead you on it.

They can save you a lot of work. So I was ridiculed. I was told I was wrong. And so I wrote a white paper with like over 40 medical references. It's still out there on the Internet. It's on my website. And I submitted it to all of the heads of the departments and the CEOs. And they didn't know how to deal with me at that point.

So they hired somebody from New Hampshire, a vaccine senior guy, who wrote me a letter. And his, how should I say, his reassurance to me about. why it's safe to give my patients flu shots when they're in kidney failure is because they give flu shots to people with AIDS and HIV and they mount antibodies. And this is all, I have the actual letter to me in a video called Honesty versus Policy that you can find on Odyssey. So everything I'm saying, we can't get away with making stuff up, can we tell? Yeah, sure. Right. So everything that I say I have to back up in black and white and it's out there. So that was kind of my initiation into the lunacy of the bad.

that we were in back then and that we're here today. Yeah. And amazing. And that, of course, leads you on to a journey and you are, I think what's amazing about the work that you've done is you're so well researched and you won't talk about things until you've really, you dive deep into it. I've already really, always really respect and appreciated that. We could talk for days.

You just covered polio brilliantly with Joe Rogan, so I don't need to get into that. And of course, you were already part of the great polio documentary, part one and two. Yeah, that was really, came out. Beautiful, didn't it? Yeah, it really came out great. But I wanted to talk about measles. Which, you know, surprising that Joe Rogan didn't cover it. I'm glad we have something to talk about because it's really important.

This has always been sort of the hot button issue. I feel like in many ways, and maybe you know more, it seems this measles vaccine really is the heart of the childhood vaccine program. Is that a correct assumption? It seems like it all sort of pins on to. to that being this critical advancement in health for children. Sure. And that's because of the era that we're living in. Like if we were back in the 1800s, it would have been smallpox.

If you were in the early 1900s to mid-1900s, it would have been polio. Because the foundations and the security of the vaccination programs are based upon us having full belief on any doubts, whether or not well-founded, not being able to exist, as I say, over and over again, from the Federal Register from 19- That is the background. So today we're faced with measles and we're faced with a generation who had measles as children and who were going, wait a minute, what's up with that? And so whenever there is, look, there have been measles, you know this, there have been measles outbreaks in 2019. You know how many cases of measles that were in this country? Like little less than 2000, I think. So whenever there's, and 2015 is kind of when I started looking into it.

We had a measles outbreak then where we had Kathleen Sebelius and the cast of characters lying to the public and saying, scaring everybody into getting vaccinated. So it seems to crop up every now and again. My belief is that because there are so many people with children with autism who have said it happened after the MMR. And we had Andy Wakefield, who of course, you know, they, as character assassinated and villainized

and brought up on every interview we ever did as why we're not credible because Andy Wakefield. Now we have because Robert Kennedy. You know, they always have to have their guy that they put up as the wrong person that makes us all wrong. And I think it has to do with that, I think personally,

I never thought about this before until just now, but that's why they're probably doing... It's the one that's pointed out. They can't win the mumps argument. That mumps argument is so lost. And the rebella argument, still, not a good one. They're going to try to win the measles argument because it is a vaccine that has seemingly decreased the transmission of measles. Although, as you said, I saw your toy soldiers that you've done in the past. You know, what's really happened is that we're all paying the price for that today.

And yeah. at the heart of the argument that they make. You know, we bet, and I say we come at them, and then they have their final position. You know, their final position on autism, as it's always been here, we're just diagnosing it better. Genetic. Yeah, it's genetic, which is the dumbest argument.

But to me, it's always... They got away with it. Well, but we're seconds away from winning it. If that's the last piece of land you're holding on to, I'd lose for you your days or not. Yeah, there's genetic academics. That is very easy to refute. It seems like in this measles vaccine space, they're going back to this talking point that you don't want the measles.

Because, you know, most of these outbreaks, like the one here in Texas, is people having measles party. Let's just be honest. You know, the Mennonites are having measles parties. When it was up in New York, the Hasidic Jewish community was having measles parties. They wanted it. They know how panicked everyone is about it. And they know once their kids have had this once, the government will be out of their hair the rest of their lives because they're never going to have to get. anything. They're going to have lifelong immunity, something the vaccine cannot actually confer.

But the argument is, well, live measles when you catch it, erases all of your immunity. It erases all of your other immunity. So all those illnesses you might have had as a kid that you have immunity to, now it's just wiped out by measles. This is something that it's come up. And by the way, it's one of those I don't have an answer for. When that has come up, I was like, ooh, they finally found, you know, Astell Anything. Oh, no. Where I don't really own that.

So I wonder if you could help me own this. What is it with this measles, you know, erasing memory? Have you looked into that? Yeah, I might have looked into that a little bit. Okay. Yeah. And isn't it funny that there are doctors that are like 70, 80, 90 years old? And what a slap in the face to all those doctors in the past that, you know, there's no way.

If that actually happened, they would have seen it. Yeah. For this, I have to put my glasses on. Okay. And because we can't get away with just shooting the breeze here about this, I want to put up PMID numbers. That's PubMed. You go, you put in the exact numbers that I put up. You will get at least the abstract article.

If you can't get it, I'm going to give you guys all the articles. We also, everyone, just so you know, one of the best things that we do here on the high wire is we call it the high wire protocol, which is we show you our, we show you our math, as it were. by Monday every single week, we will give you links to every single thing you see on the show. If it's a link to a video, if it's an article, if it's in this case a PubMed article of Susan Humphreys, you don't have to memorize the numbers because if you are signed up, it will be in your inbox, and you will have it right there totally for free. This is one of the things that we offer to you. So just scroll down if you're on the high wire or I can.

You just scroll down to the middle of the page where it asks you, I think it says Brave, bold news you just type in your email and we will get you all of the science that we're about to walk through right now with Suzanne Humphreys all right so yes and and because it's actually it's it's very complicated and I have a decent memory yeah to really remember these nuances I have to do a little bit of reading and I've tried to limit it as much as I can okay your people have all my slides and so they'll be able to put them up yeah so yeah so we just talked about that this 2015 was when kind of we since you and I have been in this yeah

situation. We saw that outbreak that started in Disneyland. Right. And the world was suddenly informed that measles infection was worse than anyone had ever noticed before, that it resulted in immune amnesia and can take the immune system of the person with measles back to newborn status, okay? Okay. So this article that I'm going to talk about, yeah, we don't have a copy of it here, but they'll have, they'll show you. This article wasn't, it wasn't some spontaneous epiphany, okay?

It was part of... The long-term measles induced immune, no modulation increases. Yeah, yeah. All Child Infectious Disease Mortality. Yeah. Science. Yeah. And so it was a very carefully orchestrated plan to create that article.

Okay. And it piggybacked the whole Disneyland situation. And Forbes magazine put out a lot of cluster bombs, very highly organized using an organization, MUGAS, that took a whole cast of characters from around the globe. And the message to parents was, it was very, very simple. It was that measles resets the immune system to baby-like state. Like, they like to keep it simple, right? It resets your immune system, right? Your baby's going to die.

We know about all these sound bites. So to get my head around the study, I had to read the original article by a medical student named Michael Mina. And he was backed by Bill Gates and DARPA. Okay. Okay. And an infamous, I call him a spook named Ab Osterhaus out of the Netherlands. And so I read every single reference in the original paper. And it was a pile probably about that tall.

It was daunting. I hated it. And I'm not a first-time reader that I absorbed things. So I had to read them several times. Okay, so I read the works of the other related authors as well. I looked at the historical data, because that's what Roman and I do, of not just measles, but other infections, the ones everyone was supposed to be dying of. And so I accessed the Denmark data base that he selectively chose. So Mina and the gang selectively chose Denmark and only certain years that suited themselves. and they ignored the entire swath of data that would have resulted in a totally different result. Really? Okay? So the facts from pre-2015 medical literature, historical death, and infection trends do not support his hypothesis.

So in 2015, in Denmark, I was there. I toured all of Scandinavia in 2015. It was amazing. And I discussed the primary paper all of the references in a two-hour video. And I discussed the role of his co-author, Osterhaus, and I discussed the role of his co-author, Osterhaus. I attempted to unravel the motives of the authors and the historical medical facts that really do exist on the issue. And the original paper, we'll get to in a minute, but the manufactured consent is the video. So these amazing people came over from Finland, and they videotaped the whole thing. They were called Canal Second Opinion.

I think it means channel in Finnish, Second Opinion. And they have it somewhere, but I couldn't find it. So my apologies to them, I put it on my Odyssey Channel. I don't get any money for people clicking or anything like that. So if they're out here listening to me, I'll happily give you a shout out on my social media. But these people did a beautiful video of all. I think it was three parts, and it was over two hours long.

So you can go and watch that afterward if anyone's interested in doing an even deeper dive on this. And so there's this medical student that wrote the article that you just had up with that very impressive title. You even stumbled a little over that in a modulation, right? And they want you to do that. Trust me. They just want doctors to look at it and go, it must be right. Trust you. Yeah.

So the study, like I said, was partially funded by the Gates Foundation. They were advanced Microsoft graphics that were absolutely visually stunning, but they were so complex and intimidating that even people that I know that know statistics and should be able to understand this kind of stuff were at a bit of a loss with that. Yeah. So like I said, the lead author was a medical student. I mean, to be fair to him, he was also studying for Ph.D. So he was one of those MD PhD kids, right? And he certainly, in my opinion, seemed to know very little bit about measles in any real world context, or even the carefully designed immunological blueprint of our bodies and how cellular immunity functions

and why that's important. And if he really wanted to look at this. So by his own admission, he says, and I put a picture of him on one of the slides because I thought it was pretty apt that he got taken with a chicken hat. But by his own admission, he loves fiddling with stats. using mathematical modeling. And so let's just have a look at this. So it's very clear that the authors target,

when you really look at the paper, and I've underlined that there, they were non-vaccinating parents. It starts with it, it ends with it, vaccine hesitation, blah, blah, blah. They're the ones that are putting us all at risk. Not only that, but they're so silly, they don't even know that they're setting their own children's immune system back.

So it sets out with an agenda, not just to see how people lands. Well, certainly seems that way. That's the actual paper there. Yeah. So the important thing to the authors was to give parents a very simple explanation. We know the sound bite. So this is what the public was told. It was told that measles infection ablates all previous immunity and is the cause of non-measles infectious disease deaths for three years after the measles.

And that the measles vaccines prevent this. Okay. So that was kind of this, the overarching hypothesis and their fancy data that they had to hunt to just the right segment. to just the right segment to look at in order to prove that is all in there. Okay, so the problem with their hypothesis is that someone you're familiar with, Dr. Peter Abbe, so is that long-term immune suppression after measles disease was never a real problem. And we know that. The world's leading authority on non-specific effects of vaccine.

So non-specific effects can be good and they can be bad. Okay, so we'll talk more about that in the minute. It tells us where this idea came from. And it rose from a vaccine crisis that occurred after a very high dose measles vaccine was given to four-month-old infants in Africa because they thought, well, we can make this better if we just give them even higher, tighter, we can override the mother's maternal antibodies. That didn't go very well. So the vaccine was associated with a twice higher death rate in those babies in the years that followed. So people thought, okay, well, the vaccine suppressed the immune system for that long time. That must be the cause of their higher death. And then they thought maybe the disease does the same thing. Interesting.

So it was a vaccinated problem, a high-dose vaccine that caused an issue that wiped out the immune system of children, made them vulnerable to other diseases. And so they said, let's turn that and see if we can show that the virus itself does that. That's right. And fair enough, like Dr. Abbe, you know, I have some good things to say about him and I have some real hesitations on him. He's very interesting. I use him in a lot of my talks. And what I like about him is he's totally unbiased. highest, right? I mean, I think, I think he shows, I mean, what I mean is he clearly comes out

against vaccines he doesn't think are working and stands for ones that he believes he's proven are working. I think we can challenge. He's the best of a bad batch. I'll give him that. Well, all right, we'll go with that. I can say that. Maybe you can. Okay, but it turns whatever I want, I just I've watched you. You can? Yeah. So it turned out that the high dose measles vaccine was not completely responsible for all those long-term deaths. It had something to do with it, but it was also that there were D.P.T. Back in the D.P.T. not the D.T.A.P. vaccines that were given after the high-dose measles vaccines, which altered the children's immune systems and made them more susceptible to potentially fatal infections.

So what Abbe did find was that the measles infection itself does not relate to higher long-term mortality. Okay. He found that. And he was actually a reviewer of this article. And I think I'm not happy with his review. It's okay. But I think he could have come out a bit stronger. They ignored his review, by the way. So he might as well have said whatever he wanted.

So he basically proved that it does not relate to higher long-term mortality. And so here's Abby's original conclusion. This is from the paper. I've got three slides on this particular paper. And his conclusion, several of his studies showed how much better children who had had measles survived over the few years following infection compared to the uninfected controls. Okay. And the quote is, children, no, sorry, I didn't, the quote's coming up in a minute,

but children who Mina purported, Mina that original paper that we were just talking about, would have had an immune system set back to babyhood actually did better than children's whose immune systems were just regular, okay? Not affected by a vaccine or a measles infection. Interesting. Right. So the study looked at long-term mortality over a four-year period in measles exposed children after an epidemic. And they based it on blood testing, and they were categorized as either measles cases, subclinical measles cases, or uninfected contacts.

Measles survivors did better long-term than children who didn't get measles at all. And most of those measles cases who did better were not vaccinated. Wow. There were no deaths from measles in this study. Let me just go back and make sure there's nothing. Yeah, I think I don't want to miss anything. So the study is called low mortality after mild measles infection compared to uninfected children in rural West Africa. They found that measles infected children did better during the four years.

Only one out of 66 of the children of the cases died. I guess that was during the acute infection. and there were 10.1% 15 out 149 in the uninfected. So that was the long term and that there were no acute, sorry, there were no acute deaths. No acute deaths, but there was one case death that died, one out of 66. Okay, but now we've got some more data, so don't get hung up on that one person. So this graph shows you the higher survival probability for having measles or subclinical measles. And so that's seen on the top line.

Yeah. So we're looking at survival over on the Y or the left side, compared. to those who had been exposed, but had no or only a slight immunity boost on the bottom line. Okay. And the difference between them was actually huge, as reflected in the mortality ratios of 0.14 for children with clinical measles. Now, what does mortality ratio mean? If you have a mortality ratio of 1.0, that would mean there was no difference between the groups. Okay.

If you had a mortality ratio higher than 1.0, that would mean that more children were dying that had measles. Okay. You had a mortality ratio lower than 1. It was 0.14. So it's way down there. Hugely way down there. So that's a very low number. It infers a huge benefit of infection. So Dr. Abbey realized that not just measles vaccines, but measles infection has a robust positive

effect on the immune system and that surviving measles was not associated with a higher, long-term death rate. So according to Abbe, even in the poorest places, children who survived infection, which in this study was all of them because we're dealing with these poor African countries, that they did not have a higher death rate from other diseases later. Okay, so that's, you know, Mina's out the window already, right? But we can kick them out even farther, out into the next town. Yeah. Okay. So right here, Roman and I and lots of other people, we are not the first people to come along and look at this data, but we've shown that the acute measles death rate in developed countries was near zero before

the vaccine came into use. But even in impoverished African countries like Senegal, Dr. Peter Abbe found that there was no long-term mortality following measles disease in yet another paper. The mortality ratio was 0.27 in the infected index cases. So that slides there now. So that pretty much says what I just said. And in another paper called Is Measles Good for Something, Abbe said the above, quote. He said, contrary to current assumptions, children who survive the acute phase of measles infection may have a survival advantage compared with unimmunized.

uninfected children, hence both disease and immunization may be associated with non-specific beneficial effects, presumably due to some form of immunostimulation. Right. Okay? So Denmark and all the other countries that Mina studied would be the countries where survival of the acute infection would be nearly universal. That one in 66 wouldn't have happened in Denmark and these other countries. And all these studies were deliberate... To point out in America when we've done this stat, but it's roughly one in ten thousand.

infected would die in America, one in 500,000 of the population, that the population level is the stats that we see prior to the vaccine arriving in America. And that's even when people didn't really know how to treat measles as far as I'm concerned. Right. We'll get to that too. Yeah. So all these studies were absolutely ignored by Amina's people because the report was to unveil. Well, why let a fact get in a way of a good story? That's, well, and the propaganda, which I'm going to show you right now, because this was the propaganda. The new concept that after you have a measles.

infection, you are no longer immune to all the deadly diseases you were previously immune to, right? So I think the authors looked at each other and they said, well, what the public doesn't know won't matter. No one's going to bother and go read all those references except some lunatic that left nephrology or any of Abbe's other work. We know the media will print whatever we say, so that's pretty much what happened. In my other talk I get into Deborah McKenzie and how she's related to the whole Mugas.

She was with a hired hand reporter. I'd love to look at her bank account. But the focus wasn't just to doctors because doctors just do as they're told. They say, oh, what are we supposed to do? How do we pass the exam? What's the standard of care? What's the gold standard? We don't have to worry about doctors.

They're easy. OK, so as parents, those pesky parents that start reading. So the focus of the article was towards scaring the wits out of parents. And in particular, parents who didn't vaccinate their children. So the problem was quickly identified, as you can see in this shot right here, this I Slide 17. This is often painted as a trivial disease by the anti-vaccination movement. People have watched me do that on this show very specifically.

It is not. It kills or causes brain damage in two or three out of every 1,000 cases, even in wealthy countries. Here's another reason it isn't trivial. Having measles destroys your immunity to other diseases, and some of those are far more deadly. The measles virus is known to kill the white blood cells that have a memory of past infections. All right. Nice, right? Yeah, good.

It's effective. Good for a reporter to have that deep understanding. Yeah. She understood the paper, apparently. Why I couldn't? So they used figures that were taken from some imaginary source, like I said, because anyone who studied the case numbers, the complications and the deaths from measles in any single high-income country knows that the death rate, they quoted, would only have been seen in the

1800s or maybe the Great Depression or the Mississippi Delta. So with tainted water, with no sanitation, food deprivation, vitamin C and A deficiencies. Working 13 hours a day in coal mines in chemical laundering factories. Yeah, all that, the London fog. And population dislocation like war, where we also see measles come up, strangely enough. Right. So I've studied measles cases and deaths in different countries in the world, both poor and wealthy. And it's very clear in both medical journals and documents written to government by health officials.

that in the Western world, measles was clinically far less severe by the 1930s and considered relatively trivial by 1960, and I think most of the parents watching that have been in this for a while will know about this British Medical Journal article from 1959 right there. You can see it showing that... In the majority of children, the whole episode has been well and truly over in a week. From the prodromal phase to the disappearance of the rash, and many mothers have remarked how much good the attack has done their children as they seem so much better. after the measles. Over the past 10 years, there have been few serious complications at any age,

and all children have made complete recoveries. As a result of this reasoning, no special attempts have been made to prevention even in young infants, in whom the disease has not been found to be especially serious. Right. And we're going to address why perhaps we're seeing more serious cases today, but we're going to get to that after we're done here. So, Mina used Denmark as one of the three countries in the analysis. So let's look at Denmark. data, right? So this is their pre-vaccine mortality chart that we're looking at here. Now the death is the black bars there and the disease incidence, not disease death, the disease incidence is in red.

Okay. So note that even as incidents of registered cases of measles rose, the death rate was plummeting after the 1940s. Wow. Okay, so Michael Mina and friends ignored the low acute measles deaths because his hypothesis is that those red measles cases led to immune system ablation and an increase in other deaths up to three years after infection. So let's transfer those measles cases to the Danish death decline data for some of the diseases which mean a singled out. Shall we? Yeah.

Okay. Next slide. We're looking at pneumonia. So there you have the red. There's the measles cases. So the red is actually the measles cases. Right. And the other lines are deaths, deaths, not cases, but death from pneumonia and other infectious

disease rates and children. So assuming they're correct with all these other diseases. diseases. Every time we see a spike up, we should be seeing a spike up in those other illnesses. Instead, they consistently keep crashing down even in the face of large, clearly, measles outbreaks. That's right. And we should start seeing it even because it's three years after, so we should really be seeing some blips there, not there. So plainly measles didn't increase the death rates. Right. Other infectious disease deaths, you know this, for which there were never any vaccines, or which there were vaccines that were dangerous and ineffective,

were also declining. Those death rates were also declining, and in a lot of cases, the diseases were actually declining, you know, like malaria was declining. We know that rheumatic fever, which there was a terribly dangerous toxoid vaccine for that, rheumatic fever went down. You want to talk about cripples, like polio doesn't hold a candle to rheumatic fever crippling that happened. Really? Oh, yeah. I mean, there's a whole story on that. Fred Klener called them the cripples, the cardiac cripples. So they're the cripples that they can walk, whose legs work. That's what he said. And they were thousands of times higher than anything you would have seen during polio. Tuberculosis, diarrhea, you know, diarrhea killed more soldiers than pretty much any other, you know, in the early days, the Civil War, than any other circulating disease.

And then bullets, actually, it killed more than bullets killed. That's what the quote is in our book there. And we've got this source for that as well. So, okay, I think we're getting to being a bit settled on this. But where's the huge exponential increase in other infection deaths that should have happened to these people after they had measles? Where is the supposed decline in those deaths after the introduction of the measles vaccine? And how does that stack up with official Danish data shown here? And it's completely ludicrous and unsubstantiated.

And historically, you can apply the same analysis to every Western country. And here's the Danish data for measles incidents alongside infectious disease deaths using all ages of children, which Mina specified in his article. So, Roman did this. You know, she was Roman Bistriannic, my co-author. We asked him when this was happening. preparing to go to Denmark because I always try to prepare something relevant to the particular country.

Yeah. So it was kind of poetic justice that we did this in Denmark. So we got someone, a Danish speaking person, to get us the data and this is what he did. And what's easy to see here is a landslide fall in childhood infectious disease death, which is shown in the dark blue line, even when the measles was rampant. That's the red line. So in dissolving illusions, we give the history behind that phenomenon and it had nothing to do with vaccines and it had nothing to do with antibiotics.

and it had nothing to do with broncholidators, had nothing to do with steroids, okay? There's no way to go back in time and try to single out a tiny sub-segment of the childhood measles population to look for a hidden pattern of death two to three years after children had measles. Mina and his friends are just simply dreaming up ghosts here.

In order to scare everyone, today even, they're still pulling this out on social, all kinds of media, you know, the regular mainstream media as well. So the point I want to convey, to convey is that the first time Mina ran his data with his first set of assumptions didn't work out for him. So he admits one of his other co-authors in the next slide here, there's some quotes there that talk about, if you want to read those quotes there.

They ran a basic association test comparing measles incidents and deaths. The initial analysis came back statistically significant but weaker than expected, not showing a strong connection between the two. At this point, Mina and his collaborators decided to evaluate the data making different assumptions about how long the possible immune amnesia effects of measles may last. This exploration uncovered a very strong correlation between measles incidents and deaths from other infectious diseases. So it's almost like they said, well, that didn't work. Right, they went out and they just changed the, okay. So how's that for science for you? This is the result we want. Let's keep mixing and matching the data until we get it. So that's pretty

much what they did. They finally got the result they wanted. And we'll talk about that in a second here, but the real question of credibility of this study, for those who aren't mathematicians, doesn't actually lie in the data manipulation at all. The big flaw in the study lies in the immunology assumptions, which was another of the hypotheses, which stated that measles infection reduces the immune system memory to an empty shell, implying that all diseases, and we've been through this again, I'm repeating myself, but in order to sustain a hypothesis, you have to prove biological plausibility, right? Yeah. Okay. So they couldn't do that because according to the most in-depth research that had ever been done, which Mina did cherry pick from when it suited him,

there was no persistent T-limphecyte immunosuppression in infected children two months after infection. So there's the study right there. It's a different one. It was a five-year follow-up study looking at vaccinated and unvaccinated, uninfected controls and vaccinated and vaccinated and unvaccinated infected cases. So that's that white blood cell suppression they were saying was happening and they didn't see it. So by then everything was back to normal after two months and after five years the children who had measles had Guess what better survival so here's the quote from the article You want to read that? Yeah results compared with controls there were no significant differences in white blood cell count Absolute lymphocyte count cd4 percentage CD4%

CD4 count and total CD8 count although measles cases examined More than two months after infection had slightly higher CD4 four counts than controls, adjust for age, sex, and immunization status. Post-Musel's cases had a mortality rate ratio of 0.50 compared with controls for lower. Like they're doing better. Half. Half. Yeah. Doing twice as good. That's right. So that proved there was no lethal suppression.

And Mina would say, oh, well, you know, these kids' T-cell counts, while they're normal, they had amnesia and they just couldn't protect them. I've actually had a little dialogue with him, to be fair. But that can't be true because I'm going to show you right now why that that can't be true. So the next slide shows us the survival rate was two times as high in the children who had measles. Those are the cases. Sometimes the pictures worth a thousand words, right? Yeah. Compared to their more vaccinated, uninfected, controlled counterparts. Vaccinated, uninfected controls had more vaccines and had a higher death rate. Okay? Okay. All right.

That doesn't mean a vaccine's going to kill you. So bring that up again. So both of these groups were vaccinated I'm looking at. What is the difference between the two? One says vaccinated. One was infected and wasn't. So one was infected? Which one was the one that was infected? Measles are the cases. So the ones that had measles are the top ones. Okay. Okay. Got it. So, okay, they're all vaccinated. Some of them contracted measles. That's the top line. Some of them didn't contract measles and that's the controls. I read these with fine tooth comb. Doesn't mean I remember every detail afterwards. So that's what's showing you there. And does that mean that the ones that got infected did better, like having had the infection? Yes, that's the point. Interesting. So even even if you've been vaccinated here, actually contracting the disease. disease gave you a longer life, like, health. How did they contract a disease when they were vaccinating? I know.

Amazing. That's kind of mysterious as well. Yeah. So, yeah. So again, Abby contradicts Mina's hypothesis, commenting that four other studies in other countries, here's another good quote for us, four other studies. Of measles epidemic in Guinea, South, Senegal, and Bangladesh, unpublished observations, and Burundi have also failed to find excess mortality and most found lower mortality in the post-measels,

period. The contrast with previous reports of higher-posed measles mortality is only an apparent one. Yeah. Yeah. So measles and Mina and friends claim that measles sets the child's body back to newborn status, and that's the cause of their death in the three years afterwards. So how was this presented to non-vaccinating parents in the public? Co-author Abausterhouse told the press in the next side that if their D-TAP vaccinated child got measles, the measles infection would destroy immunity from the former vaccines they had been given. So does that mean that any established vaccine or natural immunity to disease that was achieved before measles vaccine came on the market

was neutralized by any measles infection that came after? If that was true, then huge amounts of the pre-measles vaccine-era children would have lost their vaccine and natural immunity, and diphtheria, hooping cough, tetanus should have been rampant. Yes, Ms. Scott. Right, but that didn't happen. And what Mina and Osterhouse hypothesis actually demonstrated is that their understanding of the newborn immune system and the development of neonatal immunity is deficient because it's actually not possible to set a child's immune system back to newborn status. And if it was, it would have applied to every child born until a measles vaccine was introduced.

And what they're saying could happen didn't happen. Yeah, I mean, all of the Brady Bunch generation that was, you know, having the measles, they would have been wiped out. have been dying of everything in sight. The next season wouldn't have been possible. And none of us would be alive today because every one of our relatives, ancestors, grandparents, all had this. So why weren't they dying of every other infectious disease? How did we get here? Yeah, but we have to give it in great detail here, though, don't we?

So the thing is, I've done a lot of work on the infant immune system because, look, I was an adult nephrologist. So when I woke up, everyone wanted to know about childhood vaccines. I was like, okay, let me just deal with polio first because it will be. What about polio question? After I was done, I was like, okay, I tackled each disease, every disease. And after that, I thought, let me study up on infant immunity. Let me just see what happens. How does the immune system develop?

What happens in utero? How does the mother's immune system affect it? How does breast milk affect it? And I did a very long, I think it's a four or five part series called infant immunity. Again, it's on my Odyssey channel. And very important for parents to be because I call it the three-year pregnancy when, you know, just before the woman gets pregnant during her pregnancy and then the two years afterward, which also there's,

there's this thing going on between the mother's immune system, the breast milk, et cetera, that actually makes that child's gut develop normally. It makes their immune system in their gut and in their lymph nodes. We know this for a fact. And everything's defined in there, okay? So the fact that they could say that someone was set back

to newborn status just shows that they have no clue what an infant immune system works and that it's actually meant to be, and an infant immune system is meant, to be dampened down while it's learning what to tolerate and what to not. It's more important that that immune system knows what not to react to. Right. You want an overly sensitive child that's going to basically have an allergic reaction to everything

that comes in contact with. Which is why when the mother's eating, she's introducing antigens. While it's dampened down, she's introducing protective molecules that the oncology industry uses to fight cancer. Yeah. And they use measles virus as well to fight cancer. Amazing. Yeah.

Their hypothesis is only believable because the work that was needed to clarify Abby's concerns was never done. Right. And he's calling for it. So to give him credit, he has called for it over the years. And so these are the considerations that were overlooked due to lack of study. Measles infections having beneficial effects was proven. And those are three quotes from... However, the possibility that infections could have benefited effects raises questions about the value of eradication strategies.

In this account of measles research and immunization policies for developing countries, there are a number of apparently erroneous assumptions. It has been possible to maintain these assumptions because there has been no tradition of community studies examining the total impact of health interventions, allowing the reality a possibility of contradicting our ideas. The assumptions were considered true and not in need of verification. This is a lot of what Abe has done. And whether or not he's come all the way up to the task in your mind, I appreciate any, doctor or scientist that is able to challenge the orthodoxy with which they came into you being.

I mean, you've put the bar pretty high. But Abe, a huge vaccinator in third world countries, at least had the guts to go back to Guinea-Bissau Africa and say, hold on a second. I did a polio vaccine program that only half the kids got and started showing that we were seeing higher rates of death in the D-TAP group. That's right. Yep. Actually, polio, I think he found protective. Is that right?

If it was any live viral vaccines. He likes live viral vaccines. He thinks attenuated virus vaccines are actually causing. And to be clear, what he points out, which is very important, is what Robert Kennedy Jr. has to do right now, which is all we've ever studied is, does this vaccine create protection to this disease in some way? Most of the time, it's not necessarily blocking it, but certainly reducing symptoms. And somehow that's affected. But what it's never done is said, okay, it protects. That's a disease, but it didn't make you vulnerable to all these other diseases, which is sort of the argument they're trying to make about a measles infection.

But the truth is, is many of these vaccines flu shot. Four times the rate, and a big study out of Japan, four times a rate of other upper respiratory disease if you got a flu shot. So no, did you get flu? No, but you were dying at higher rates from other issues, exactly what Abe has proven in many of these studies. that our problem is we're only looking at the disease we vaccinated for and not overall mortality. Did it actually make you live longer? And no, it didn't.

Kids were dying. I think on that Guinea-Bissau Africa study, the DTP was 10 times the rate of death amongst those that received the vaccine versus those that did. It was very high. I can't tell you the exact. Super-duper high. And then different rates around polio. So.

But I got to tell you something. Yeah. even after measles is eradicated. That's where it falls short. Well, he's going to wait a long time because we don't seem capable of eradicating measles, and this vaccine has not been capable, which is... But that's the argument. And as we know, they've totally screwed up herd immunity so that, you know,

our adults are not immune, our pregnant women are not immune, our babies are vulnerable, so the solution is to keep giving the thing that caused the problem. Like, that's where for me it just falls... I agree with you, I agree with you, yeah. Thank you for that. Yes, yeah. But I mean, but yes, he has done good work. Look, I'm citing it.

Yeah, I obviously expect. Yeah, and I mean, you know, and I guess in a way we cherry-picked the things we like about what he's saying. And then he has these other issues, but that's science. I get to look at the things. And I think that he does make some incorrect errors in, you know, and a lot of it, really, a lot of it is some of the scientists that are waking up are recognized, well, we're screwed. We messed up with this vaccine program. So now we just got to stick with it because we can't get back to natural herd. immunity. I think that that's a real concern. And something that I brought up on the show that got me in a lot of trouble.

Andy Wakefield, when I was making vaxed, would say, we can't just stop this measles vaccine program, or we could see a rise in infection that could affect the infants. I kind of am starting to, like, even though I even stated that a couple weeks ago on the show, and I want to ask your opinion, but if the vaccine's leaky anyway, and if you see these, like, and they showed the vaccine, you know, the vaccinated who got the infection, then what protection do we really have? I mean, aren't those infants vulnerable from vaccinated as much as they would be unvaccinated people? And you just pointed out a study I wasn't aware of that showed that infants did just fine. It's just like COVID where they say if you've had the jab that you're going to have a lesser case of it

or you're going to not be as infectious. That's not true. I mean, we know of a whole series in Illinois where 100% of the students that were infected were vaccinated, up-to-date vaccinated. And so they keep adding. So when this all started to become obvious that there was leaky vaccines, they added another vaccine in 1989, right, when I was entering medical school. And now they want you, I don't know if you had measles, but they want me to have another set of jabs. And they're talking about every 10 years.

And now they're going to start combining it into, oh, I mean, there's a vaccine out there now, which we're going to get to later, which is a hybrid. It's a newly synthesized Frankenstein virus that's got part measles and part COVID spike on it. And there's already a vaccine for it. So rest assured, it's not going to be a problem. So the MMR, the messenger RNA vaccines are going to be the solution. Come on, you see the writing on the wall. Oh, these failed. So we've got something better for you.

The new golden age of vaccination is going to happen. Right. So getting back, can we just stop measles, cold turkey just like that? Yeah. Well, if you give parents the right to choose, you will be stopping it to some degree. So the question is, how will we be prepared for, Yes, look, the fact of the matter is that when you inject live measles into somebody, they're going to have a case of measles, and then they'll be somewhat immune,

and the transmission will be less. That doesn't, you didn't do anything magical to them. You entered their body in the wrong way, created immune system, an immunity horrible, not even the right kind of immunity. TH2, not cellular immunity, not lung immunity, which leaves them susceptible years into the future. So you've done something that's not so great. If you do it during an immune globulin injection,

you've actually set them backwards in terms of their overall immunity. If you do it to a child that's being breastfed, that her mom is still given some immunity, you're doing something bad to that child that you won't notice for 20 or 30 years. And I only know that because somebody actually looked, one person actually looked in the past. So in the olden days, we had infectious disease hospitals, right?

And so that was separate from the maternity hospital, and it was separate from your cardiac hospitals, but your cancer hospitals, certainly. You would have an infectious disease hospital, and you would have government agencies that you could trust regarding quarantine, because quarantine was one of the most important interventions when smallpox, right? But back then it was like, oh, you're here to help me. And they did help people. You know, people went in and they cleaned your sheets because your sheets were the biggest foamite, you know, thing to spread.

They made sure that you had sunshine, fresh air, good nutrition, good nutrients. We can't trust people quarantining today. So I think what the new government has to look at is how we can get a trustworthy government. again that's not trying to harm us essentially, you know, so that because they're getting rewards from who knows where. I'm not, I'm not going to even go down there, like why it happens, but we need a trustworthy government that can support us if we were to collectively decide that we want to get back to where we were, which was to have perfectly good herd immunity, where the death rate was almost unheard of, where the virus was very mild, where it was being,

you know, on a comedy show. So it would be take a thoughtful. process because we would need to make sure that pregnant women were somehow immune, okay? But like you said, yes, of course there are cases of newborns and infants who would survive, but it's much better for that when the mother is able to give them that it's, there's something called transfer factor that was actually used, and it's a whole other thing we can get into later if you want, but that's a very big part of breast milk that actually is able, they're using immune globulin now for these little babies. Well, there's something called transfer factor that you can extract out of a leukocyte that will actually give you TH1 immunity that's

durable. It's amazing. And they use it in oncology to protect children after they've had chemotherapy. They use it to protect them from chicken pox, which means that we could be using, if we wanted to go down the pharmaceutical for that particular group of people. But what's going to happen is, oh, then everyone should get to answer. So there's a pharmaceutical way out to wean us out, is what you're saying. There's a product we can trust the pharmaceutical industry to not try to cap like they did with cholesterol, drugs, which are only designed for familial hyper-cholesterole. You know how the thin end of the wedge is.

So that's always the question. Then you get a new administration in that just, so I think we have a problem on our hands. And certainly the simplest way to deal with it is just to say vaccines are great, they stop transmission, let's just keep doing them, even after measles is supposedly eradicated because it's only a plane right away.

So no, I cannot accept that. I'm sorry, I can't accept it. I understand the rationale behind it, but I think that we're smarter than that. I think we're better than that. I think we have really good people that could help us through this to get herd immunity back. And that's where my heart's at.

Fantastic. Well, we don't have a lot of time. And that was incredibly thorough. But I do want to get into a search around this measles thing because it was breaking. Poly Tommy, CHD, did a great job, getting the family that had the one child that passed away. And several people have weighed in on it.

I want to talk about what Pierre or Corey, the doctor, said about this. Let's take a look at this video right here. This case was tragic and really had nothing, I shouldn't say nothing to do with measles, but she did not die of measles by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, she died of a pneumonia, but it gets worse than that because she didn't really die of pneumonia. She died of a medical error. And that error was a completely inappropriate antibiotic.

It was an insufficient antibiotic. When you admit someone to the hospital for pneumonia, what you need to do is you treat what's called empirically, meaning you put them on antibiotics that you think will cover the most common. common organism. And that's why this case is absolutely enraging. It's infuriating because she died because she got an inappropriate antibiotic. I mean, this is like Medicine 101. That's an unbelievable statement. I, you know, I'm assuming it's true because I think Pierre Corrie knows that his career would forever be over to misstate that. I know you've got some of the records in your hand. You're just starting to look at it, but it does appear. And this is sort of like a

complaint during COVID, that it was mismanagement. I've made this complaint, you know, incorrectly diagnosing, but also treating. I mean, if you just treat it, they can't breathe, give them something that helps them breathe. They can't be given some oxygen. They were denied oxygen. Talking about COVID, of course. And in this case, he's saying simple use of antibiotics would have cleared this up right away and you would not have had a death. In your cursory look at the materials. Are you leaning in that same direction? Oh, I mean, you can't add to what he said, and he is the perfect person to be looking at it. He's a pulmonologist, a lung specialist, an intensive care unit specialist.

You have to do special study and residency to do that. So he's the guy that's going to research that. Even better than I, like I did a lot of consultations in ICU for kidney failure, but managing a ventilator and stuff, that's not my wheelhouse at all. That's his wheelhouse. And absolutely he's right, because when people get admitted, with unknown pneumonia, we always cover for what's called atypicals. One of the atypicals is called mycoplasma pneumonia,

which you might know as walking pneumonia. Because you can walk around with it for a long time before you really crap out with it. This girl was doing better on day two, stabilized on day three and went downhill on day four, because nobody hit this. And we also know that when people go into the hospital, they're skating on vitamin C deficiency after they've been in hospital

for a few days with the stress, with the lack of her parents around, with the horrible food, with her dehydration, with the drugs that they were giving, her vitamin C levels would have been so far down. And I have treated measles with intravenous vitamin C. I can tell you it changes in front of your eyes. So I'm not saying that that's a medical error that they didn't do that,

but it is a medical error that they didn't consider the atypical, the mycoplasma pneumonia, which is known to be a toxin producer, very strong toxin producer. And we know Morins, who is a Fauci's buddy, who wrote an article recently talking about the 1918, 1917 measles epidemic and why it was so bad because there were co-infections and he goes through this whole thing about co-infections when they are toxin producing make measles absolutely lethal so we can't say she died of measles because she was already recovering from measles in fact parents say there were no spots left on her

yet the medical records say she had a maculopacular rash something's not jiving here something's not adding up but she was already past the acute phase you don't they keep writing measles pneumonia Well, that's not even a thing. Right, I just say that. Measol pneumonia is not even a thing. So it would have been mycoplasma pneumonia for which she could have developed an abscess or, you know, toxin producing lack of vitamin C so that she couldn't fight it. The wrong antibody, she had everything stabbed up because mommy's told to go home.

What do you think that does to a little kid? Yeah. I'm so thirsty. Can I please have a drink? No, I can't, you can't have a drink. Like that's all been public. The nurse says she doesn't need a breathing treatment because it's not going to help. Like, who does that?

Right. Like that's the first thing. Nurses love to slap that thing right on. and start doing the broncholidylators. In every other situation, but not on this one. Yeah, and then I just feel like, look, Peter Corey's right. It was a mycoplasma pneumonia. It's so common.

I looked this up recently. It's either 100 or 200,000 cases per year in the United States, okay? Wow. And some 10,000 of them are admitted. So we're well acquainted with mycoplasma pneumonia, even I am as an adult. And this girl didn't get the proper treatment for that. No, no, the coverage they gave her didn't cover for it. And then when they found out, and this is, he said this, so this is not me

dealing his thunder. He said that they waited 10 hours after they knew the microbe wasn't the right one to actually get the proper antibiotic inter. That should have been like, call the nurse right now, but somebody should have got stat taken from the pharmacy and given to that child. Amazing.

So. All right, well stick around. I want to get off the record with you, but let me go ahead and close out this show. Coming up on off the record, I'm going to get into another more important conversation. Some of that's got me into heat with my interview with Dr. Richard Bartlett, is this measles strain now more dangerous? Are there more kids because it looks like more are being hospitalized?

Suzanne Humphrey has even looked at the Samoa incident, which has gotten Robert Kennedy Jr. in a lot of trouble. Lots of debts there. How did that happen? Bringing in those details and maybe how do you treat it should you come upon this issue? All of that off the record. What's off the record? It's our way to give back to those of you that donate to the high wire. It looks just like this. It's time to go off the record.

The show exclusively for our donors. All right, we're rolling. Here we go. I want to thank you for just sticking around a little bit. We call this off the record. This is what we couldn't talk about on the high wire. I actually want to dive into a very sensitive topic. You have no obligation to be honest with these people.

Is anyone telling me the truth? 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. Journalism massively failed the United States. It's silly to call people anti-vaccine.

It's nonsense. All the vultures come out. You married? All of that's BS. This whole system's rigged, and they don't care about our health. We will have full discovery power. Watch what happens. When we go off the record, you are not going to miss this.

Good hanging out. Indeed. Well, as promised, I actually want to have a moment with all of you out there, especially all of you that call yourself thought leaders. Those are scientists or experts that have been weighing in this week on the CDC choice. I think we have to ask ourselves, what are we doing here? What is the moment that we live in and what is the best thing that we can do to serve our country, right?

Ask not what our country can do for us, but what can we do for our country? There's a couple of tweets I'll put up that I think sort of inspired this in me. Let me just read a few of them. RIP MAHA, August 23rd, 24th, March 24th to 2025. Just seven months old, ironic that it too died from government mismanagement like those children whose parents follow the CDC vaccine schedule. Also based on this pick, yep, maha is dead, quote, you know, sharing, maha is officially over. Talk about being FO by the powers that may be lessons learned. Never trust the government for anything.

of course, they don't care that Secretary Kennedy said I chose this person myself. Absolutely disastrous pick, not good at Robert Kennedy Jr. I've said it before. This is the United States of America. You have a right to free speech. That's fine. I want to speak beyond that, though, for a moment. To ask, like, how do we use our right to free speech?

And what are we actually trying to achieve here? And are we contributing in the best way possible? Just to be, some of you know my father's and minister, serving once in while a Bible quote pops in my head, but the one that's been in my head all week is, let ye who is without sin cast the first stone. I want to talk about a group of people that I would like to describe as suddenly self-righteous.

And I would say this, of those people that tweeted out this week or put out their opinions that Robert Kennedy Jr. is a sellout, that hits over, that Maha is dead. And I think you all know who you are, And I think those of you that were watching know who I'm talking about, so I don't need to say it by name. But I would say of those people, if in the last 10 years, last decade, if you vaccinated any kids at all and you destroyed their lives and weren't listening to Robert Kennedy Jr. for the 10 years before that telling you not to do that, because he's been at this 20 years he's been dragged through the mud, 20 years he's been raked over the coals and humiliated. And if in all that time, somehow that message didn't get to you and you went and destroyed children's lives and suddenly during COVID, I guess, maybe you woke up because maybe you got injured or you injured somebody and woke up, you know what? Welcome to the party. Welcome to the conversation. But frankly, I don't think we need to go to you for the purity test on what's happening right now. I'm glad you're on board. But if we're going to you to decide, why didn't you get it all of those other years? Why were you so many? guided. Why did it take an injury to yourself or someone you love to finally wake up? Well, why?

Because that's how this works. For most people that are in this movement, you need to have an aha moment. You have to have a moment where you wake up to the truth. And even though you bowed down to the religion of vaccinology for decades, destroyed children's lives. Now suddenly you get it and Well, that's it. Robert Kennedy is, he's let me down. Really? Really? Since COVID in three or four years, you actually think you know how the government works? You've been at this long enough. You're going to sit there in your bark lounger on your sofa and judge Robert Kennedy Jr. to say, oh, he's not putting up the fight anymore. How could he allow this to happen? This guy, I know him. That's all I can say. And he doesn't need anyone defending him. And it's really not about him. What's upsetting me is all of you that says, no, this is good. I have to challenge him. He wants me to challenge him. That challenge is good.

It's going to make for a stronger debate. It's going to help him do what he needs to do in there. I want to check that for a second. Because I know a lot of you are telling yourselves that. Because you love your Kim Kardashian world where you judge everyone around you. And it's so easy to be able to set yourself up for your future I told you so. Well, let's just say this. If you're right, and maybe you are, maybe Robert Kennedy Jr. doesn't end up achieving anything,

and it all falls apart. You say, hey, wasn't I the one that told you so? I have news for you. That I told you so is going to be sitting next to someone in a gulag. It's going to be the end of the world as we know it, because if we do not win right here, if Robert Kennedy Jr. isn't the guy right now, Do you think we have a second chance? Are you going to run?

Are you going to get HHS Secretary? You're going to leave your, you know, five million followers and your advertisements. You're selling on YouTube. And you're going to go and run and get in the government because there's going to be time left that anyone will care, that anyone will figure it out. And you have the secret sauce to get past the Senator Cassidy's, to get yourself not only nominated, but to actually get confirmed. You know how to do that? And you're the better person that we should be trusting. not the guy that for 20 years did nothing but stand in the truth fought for the truth stood for every child

didn't matter how badly he was ridiculed not only by every newspaper but even members of his own family and his own party he stood and took that all only so that he could finally get in there and not follow through on delivering change i can say one thing's for sure sure. Anyone that believes that's the case does not know Robert Kennedy Jr. And I get that. For many of you, you didn't spend two and a half years with him. But let me make something something perfectly clear, because I was with him. He did not sell his soul to get the job at HHS. Farma did not allow it. The they, Bill Gates and George Soros and the W.EF did not say, hey, let's let Robert Kennedy Jr. have HHS because that'll help us do what? All of you

conspiracy theorists that think that they have so much power and they're the ones that are controlling all this situation. To get back to what bothers me most, it's not Robert Kennedy Jr. is fine. He knows he's fighting the good fight because he's fought it for 20 years. He's taking the arrows in his back just like he's taking the one in his chest. As have I. What bothers me is those of you that say, no, this is a good thing. I have to challenge him.

I got to bring him down to his knees. you are forgetting that this isn't just the news. We're a movement. We are a growing movement. We have a shot at saving the United States of America at getting back not just our right to free speech, which we would have lost had Kamala Harris won, not just our First Amendment, but our right to body sovereignty.

We actually have a chance to change the world And by the way, if you're watching this show, every other nation in the world is falling. Only America sits here right now. We're the last beacon of light and hope. Everyone is saying, please cherish that constitution. What they're not saying is kneecap Robert Kennedy Jr. as fast as you can and make him look like an idiot. Because when you do that, you demoralize our movement. You demoralize those that are just tiptoeing into this conversation for the first time.

And they go, oh, it's true. They're all corrupt. Robert Kennedy's just like the rest of them. And they give up. And they go back to eating Doritos and watching the Kardashians all night long. They say, why fight? That's what those of you that say you're a part of this movement are doing when you attack Robert Kennedy Jr.

And the choices that he is making right now. You are killing our confidence. I want you to think about that father that has the picture on the, on the, on the, on the baseball team and is going, come on, kid, what's wrong? They kind of moron are you? That's not how I taught you to pitch. That's what you're doing. You're demoralizing that kid that's trying to win a game.

And you're demoralizing everyone else on the team that starts feeling bad about themselves and saying, what are we doing here? There is no hope. So-and-so is right. He was once a doctor. He knows best. There's no hope. He's right.

This is just going to be another I told you so. Is that what you're doing? Is that what you're fighting for? And so everyone says, you were right. We should have never believed we could change the world. JFK believed he could change the world. He fought for world peace and brought about, you know, the nuclear test ban and the weapons bands with our enemy cruise chef. He believed in something.

He believed in getting the CIA in the West. out of the way. Let's stop these wars. Let's all get along. We're all brothers and sisters here. Everyone around him said it couldn't be done. He did do it. And where would we be had those powers that owned the television with Operation Paperclip and those powers that just want and have forever wars? Where would we be if they hadn't killed him? Where would we be if they hadn't killed his brother. And now his brother's son, who has spoken out his entire life about the battle his family has been in with the CIA. And has spoken his entire life about saving our children's lives and has dedicated himself through all of the adversities that have come

his way more than any of us. I'm sorry, even more than me, certainly more. more than those of you that are certainly suddenly self-righteous. And now he's there. Inside what we all know is the swamp. Is it going to be easy? Is it going to happen overnight? Is he Jesus Christ? And suddenly he's just going to wave his head and everybody in government is on his side

and it's all going to work out? Or is he in there? He wanted Dave Weldon. Dave Weldon couldn't get confirmed because the swamps. Sucks, okay? But it's what he has to deal with. And sure, Joseph Lattabo would have been amazing. Do you think he could get confirmed?

I mean, let's be honest. Does Senator Cassidy look like he is willing to confirm Joe Lattapo? I'll have news for you because I've seen it. Let's just pressure Cassidy. Really? Because Senator Cassidy, as far as I know, has no, not made a decision, doesn't look like he ever wants to run again. And I believe this.

Senator Cassidy's heart he believes he's right. He's a good person. I'm not even going to attack him on that. He's wrong about vaccines, but he hasn't seen the science that some of us have. He certainly hasn't seen the science that Robert Kennedy Jr. is about to do. And when Robert Kennedy Jr. is picking somebody like Marty McAry, thank God he's in, like Jake Bartichari, thank God he's in, like Dr. Oz praying to God he gets in. and like Susan, who he's just chosen, what is he looking for?

There's strategy. I don't know what it is, but I would guess it's something like this. Do you think it's going to be more effective to bring in someone that the media will call an anti-vax or if they could even get through confirmation that then does the studies and say, yep, vaccines are bad, childhood vaccine programs bad, COVID-MRNA is bad. Is that lasting change? because all of media and almost every Democrat will say, well, that was a known anti-vaxxer. Or if you could find someone that was on record for you being pro-vaccine and believed in the program,

but said, hey, I'm a scientist, I'll follow the science, I'll do the research, and I'll speak the truth. I'll tell the truth about what I see. By the way, the same type of doctor that are most of these mouthpieces and the suddenly self-righteous that were once vaccinated, that suddenly woke up themselves and suddenly now see that maybe I got it wrong and did have the ability to tell the truth. Wouldn't it be amazing if one of you did that on primetime television under the tutelage of Robert Kennedy Jr. said, hey, folks, I'm pro-vaccine, but I'm about to go in and do the studies that they say, you know, have never been done.

Can you imagine if someone like that comes out, their eyes is going to be wide, You know? Like they've seen a ghost. They say, you know what, everybody? I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't seen it with my own eyes, which is what so many doctors have finally looked at this say. And though I was appointed by Barack Obama and I worked under Trump and I've worked under Joe Biden, I'm also a computer expert. I understand AI and I ran a query in a study. And I'll show you exactly how I did it.

And I was so shocked by the results. I did it again. I did it from every side. I invited everybody in. Show me I'm wrong. That's what I've been saying this whole time. Show me I'm wrong. I said it when I left CBS.

I don't want to lose my television career. Someone show me I'm wrong because every study I look at that's done right shows that vaccines are destroying children's lives. That they are causing more harm than they are creating good. What Robert Kennedy Jr. needs right now are people that aren't going in biased, that are saying, I will do the science like Suzanne Humphreys, who was not originally with us, but one day something tripped her up. If he could find that individual that had proclaimed an allegiance to vaccinations but would do the proper science and would tell the world what they saw.

When that happens, that's real change. That's not temporary change. That's not vengeance we all get along with. That's not the prettiest parade float. And I love everybody that Bobby stood next to him because it really matters who's the electing. Doesn't matter. Form doesn't matter. Function does.

Judge Robert Kennedy, Jr., on what he achieves. not on how he's deciding to get there. Can you imagine sending a hidden spy or an agent into enemy territory and then say, well, why is he talking to that person? Oh, why is he in that room? No, he's doing it all wrong. Cut off, cut off communications with him. Leave him there all alone.

Can you imagine doing that? Can you imagine demoralizing everybody that believed in something, believed that they could win, got Robert Kennedy Jr. all the way up and into the most. powerful health position in the world. And now what we need to do is give up. What I want to do as a podcast right now is make sure that no one believes. It may be true that we believe what we see. But it is also true we see what we believe.

We have power right now. We need to be positive. If not Robert Kennedy Jr., then who? And if not now with Robert Kennedy Jr., then when? We don't really have any more choices on the table. So now I would say it's time to get pathologically optimistic. It's time to start celebrating everything you see him doing right. If you want to criticize, I'm sure CNN is looking for someone to hire.

If you want to go to battle for the truth, if you want to wake people up with me, If you want to wake up every morning to the charge, like I know Robert Kennedy Jr., my friend is, however he has to do it inside of the swamp, then be productive. Do something for this movement. Inspire people. Don't tear them down. Don't be the kid at the roller skating rink during the birthday party that can't figure out the skate. Can't end up figuring out how to be HHS secretary. So all you do is trip everybody that's trying to skate by.

trip them so that you can ruin their opportunity to say, see, I was right. Robert Kennedy, Jr. couldn't do it. What has he done in 30 days? Here's what he's done in 30 days. His launch of the chemical contaminist transparency tool is going to show everyone in the world what is in the chemicals that are in your food and probably everything else. began process to reform the FDA's grass rule. He generally recognized as safe.

He's not going to allow that anymore. They're not going to just be able to put chemicals in everything they want without proper safety trials. He has an initiative to strengthen baby formula and the supply chain so there's no more heavy metals in there that is not contaminating your children, that it's not filled with so much sugar, it turns them on a path for diabetes

before they even get their lives started. He's establishment of the Make America Healthy Again Commission, which for the first time in history will make sure the FDA, the CDC, the NIH, HHS, all of its leaders, and many from all the other departments of Homeland Security and the rest, sit down to figure out how to make this nation more powerful and healthy. His suspension of certain vaccine contracts. You don't get to be overseeing vaccines because you make them and you're making fun, you're making money off of them, so you're out. He's reviewing the vaccine policies of the advisory committee on immunization practices. His response to the measles outbreak for the first time ever did not tell people to lock down, did not destroy our nation, did not put anyone down, and even added to the fact that vitamin A is a great treatment and a daily dose of good vitamins and a healthy diet is also a great way to handle measles,

something that's never been said by our government since the introduction of measles vaccine. His advocacy for dietary changes and reducing an unnecessary workforce at HHS so that real scientists are doing work and that it's not just a giant media propaganda machine. We've gotten used to being critical. I've taught you to be critical thinkers on this show, those of you that were new to it. But there is a time and a place where you put your criticism aside, where you pick up whatever strength you have, whatever power you have, whatever voice you have, and you say, you know what, I'm going to walk out on the water right now and have faith that we will persevere. If Robert Kennedy Jr. is not effective in the next two years, then he won't get four years. And do you think he can be more effective by us screaming and yelling at him and putting him down in every choice he's making?

or would it be great to have every mother that maybe only understands chemicals and food stepping up right now and saying, I'll support him on that? And then when they enter the conversations, you can turn to them and say, have you asked yourself about all the other things that have been approved by a regulatory agency prior to Robert Kennedy Jr.? You know who you are. If you think I'm wrong, I will come on your podcast and I will debate you right now. We only win when we believe we can win.

Being positive is the weapon of heroes. And here's what my hero had to say this week. I'd like to share with you a paradox that I've encountered here in Washington, D.C. as the new secretary of HHS. Our department is filled for the most part with competent, conscientious public service, and yet the agency has been inefficient as a whole. Over the past four years during the Biden administration, HHS's budget increased by 38 percent and its staffing increased by 17 percent, but all that money has failed to improve the health of Americans. In fact, the rate of chronic disease and cancer increased dramatically as our department has grown.

As secretary, I now understand why all this money is not improving our health. HHS is a sprawling bureaucracy that encompasses, literally hundreds of departments, committees, and other offices. You know how bureaucracies work. Every time a new issue arises, they tack on another committee. This leads to tremendous waste and duplication, and worse of all, a loss of any unified sense of mission. HHS has more than 100 communications offices and more than 40 IT departments and dozens of

procurement offices and nine HR departments. In many cases, they don't even talk to each other. They're mainly operating in silos. I have some good news, though, as part of President Trump's Doge Workforce Reduction Initiative, we're going to streamline HHS to make our agency more efficient and more effective. We're going to imbue the agency with a clear sense of mission to radically improve the health of Americans and to improve agency morale. We're going to eliminate an entire alphabet of soup of departments and agencies

while preserving their core functions by merging them in the United States. into a new organization called the Administration for Healthy America or AHA. We're going to consolidate all of these departments and make them accountable to you, the American taxpayer and the American patient. These goals will honor the aspirations of the vast majority of existing HHS employees who actually yearn to make America healthy. I want every HHS employee to wake up every morning asking themselves, What can I do to restore American health today?

I want to empower everyone in the HHS family to have a sense of purpose and pride and a sense of personal agency and responsibility to this larger goal. I want this agency to be once again a revered scientific institution that once made HHS the envy of the world. I want everyone who works here to be proud of this agency, to be proud of their work, to feel a renewed inspiration in their own sense of responsibility for our success in restoring America to good health. I think most Americans would agree with me that throwing more money at health care isn't going to solve the problem or would have solved it already. Obviously, what we've been doing hasn't worked. That's why we're making this dramatic overhaul. But the real overhaul is even bigger. The real overhaul is improving the health of the entire nation to make America healthy again. To finish off of the final Bible quote,

If you have the faith of the grain of a mustard seed, you could move a mountain. Be mountain movers. This is our time. We're not going to get another shot at this. There's not going to be a take two. Robert Kennedy Jr. is who we got in there. And he's the best I've ever seen. The best man I've ever known.

I know he's doing what he needs to do to have success there. Are we doing everything we can do to have excess here? In America, on this earth, you are needed. You're important. You're blessed to be alive in this moment. Make everyone around you feel blessed to be here. Invite them in to win. Do that and I'll see you next week.

Thank you.