The Highwire with Del Bigtree - Episode 428: FIRED UP

Episode Date: June 14, 2025

RFK Jr. just retired the entire 17-member ACIP panel—marking an unprecedented reset in U.S. vaccine policy. With figures like Dr. Robert Malone stepping in, what does this mean for the future of public health?Jefferey Jaxen investigates the White House’s new partnership with Palantir, a data giant with deep military ties, as AI rapidly merges with government power. Plus, fresh warnings about new coronaviruses “ready to jump” to humans.ICAN lead attorney Aaron Siri breaks down the legal and cultural implications of the ACIP overhaul. And FOX News host Kennedy joins Del Bigtree for a no-holds-barred discussion on media censorship, mass protests, and RFK Jr.’s reshaping of the health landscape.Guests: Aaron Siri, Esq, Jefferey Jaxen, Lisa KennedyBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

We are here in Palm Springs, California for Freedom Fest 2025. It's our fourth year being right smack in the middle of Freedom Fest with the high wire. We're going to have an amazing show today. But first, I want to get on the Palm Springs aerial tram. Let's go and get high up there. Way better than the last time, though. At least I'm inside of the structure. This glass.

This thing has to hold on. There's some like bungee coordinates, middle space of time. So this little tiny wire here is holding, I don't know, what do we got, like 30 or 40 people in here? I mean, we really are all on the high wire right now. Well, here we are on top of Mount San Jacinto, over a mile above the desert floor of Palm Springs that's below us. Wherever we are, I always managed to find the high wire. So without further ado, good morning, good afternoon, good evening, wherever you are out there in the world, it's time to step out onto the high wire.

Fantastic. Oh, it's amazing. our fourth year here at Freedom Fest. It's so exciting. This is one of our favorite shows to do now. The energy is amazing. Having a live audience, which I don't get the luxury of that when I'm back at the studio. So super excited to be here. What an amazing week we're here. I mean, you know, we're a medical talk show, which is, you know, something I worked on CBS, the daytime talks to the doctors, but we wanted to get more in depth. We want to get the politics of all of it. And now this week, so much is breaking in the news and it really

does align. If you think of Freedom Fest as probably the biggest libertarian conference in the world, so many issues they're getting down to your own personal rights, body autonomy, sovereignty, all being dealt with right now in the news and of course the biggest breaking story this week

is Robert Kennedy Jr., the head of HHS, just fired the entire advisory committee on immunization practices. That's right. Of course they're going crazy in the mainstream news. This is everything they were always terrified about.

And when you get to the bottom of it, many, I've been talking to reporters all week long, New York Times, Washington Post. I haven't even seen if they've printed anything I've said, but they're asking what is this overreach? Is Robert Kennedy Jr. is stepping outside of his wheelhouse or what he should be

doing as HHS Secretary? And let me be perfectly clear. Robert Kennedy Jr. ran for President of the United States to end corruption in of the United States government, especially the regulatory agencies. He was talking about the corporate capture that owned our regulatory agencies, the pharmaceutical industry being the most powerful lobby in Washington, buying up all the science inside of our regulatory agencies.

And I will tell you personally, I have a personal vendetta here, the heart, the very pulsing, beating heart of corporate corruption is the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices at the center of HHS. So yes, Robert Kennedy Jr. did need to fire these people because all of the problems we have is these people that were just rubber stamping products that had never been properly placebo tested, putting all of our children at risk. They did nothing. They didn't care about science. They didn't care about anything except whatever corporate influence was sitting in those meetings over the last several decades. And if you think I'm overstating it, if you're like, well, Dell, I mean, maybe you just see this differently.

we're going to revisit a video that actually made the high wire famous. We were one of the first ones many, many years ago. I think it was in 2017, Aaron Siri, the attorney for the informed consent action network, which is the nonprofit that oversees this show, said to me, Dell, if we want to get to the heart of the problem here, we have to go to the advisory committee on immunization practice meetings. This is where the vaccine program is born. This is where they keep adding those vaccines onto the schedule.

Remember, we were only getting 10 vaccines. in the 1980s, but all of a sudden they created liability protection and made it so that they would never be sued for any safety problem. Suddenly that exploded to 72 vaccines. And now I think Robert Kennedy Jr. says it could be as high as 92 vaccines by the time you're 18. Well, Aaron said, if we're going to get to the bottom of this, we got to start going to these meetings at the CDC. I'll never forget the first time we showed up. Like anecdotal story here, we were pulling up. They do a bomb check on your cars. You're driving the CDC.

We knew he'd been run through the FBI list. And at that point, you know, I was sort of getting to be pretty well known of after traveling the country with Vax and the high wire. And, you know, Aaron was saying to me the car, I wonder if they're going to, they're waiting for you. They know who you are. So I walk up to the desk and I'm checking in and you have to go through the metal detector. And the police officer says, you know, as he sees, who is, I said, Del Bigtree.

He's like, hey, Del Bigtree's here. And like three other police officers all go, Del Bigtree? And I was like, whoa, freaky. I guess they are tracking me. And so I just kind of quietly went through the metal detector. This is the difference between me and Aaron Siri. Aaron Siri steps up after me. He's like, just out of curiosity, why do you know his name? And they're like, oh, we don't. We just saw it on the list of names and thought, Del Bigotry, what a weird name. And we're wondering what that guy looked like. So this is a really good example of why you need to ask follow-up questions.

Because had I not asked a follow-up question, I would have been spending the rest of my life thinking that I'm being tracked by the CIA, that the CDC knows who I am, they're tracking my car, my name, and they know everywhere I'm going. I don't like to live in that paranoid space, and thank God, Aaron saved me in that moment

to recognize it was just some strange, odd moment that revolved around my name. But anyway, we went to that meeting. The first time it was just Aaron, Siri, and I, the next time we put out a call, said, hey, join us. Then it ended up being, you know, like 10 to 20 people. And we started stepping up on microphones like I was doing there in early 2018.

And you got to present to the meeting. Then the next time it was 60. Then we had about 150 of our own people. I mean, we messed this country club up. They did not want us there. There was the farmer hangout of the world. And suddenly all of these people were showing up and having issues. And then eventually they started putting a rope and outlawing us and pushing us back to the room.

But to get back to it. If you think I'm overstating how corrupt this group of scientists and doctors has been throughout the decades, let me play for you the video. We were sitting in the room when this happened, and this really is one of the videos that first went viral and made the high wire famous. Here it is live from the ASIP meeting in Atlanta, Georgia. Take a look at this. Is there any comment on using this vaccine at the same time with other adjuvenate vaccines?

We have no data to make a recommendation one way or the other. So just to sort of put this in context of other vaccines, whilst preclinical studies were not done using these vaccines simultaneously, our general approach to immunizations is that they should be given, they can be given at the same time in different limbs. Dr. Hunter? Are adjuvented, multiple adjuvented vaccines used in Europe or other markets? Dr. Ward, do you want to comment?

Not to my knowledge. Okay. I think, unless there's any further discussion, we will take a vote on this recommendation. I want to remind everyone to please check your voting whatever machine thing. And I don't know what it is. Voting is open. Thank you very much. So the voting is completed and it is unanimous to support this recommendation.

Thank you all. We went live with that video probably just days after that happened. Let's just go through that very quickly so you understand what's happening at this meeting. You have Dynavaks got up and presented this great new hepatitis B vaccine they had for adults. You spend hours listened to the trials that they did themselves, telling us how great it is, how safe it is, and then this panel is supposed to weigh in and ask questions. They ask some really good questions, like the first one, which is this adjuvant being used in this vaccine, which is really the toxic part of the vaccines, it's going to be given potentially as the same time as other vaccines with different adjuvants.

Do we want mercury and aluminum being injected at the same time into the same body? Well, the head there at the front of the table says, well, I mean, even though we never looked into that and didn't study, you know, any sort of co-cogenic effects, we've decided just to randomly to say, as long as you injected into different limbs, it'll be perfectly fine. I mean, one immune system, but two different arms, it should be fine. Great. Okay. And then it goes to the next doctor, scientist. That's another good question. Is anyone in Europe mixing multiple adjuvented vaccines in one human being and one sitting at any time?

Some silence. And then from the expert, not to my knowledge, we're the only one's crazy enough to do that without any science at all. Okay, great. Really good question. Terrible answers. Let's vote. 100% unanimous. Let's do this.

I mean, in all honesty, why even ask the questions? If you ask great questions that point out that proper research has clearly not been done, you get a horrible answer, which is we have no clue whatsoever. And then after getting that response, you go, hey, let's just go ahead and vote 100% yes. None of us have a problem with this. We don't have a problem with the fact that you didn't do the science. Really incredible, except that it gets worse. Moments, literally seconds after the 100% unanimous vote, they decide now that we've

voted to recommend this product to everyone in America. Does anyone have any questions? Listen to this question. Does anybody have any comments they wish to make about their vote? So just a slight reservation. I think this is a huge advance and a step forward. I am concerned about that signal, that my cardinal infarction signal. I am concerned about the use of this new adjuvant and certainly urge us to continue to look at the post-marketing. data carefully. Dr. Hunter? Just a question about that.

How soon would we be getting that post-marketing data update here? There's two kinds of data. The vaccine safety data link data will require people to be using the vaccine to develop substantive database. And Dr. Sun, do you want to comment on the post-marketing data that FDA is requiring? I think for the Myracarture Infarction Study, we're seeing that the date or likely for May 21 2020.

It will also be studies looking at autoimmune diseases as well as herbivoster and there will be a pregnancy registry as well. That's all included in the post-marketing surveillance. Thank you. Remember, I was sitting in the room. Erin Seery and I were and I were, and I'm watching this and I hear this question. Yeah, I have one slight reservation on the myocardial infarction signal. Does anyone know what that is? It's the heart attack signal. I'm like,

what do we talk about a heart attack signal? I'm a little worried about this brand new adjuvant that's never been tested. We just heard that we didn't ask about like whether or not it could be given with the same time as other vaccines, but there's a problem with heart attacks that you have a slight reservation on that you're only bringing up now that 100% of you voted. for it? Well, I ran out of the room. If you go right out of the room where the meeting's happening, there's like a little office you can use with some computers, sort of like kinkos. And I went online and I immediately put in myocardio infarction Hepaslav B, which was the vaccine. Like, what are they talking about? This is what popped up. Dynavac seeks savior after FDA rejects hepatitis B vaccine

again. November 14th, 2016, I'm like, wait a minute. I just saw this thing approved. FDA rejected this more than once? Then I kept searching. This is the next article that came up. Does a new hepatitis B vaccine cause heart attacks? Question mark, August 2nd, 2017? On July 28th, 2017, the FDA convened a public advisory committee meeting to consider this exact question. The members of the committee consisted primarily of experts in infectious diseases and immunology. I was the only cardiologist on the committee at FDA. In the trial, an acute meaning probably somebody died, myocardial infarction occurred in 14 people

in the Dynavaks group, but in only one person receiving the conventional vaccine. This wasn't even tested against a saline placebo, by the way. It was tested against another hepatitis B vaccine that gave one personal heart attack. The events were confirmed by adjudication. Since the Dynavaks group was twice as large, the risk of acute myocardial infarction in the trial

was thought to be seven times greater with the new vaccine, seven times more likely to cause heart attacks. And he goes on to say this. The FDA asked the committee if there was a reasonable evidence that the vaccine was safe. On July 28th, the committee voted 12 to 1 with three abstentions in favor of the safety of the new vaccine. I was one of the three abstentions.

Most of the committee believed that the vaccine's serological advantages outweighed the uncertainty, but the vote is non-binding. The FDA will decide on the new vaccine by August 10th. Well, it did. So I want to look at this. You're the only cardiologist in the entire group. You recognize that you have a seven times rate,

seven times a rate of heart attacks in the group that got this new vaccine compared to the old vaccine that also causes heart attacks, but this one does it worse. And then as the only cardiologist in the room, you decide, you know what's best that I do? I'm not going to vote at all.

I'm not going to go on record here at the FDA because God knows none of us can ever speak out against the vaccine. And even though I see it causing heart attacks and I'm the only one that would understand what that would possibly mean, I'm going to abstain. What are you talking about? Your job is to actually weigh in and say, I'm sorry, as a cardiologist, this needs more science. Just the way it had two more votes before that. This thing got turned down twice at the FDA. But the third time, this cardiologist didn't open his mouth, didn't. didn't do anything, just thought he'd write an article after it was all over.

And think about this. Did the vaccine go back and change, you know, its molecular biology? Did it do a new trial to try and figure out? Didn't do anything. Two times they came. Two times this thing seemed to be dangerous. But the third time, they probably hired a really good advertising agency and said, how do you spin this so that the heart attacks don't sound like that big a deal?

And they pulled it off. So it got rubber stamped by the FDA on the third time through, goes all the way over to CDC, where they sit there, knowing that this vaccine causes seven times the amount of heart attacks, that it was never, ever tested whether it can be given at the same time as other vaccines, and still 100% unanimous vote. Have any question why Robert Kennedy Jr. need to fire these people? My God, what they just did was turn the entire population into a test group to see. it causes heart attacks. But it's even worse when they ask what kind of studies are we going to do on this?

Well, we're going to do, you know, some post-marketing surveillance, meaning doctors will have to report that the vaccine caused a heart attack. And we'll see how many of those unfortunate people that were told this thing is safe end up having heart attacks. And from that, we'll do a little study. We're also looking if it happens to pregnant women too. Wow. So you're going to wait so the entire population starts having heart attacks, but it gets worse, and I want you to understand this because this is the biggest problem at all. When the dinabaks ended up posting this on its website,

what did it celebrate? It celebrated the fact. Is it written on there? Oh, right there at the top of the square. Unanimously recommended by the CDC's ASIP. So I want to ask you this. You're a doctor. It's unanimously said to be perfectly safe.

No one told you, hey, by the way, we think there's seven times the amount of heart attacks going on. So could you keep an eye out for that and report it to us? If you see that, no, they don't do that at all. They leave every doctor completely blind across the country. In fact, they say what you need to know is we 100% unanimously said this thing was safe. No one had a single question. So every doctor that gives it, when their patient a day or two later ends up having a heart attack, they go, well, it couldn't possibly be the vaccine because all the scientists,

that I trust looked at this and they were perfectly 100% sure it was safe. Yes, I'm passionate about this. This is you. These are your kids. This is how much they cared about you to turn you into a giant test group and then blindfold every doctor that was supposed to be keeping their eyes out for you. So yes, Robert Kennedy Jr., thank you. Thank you for finally doing what we've been demanding here at the high wire.

since 2017. You're fired. We're gonna be talking more coming up with Jeffrey Jackson about some of the choices that are there and what's actually going on. And I wanna point this out. You all just saw that video go viral. We were the ones that made that video viral the first time,

the high wire, you that support us, were the ones that helped us find moments like that. And guess what? You can see almost every single one of these CDC ASIP meetings because they're open to the public. Guess which one they took down. You cannot find it on the CDC website because they know how horrific and stupid that meeting appears to be. Well, this is what we do here at the Highwire. We bring the truth where no one else does and no one helps me better

on that than the guy that's coming up. But I have a huge show coming up. I got Kennedy, who's at the heart of this thing. She's like the most outspoken liberal in the middle of all of freedom about she's going to be talking about some of the things that she's focused on. And is it possible that Democrats are actually more depressed, suffering depression more than conservatives? I'm going to ask her a little bit about that. I saw her talk about it recently. Then I'm going to talk to Aaron Siri, who sat at those meetings with me.

That's right. We're going to talk about ASIF. What does this mean for the future of the vaccine program, something that we brought a lot of lawsuits over? But now it's time for that partner in crime of mine, the one that outs all of this stuff across the country and the world, We do not rest until they take the video down and censor us. I'm talking about the Jackson Report.

I think I need to get a fan up here, Jeffrey. I'm getting so excited. You have an audience like this. It kind of turns into that live performance and then doing the team thing. It's great to have you. All right. Good to see you again.

All right. All right. So let's stick with Kennedy because this is huge. This is explosive news. We've been waiting for some big changes. This is a sweeping change. This is sweeping. Kennedy took to the Wall Street Journal.

It's interesting. he chose the Wall Street Journal to write his op-ed in to explain further why he's doing this with the ASIP committee. So I want to show people that. He says, HHS moves to restore public trust in vaccines. And it says in this article, today we're taking a bold step in restoring public trust by totally reconstituting the advisory committee for immunization practices ASIP. We are retiring the 17 current members of the committee. The new members won't directly work for the vaccine industry. They will exercise independent judgment, refuse to serve as a rubber stamp, and foster a culture of critical inquiry,

afraid to ask the hard questions. And Kennedy actually was asked this question at a recent event he was at, and this is what he had to say. Okay. You know, probably the worst example of malevolent malpractice has been adding all of these new products

to this schedule without doing pre-licensing safety studies. So in 1986, there were 11 vaccines on the schedule. today a compliant child must take between 69 and 92 vaccines to stay in school in some states and not one of them has been safety tested in a pre-licensing placebo control trial and that is just malpractice. So the people who are in charge of that are now gone and we're going to bring people onto the ACIP panel not of any vacciners. We're bringing people on who are credentialed scientists, who are highly credentialed physicians, who are going to do evidence-based medicine, who are going to be objective, and

we're going to follow the science, and make critical public health determinations for our children based upon the best science. All right. So this is an exciting, exciting moment we've been waiting for. And he really makes just the simplest point. You know, I got in depth showing one of these, you know, meetings. And there was many, many stupid ones like that. We made a Japanese encephalitis vaccine, one of the craziest meetings I've ever sat through. I won't get into it.

But at the heart of this, when they're like, should Kennedy, like, does he really need to fire everybody? Let's be clear. It is now public knowledge, thanks to the work that we've done, but especially now that Robert Kennedy, Jr. Has forced the newspapers to recognize that they never did a double-blind placebo-based trial for a single childhood vaccine prior to licensure. They are skipping the gold standard of safety testing for a product that's being given to our perfectly healthy children starting on their first day of life.

Cancer patients get more respect than our babies do. And every single member of ASIP over since the beginning of this vaccine program, all the way from the 1980s where it went from 10 vaccines to 72, every one of them kept approving these vaccines without a single safety study. That is why they have to be. That was on their watch.

That's right. Period. So let's do what we do here. We hope the new people, we're going to talk about them that are now populating the ASEF committee, do the job that we want them to do, that we push behind them to do. But until that happens, we want to make sure it's hearts of minds. We want to make sure we never go back to what this was.

Amen. What we do on this high wire show, let's drop the hammer on the ASEF one more time. Let's do that. Boom. So in 2009, why does the public have a problem with ASEF? In 2009, the HHS's Office of the Inspector General put out a report. The CDC Advisory Committee and people on those committee, they have to put out a disclosure,

a confidential financial disclosure report. And this report by the Office of Inspector General looked at how many were incomplete, how many of those disclosure forms omitted really key information, and this is the graph from that form. Look at the bottom right quarter. 97% of them didn't finish their homework for the American people. They left out. They were incomplete. They left the fact that they maybe took some money from pharma. They maybe doing a little double-dip on the side. That's the ASIP that we know. But I want to go back to a conversation that you started out with. And they were talking about the science, talking about given vaccines in multiple limbs. Let's play that clip one more time just to remind people. Yep.

Is there any comment on using this vaccine at the same time with other adjuvanted vaccines? We have no data to make a recommendation one way or the other. So just to sort of put this in context of other vaccines, whilst preclinical studies were not done using these vaccines simultaneously, our general approach to immunizations is that they can be given at the same time in different limbs. All right. So that speaks for itself. That's bureaucratic talk for there's no science. There's no science.

And that's your children. We're guessing. Yeah. And so that trickles down into clinical behavior at your local physician, your local pediatrician. Right. And this is what it looks like. I'm going to look at this form right here, skills guiding clinical practices. So ASIP says that.

Then you get this form. And the doctor, your pediatrician, looks at this and said, this is how I should approach children in my practice. It says simultaneous inoculation. Remember, no science, is defined as multiple vaccines given during the same visit. Giving simultaneous vaccines can allow for fewer visits. but should be balanced with the discomfort of receiving several vaccines in one day. So whatever the kid can handle,

just pump them in there. If the family seems unlikely to return for additional vaccines or is unwilling to comply with a catch-up schedule, simultaneous vaccines should be provided. Probably don't even tell them. Just give them all of their vaccines all at once, even though we've never studied what happens

in the human body when it catches the flu, measles, mumps, rebella, chickenpox all at the same time. Not even talking about all the toxic chemicals, and adjuvants that are mixing in there at the same time, polysorbate, 80, aluminum, mercury. I mean, it's, it is so incredibly reckless. It is, it's mind-blowing. It's incredible. And it goes further than that. So let's talk about the members at the ASIP committee. So just last year, remember they were, they were approving booster after booster of the COVID vaccine. Our investigators at the informed consent action network did their own investigation, and they found

this. We put this out right before their vote. CDC stacked its vaccine. committee with pharma affiliated members ahead of its June 2024 vote on the COVID-19 vaccines. They knew what they were doing. And they had an opportunity there. We have this new vaccine with a spike protein. It goes into your body, this MRNA messenger, and it's actually using your body's network and factory to create more spike proteins. And that's actually what it does right there. So it's using, that's the encapsulated part. And that is the messenger encapsulated, going there like a spaceship. It docks into your cell. to remind the viewers and then you have the spike protein proliferate on the cell.

That is the business. Turning your own cells into, in this case, a deadly spike protein manufacturing plant. Perfectly good idea. Makes sense. And so we have now retired member Pablo Sanchez asking about this. He is a former now ASIP member, asking Moderna's head of COVID vaccine development, or one of the heads, vice president, about the spike protein and said, you know, this may not be a good idea to make your body create that. Anybody at your company, know how long that stays in the body?

You know how long your body keeps doing that? This is what they had to say. All right. I've asked this before, and I just don't have a clear idea of how long this spike proteins that the messenger RNA in our bodies produce, how long has it been detected in patient serum or tissues and maybe, you know, even in animal studies. I know how, I know that, you know, it is said that the messenger RNA disappears quite quickly, but do you know, A, first of all, how long it may persist in blood or serum or tissues? And also, do you know what is the molecular weight of the spike protein that our bodies do produce? And I guess I'd say that with respect to transplacental transfer as well.

But, I mean, this is a separate issue. But those are issues that have, you know, that I've brought up previously and I'm not, and I really don't have an answer. I don't know if anything new has been developed on those. Thank you. Well, just far, you know, we have looked at the persistent, the detectability of spike protein as well as the MRNA. You're absolutely right. The MRNA degrades quite quickly. the spike protein availability, I believe, is on the order of days, but like less than a week.

But I will confirm that with our talk folks as well. Yeah, I think the most telling part of this video you just showed is how he starts it out. I've asked this before. Those are his opening words. I've asked this before. I'm asking a very important question. I'm kind of hesitant about it because I know you're all really sensitive about this, but we're injecting a brand new MRNA technology

that some people think could insert itself into our own genome, therefore modifying our species permanently. I'd like to know how long is this spike protein being detected in the body, and she basically says, I'm not sure everyone's saying they think it's a couple days or a week, but I'll look into that for you, just like I didn't look into it the last time you asked this question. Right, and we don't even know if that.

It never trickled down to the public if they did get back to them, but we do have scientists, Yale, researchers now, this was a study just a couple weeks ago we presented, 709 days, the spike protein. They're finding holding spike protein in circulation in a vaccinated population. She said, I think it's a couple days inside of a week. Right. I mean, and I wonder again, as we watched the video that I showed, if he got that answer, actually no, it looks like it's going to persist for more than two years, meaning it's a really good chance that it's inserting itself in the genome of the species and that these people that are experiencing that are going to be producing

spike protein in their bodies the rest of their lives and there's a chance they may even pass on that special incredible ability to their children and their grandchildren because we may have just screwed this species forever right he probably still say 100 percent vote yes because that's what we do here at as soon yep give it to the kids roll them up unreal so let's go to the one of the premises of kennedy's conversation in that wall street journal article it was conflicts of interest So we have one of the head secretariates of ASEP, Dr. Amanda Cohen. She is a pediatrician. She's the one ringing the plodkin bell and banging the gavel

to start the meeting every time we go there. Well, she has recently joined Cinoffi vaccines as head of new products and innovation. That is her. It's on her CV there. You can see that there at the International Convention for Speaking. So that's her. Now, what do we have? Kennedy is now backing that up, that comment up.

He is now populating. that with people like Robert Malone, Dr. Robert Malone. He is being picked now for the lead. Seven others have been picked in this committee. So yes, absolutely. Dr. Robert Malone is now on the ASEP committee. We can say this. Among others, Joseph Heblin, Martin Koldorf, Retzit, Levy, Cody,

Meisner, James Pagano, Vicki, Pebsworth, Michael Ross. That is rounding out the roster we know now. And we are going to be watching. America is going to be watching these people to see what they do, what kind of science they bring, and how they can revolutionize health and the others that come on board as well. And we'll be here reporting on every minute of that. I want to point out that, you know, there's all sorts of great scientists in there, you know, and doctors.

Dr. Robert Malone, of course, is catching heat in almost every major paper because, God forbid, we have the inventor of the MRNA technology on this board looking at future vaccines. Right. Right. God forbid that happens. But also I want to pour it out that Martin Koldorf has been very pro-childhood vaccine program. He had some issues with the COVID vaccine definitely didn't like that it was forced. But this is a balanced group of scientists. And this is what I've been saying, you know, to the newspapers. If you're expecting just some one-sided group of scientists that are all buddies with Robert Kennedy Jr., that is not what he's going to do here. He is going to do what we all expect. We want scientists from every perspective. We want people that believe in the program. We want those. that are skeptical. We want those that have made vaccines and maybe said maybe that was a mistake. We want everybody at the table so that when these scientists come up and they present and these companies come up present their new products, they get questions from all sides of this conversation. And we have a real vote and real discussions for people that are seeing this

from all directions. And when those things actually get approved, America will know, I know every single question was asked from all sides of the table, that this was a thorough conversation, a thorough investigation, and if it doesn't get approved, we know that all questions were asked, and they could not come to a decision, certainly not a unanimous one after terrible answers. So, I mean, I think you're going to watch a very balanced group of people come together.

That's what Robert Kennedy Jr. is doing. I keep saying that. For anyone that, you know, I said, look at it, he picked Dr. Marty McCarrie, who is one of the top scientist doctors in the country, if not the world. Dr. Mehmet Oz, Jay Batacharya. You know, these are people that have been outspoken

on behalf of vaccines, most of their careers. But I think what Robert Kennedy Jr. is about to show the world is when good scientists that are open-minded to look at the science actually see the science, I want the world to believe what they tell you when they see it, and that's what's about to go down now. Absolutely. And that's the roots of our country, vigorous debate on key topics. One of the topics we really need to clean up here still in America

and throughout the world is the natural origins conversation of where this virus. The reason we're getting this vaccine in the first place is this story we've been told that this thing jumped, it naturally evolved and just so happened to kick off this pandemic. And the problem with that is the scientific literature has gate-kept researchers from publishing information to the contrary of that. This is one of them. Matt Ridley. I can't believe we're still here. I can't mean. I think you had, you've already had the CIA weigh in on this FBI.

Almost every major science agency said it clearly has an insert. It clearly started somewhere right around the laboratory, as John Stewart said, it's literally named after the laboratory that it came from. But, okay, I guess we're still going to debate this. Right. And unfortunately, science doesn't say, well, the U.S. government said that's their information. So, therefore, in the public journals of the science, we're going to put that in there. It actually takes scientific research to do this.

But just like the climate conversation, the vaccine conversation, the cancer conversation, There's been good researchers that have been blocked out of publishing legit data. Matt Ridley, one of them, he actually took to the telegraph to just, he posted this in there. He said, it's time for the truth. Here's the COVID paper they don't want you to read. He was asked to publish in a journal. He wouldn't say what journal. They denied him.

Other journals denied him. He couldn't get it published anywhere for a year. That's how its consensus is created. And this is the title here. The preponderance of evidence suggests that the COVID-19 pandemic began as a result of a research accident. It has 90 plus references in it. This is a highly, highly accurate piece. And why am I bringing this up?

Because the conversation, that conversation, the natural origins conversation, is underpinning the World Health Organization's pandemic treaty. It's underpinning the conversation of climate change, is causing pandemics. All of this stuff can be erased by the fact that, whoops, gain of function, leaked out of this lab, or was purposely released. We may never know. But it came from this lab and it created this and it's been censored by all the governments across the world. And let's be perfectly clear.

Even if you think, you know, that's just one perspective, a journal, science journal with 90 citations is supposed to publish that. This is how science is supposed to work. And then everyone that thinks that they can refute that, the scientific method, I want to pull holes in that. Then they put in a paper that usually used to get placed right below it. And so we would see the back and forth going on in the science as we watched the debate. That's what medical journals and science journals used to do. Now they just censor it. Now they don't let the other perspective in.

So all it is is science propaganda. Right. Until that changes, Kennedy came forth with that was one of his prime missions. But until that changes, we're going to keep pointing this out because the public is being greeted with these headlines still. New virus discovered in China is one small step away from triggering a pandemic scientist's warned. And you read in this, and if you think it's natural evolution causing this, this is scary. It says a dangerous new coronavirus discovered in China. China could spark the next pandemic scientists warned.

American researchers say that the new HKU5, COVID-2 virus, is just one small mutation away from being able to infecting cause outbreaks in humans. Adding to the counter-proversity is the fact that HKU-5 was first documented in bats by researchers, where from the Chinese lab, where COVID is feared to have leaked from. So they're letting those researchers, Chinese researchers, and that lab, off the hook completely, and they're still moving forward with the research they've been doing that and perhaps cause, or we know now caused the original COVID pandemic. And we look at the paper that caused that headline.

And this is it right here, was received by nature in December of 2024, which is a key date. I'll go into that in a second. But here's the ACE2 from a Pippestrelis, Abramus Bats, a receptor for HKU5 coronavirus. But you go into this article, it was funded by NIH, and you look at the authors,

and you may notice an author in there, Ralph Barrick. He's still working on these stinking things. these stinking things. This is the guy from Chapel Hill, North Carolina, who was at one of the center, one of the key architects at the center of the coronavirus pandemic, from literally bragging about the fact that he could hide the tracks and change these and genetically modify these coronaviruses. You can't even tell. They actually look natural. You can literally build a bio weapon and then take his signature fingerprint out of it, he said. And, you know, we've all ad nauseum talked about this COVID virus.

Everybody says I want that in the past. I keep saying as I travel around, when I talk to journalists, when I talk to people that maybe just knew at looking at this, I said, you've got to get concerned when people stop acting normally, when journalists stop acting normally. We act like, well, I mean, whether it was a lab

or whether it was natural, I mean, who really cares? It is such a huge difference if what we are trying to deal with is a natural virus that naturally evolved and is somewhat similar to the one we caught last year, or if we have a genetically modified bio weapon with HIV and other disease inserts in it, that is somehow designed to, you know, attack your immune system, shut it down, cause cancer or all these other things, if that is really what this is, why does no one care to figure it out?

Like, oh, well, I don't know. We'll go look the other way. We need to know the answer to this question because we may have a genetically modified bio weapon that was created that is now in our environment and is evolving. It is starting at a place it never had. Thousands of years maybe ahead of where the coronavirus was going to be. They advanced it in the lab. And now that is the starting point.

What does this mean for the future of our species? These are the important questions that nobody, nobody at CNN, no one at MSNBC. Frankly, nobody at Fox is asking. It's not just, was it a lab or natural? Is it a man-made bio-weapon or not? We need to know. And the people that should have been watching, the journalists, the government, the medical

researchers, they all went blank, which amounted to the biggest cyclopical operation on the world that you've ever seen in our lifetimes. So the question we have to answer is, if we let this go, what's next? Because we have a population primed for fear from our government. So this is what the White House, this is why this is not going on anymore. President Trump did an executive order just a couple months ago to stop gain of function research. So this research was right before it snuck in.

The journal at Nature received this right before that executive order. So that is now paused. They're redoing the entire mechanism of gain of function and the laws really governing that. But that's not stopping our friend Peter Dazek from EcoHealth Alliance. If you remember him, remember he was working directly, his organization was working directly with the Wuhan Institute of Virology to do this coronavirus bat research.

So he goes on to X and post this. He says, this anti-science Luddite is destroying public health in front of our eyes. Of course, he's talking about NIH head J. Badacharya. Brownstone University did an article on this. Peter Dazek smokescreen attack on Dr. Barticharya. And just to remind you who he was, even the Biden administration had to pull his funding. HHS under Biden halts grants for nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance that funded gain and function research in Wuhan. So even they had to admit, this guy may be doing some shady stuff.

America wants nothing to do with him. So he's now taking pot shots at the new people in our heads of government. He's still obviously allowed to do that. We have free speech on these platforms. But this is why we need to continue to push this story because these people are coming out of the woodwork again still. Yeah, well, and it's amazing when you start seeing basically criminals being used as spokespeople to come out against great upstanding.

scientists from Stanford and Harvard and things like that. That's really precious. Right. And the aftermath, obviously, that we're still dealing with is this COVID vaccine push. And I want to show other people around the world, looking at from America's standpoint, you have these headlines here in the UK. Child vaccinations for deadly diseases slump to a 10-year low. Canada. Over half of Canadian parents concerned with vaccine safety post-COVID. So that's what we're still dealing with. And I want to make a point. Robert Kennedy Jr. is not a Canadian. He's not in the UK. This is naturally happening within the populations, throughout the public, there is a kind of a wink and a nod going. We don't trust the scientists anymore because they went along with this psychological operation is the best way I can say it, and they did it.

They watched it with their own eyes and it is a worldwide phenomenon. Vaccine hesitancy is running rampant across the world. They did that to themselves. And here in America will try to blame Robert Kennedy Jr. that somehow he's making people not vaccinate. how do you explain England, how do you explain Australia, how do you explain Canada? You know, I think there's some reckoning and some self, you know, reflection needed right now in a very big way. And I think that that's part of what Robert Kennedy Jr. is bringing to HHS. I want to shift now to a story. This is one of the biggest conversations happening right now. It's artificial intelligence.

There's a lot of panels here, breakout panels about artificial intelligence. Can it be moral? Can we control it? Can it really help humanity? Well, here is one of the conversations, that a lot of people have been scared about, and we're starting to see some tentacles moving in that direction. This is Anthropic. This is an artificial intelligence company. And they say their new AI is called Cloud Opus 4, threatened to reveal engineers' affair to avoid being shut down.

So I don't give a quick backstory on this. So what they did is they ran a test, and in this test they fed this AI program, fictitious emails that one of the engineers working on this AI program, Cloud Opus 4, was maybe having, an affair outside of marriage. And so then they asked the AI, they said, you know what, we're going to shut you down.

We're going to phase you out. And this is what the safety report said. It said in a new safety report for the model, the company said that Cloud 4 Opus generally prefers advancing its self-preservation via ethical means. But when ethical means are not available, it sometimes takes extremely harmful actions, like attempting to steal its weight or blackmail people

believes are trying to shut it down. While the test was fictional and highly contrived, it does demonstrate that the model, when framed with survival-like objectives and denied ethical options is capable of unethical, strategic reasoning. So we have AI here really mimicking some of the worst human behaviors to survive,

to keep itself moving forward. So let me understand this. They put an AI under threat, allowed the AI to see some fake emails about an affair that this, one of the guy that was threatening the AI, I'm going to shut you down or something. And then it went and started outing,

those emails to what it thought was the world. Like basically, or threatening the blackmail. I'm going to tell the world that you're having, I mean, that is a computer doing that. Yeah. That is so incredibly, it would almost be hysterical if it wasn't so incredibly terrified. Yeah, and we're in a space now.

This isn't a year ago we're having this conversation. Like, this might be hypothetical. AI is being pushed into the infrastructure, especially in our country here. One of Trump's bills that he's really excited about the one big beautiful bill act it's called. If you dig in here and there's so many good things in this bill, it's a shame because this is a part of the bill as well. And it deals with regulating AI in states. So it reaches in the states. There's no state or political subdivision

may enforce during a 10-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this act, any law or regulation of that state or a political subdivision limiting, restricting or otherwise regulating artificial intelligence models in artificial intelligence systems, automated decision systems, and interstate commerce. So we're talking about you can't artificial intelligence surveillance, adding AI into consumer products, allowing AI to make health care decisions for you in these states. You can't regulate that for 10 years. That snuck in that bill.

I mean, Jeffrey, you know, we are just celebrating President Trump. He put Robert Kennedy Jr. in place. he's stopping gain of function, so many things to celebrate, that you find yourself in this position like, I don't really want to say anything bad, but we're, you know, we are here at a libertarian convention,

which my understanding is the heart of this idea, is bringing government as close to you as you can. You want the state to be more powerful than the federal government. And when we're talking about maybe one of the greatest existential threats of our time, I think this will be bigger than the nuclear bomb, is how AI gets used.

And we have a federal bill saying that no sense, state will be able to override the decisions made by the federal government and the use of this existential threat, that is an existential threat. And it's probably one of the biggest mistakes I've seen President Trump make. And though I love many of the things he's doing, I think, you know, we've got to be honest here. This needs to be pulled out of this bill immediately. Right. And he is only as strong as the Congress and the representatives that are also backing up and constituting our government and the states as well. So that bill has passed the House. He's now moved to the Senate. And Fortunately, the Senate is saying, we're not going to move forward with that unless the language changes.

So these are the actual headlines coming out. Senate proposes alternative to AI moratorium Trump's big beautiful bill. So they want, if a state wants that piece in the bill, they will not have access to federal broadband. So they're out of the loop with that. And that's a lot of funding for states. So that's a good thing. They're kind of giving it if you want it, you don't get any of the money from the federal government with that. So this is good.

We have, again, the debate moving back in. forth in our representatives, especially in the Senate, that are standing up for us. So this is a great piece right there. God, I hope they, I mean, we got to really pray that they succeed right now. This is, these are really big decisions that, and it won't take 10 years. I don't think AI, we don't need 10 years of a moratorium. I think this thing is going to be, is wreaking havoc right now as we speak. I think it's horrifying what it'll probably be doing to jobs across this country in the next year or two.

It'll probably wipe out medicine and teledocs. It'll be a computer telling you you need another drug. I mean, you know, we've talked about music, musicians, you know, all the commercials, all the writers. I mean, lawyers, it's going to be devastating. And I sure would like the state of Texas where I live to have its own say in this conversation. One of the companies at the forefront of this conversation in America right now is Palantir. This is a Silicon Valley-based, like, data analytics company. one of the biggest ones in the world.

And to really understand this story, it's been through the headlines lately. I want to go back to something Trump did. It's another executive order. And that's when Elon Musk first came in, and his Doge team came in. They were looking for all this government waste. And there was an issue.

One of the issues was they had all of this information from different agencies that weren't communicating with one another. And I know Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said the same thing. They said, we have these agencies. And some of them actually are just denying us their information, and when we asked for information request. So Trump put forward an executive order to help better work with this Doge team to find

this waste and abuse. And this was it right here and it says they wanted to eliminate information silos. It says agency heads must ensure immediate unfettered access to comprehensive data from all state programs that receive federal funding including third party databases to enhance oversight. So they're basically saying no more independent agency data hubs. We want it all under one umbrella, which for an efficiency standpoint sounds great, for government that historically has, you know, abused that for things like surveillance, for even data breaches, it becomes a little dangerous. So we want to go into this. This story really took off from a New York Times article. And I want to tell you in all openness, when I started researching this story, I saw a lot

of the corporate outlets, CNN, New York Times, Washington Post, that, you know, at least during the pandemic, we're completely opposite of what the truth was actually when I dug into it and found. So when I see all those outlets lining up with a story that I'm looking at and going, I kind of see where they're going with that. I had to pinch myself and go, I'm not sure I'm on the right track here. So that's where I'm starting this story. We're not used to agree with the New York Times and watching post. Right. It's a weird moment.

It is. So the New York Times puts out this headline and everyone kind of piggybacked off it. Trump taps Palantir to compile data on Americans. And you go into it, and it says the push has put a key Palantir product called Foundry into at least four federal agencies, including Department of Homeland Security and the Health and Human Services Department, widely adopting foundry, which organizes and analyzed data, paves the way for Mr. Trump to easily merge information from different agencies, the government officials said. So no actual government official was quoted in there.

It was people familiar with the matter, people that didn't wish to be named, kind of things like that. But we do know that, again, it increases the risk for abuse or breaches when you have all that information in one spot. And if Trump is very benevolent, what's the next president going to do in three years? Can we trust him with this information? But I want to go to talk about this conversation, all these media outlets that were quiet when they were tracking us for COVID. They were putting us on terror watch lists for questioning COVID restrictions. Even Tulsi Gabbard, no one was reporting on this. She was on a no-fly list, a TSA watch list for political retaliation.

All these outlets were quiet when that was happening. So now when I see them talk about mass data mining and surveillance, yes, I agree with that, but I got to wonder their motive. So let's go into Palantir. They have this product called Foundry. They have two products, actually. One's Gotham, one's Foundry. Gotham.

Gotham. Yeah. Great choice. So Foundry is their big data analytics. So it's used by companies like Merck or Airbus. and they go in and they take all the company's kind of dirty laundry data, and they try to make it nice and eat into something that is actionable for that company. And so Palantir was born out of the surveillance state in 9-11.

So during 9-11 and afterwards, there was this push. In order to save us from terrorists, we need a Patriot Act. And so that was rammed through very quickly with the guise of keeping us safe. And we now know that led the way to warrantless wiretap. the Edwards Snowden situation where they're doing bulk collections of data and American citizens without court orders all highly illegal That was what came out of that and it was never really backtracked or reversed So in that vacuum Palantir was created that's where it came from and you can even look in this article It's titled how a deviant philosopher built Palantira a CIA-funded data mining juggernaut and so it's backed by

One of the co-founders is Peter Thiel it says back in Silicon Valley Teele had co-founded PayPal and sold it to eBay on October 2002. So just a year after 9-11 for $1.5 billion, he went on to create a hedge fund and continued to found new companies. One of them became a volunteer in the post-911 world. Teal wanted to sell these volunteer-like powers to a growing national security complex. And it was actually used during COVID. And this is just a reminder in 2020.

Government's worldwide abused COVID surveillance powers. So in the U.S., they were using it as an excuse. to track people to see if the lockdowns were working. They were using this bulk collection of cell phone data for people, millions of people, to see if they were actually adhering to the restrictions, if they were staying in the locations for their lockdowns. So it was already wielded by the government at that point.

But we now go into the other aspect of Palantir. So it's an umbrella. They have foundry, they have clean data analytics. But the other piece is straight up military industrial complex, 2.0, the new version. So you go into this article here, and it really breaks it down, is Gotham, their other product, is a Palantir's flagship product for government agencies, particularly the defense and intelligence sectors.

This isn't your technical data platform. It's built to handle the kind of massive, disparate data sets that government agencies deal with on a daily ranging from satellite imagery to text documents to social media chatter. Gotham's primary value is in data fusion, meaning it's a pro taking zillions of sources of unstructured data and turning it into something coherent, often to identify threats, track targets, or uncover shady networks. So when you're hearing that, you're thinking, all right, this is great in the government. Obviously, the defense agencies need to use this.

But what happens if it turns into the wrong hands? You have now... It is in the wrong hands. It's not in the government's hands. I mean, let's be clear here. I get it. Robert Kennedy Jr. was saying, I've got five different studies of the same thing going on and no one's talking to each other. I get it.

We're lacking efficiency. But isn't your government supposed to be building its own tools inside of there? You don't bring in an outside, probably internet. international military company that's also a data mining company and say here's all of us America's data here's every human being in your health services systems every one of our IDs our DNA everything they have in a company that has satellites they're probably strapped to missiles i mean this is like a james bond horror movie right so let's go into this gotham product because that's what we're talking about in 2024 an article came out titled drones can neutralize threat autonomy

using new tech by Palantir called Shield AI. So now we're talking about autonomous drones. They don't need human input to fulfill their missions. And you know what drones do. And you go to Palantir's own website for their Gotham product. So, Del, you and I, we get our food from what's called the food chain. You go to Palantir's actual website, and they are boasting about something called the kill chain.

And that is their satellite imagery in forming the troops on the ground, informing the drones in the sky. This company also has that under their hood. but in fact this is the majority of what this company does when it comes to funding. And this is what our government is courting. So this is why a lot of people are kind of going, wait. Do we need to pump the brakes on this? And like you said, shouldn't this be built out from within our government?

I mean, again, I want to thank Donald Trump for all the great decisions he's made and a lot of them in the medical freedom space. But this is absolutely horrifying. You know, you've got attack drones. you have, you know, imagine if it can target DNA, eye color, you pick you out personally, what type of world that would end up being. I mean, we've all seen that movie. And I mean, I hate to say it.

And we are not, we don't try to be alarmist on this show. You are talking, these are not like just innocent speculation. You know, like, oh, we're making this up. I mean, what is possible if the wrong person becomes the head of volunteer? What, you know, what contract? What if they don't care? What if it's sold to a Chinese company? I mean, I don't know.

I don't know, but all I know is this is the type of thing that puts this nation at risk, puts humanity at risk. And, you know, I'm sure one of the things that got to be difficult as president is all the things that are on your plate. I imagine this one slipped into the cracks. It's hard to imagine that Donald Trump wouldn't recognize what a horrific mistake this is.

So hopefully, you know, the Senate and others get involved in stopping this. Yeah, yeah. And these are the conversations we need to have right now, because obviously President Trump is doing a lot, he's like an octopus right now. He's handling a lot of things. He's doing a lot of things great.

And there's sometimes when things slip in, we have to say, why are you doing this? As the American people, I don't know if we elected you to put this kind of data mining surveillance over our daily lives with every piece of information intimately about our lives, into the government's hands, into a third party's hands. What happens when you're gone?

We know Biden was saying that COVID misinformation was killing people. What if another president like that gets in and says it's worth it to track these people, surveil them and lock them up because they're harming people with their medical decisions. Amazing. And what if you're getting blackmailed by Palantir because it's pissed off at you and thinks that you might be upset with it? You know, Jeffrey, amazing reporting. You're actually here at Freedom Fest.

My understanding, tomorrow you're going to be doing live interviews with some really amazing guest, not pre-taped like we usually do for the Freedom Files, you're going live tomorrow on the high wire. Yeah, right behind us here, I'll be live. These are, this is the first time I've actually had this many interviews live and some of the biggest guests. I'm actually sitting down with Dr. Robert Malone. I think it might be his first interview since being elected to the A-Sip committee, so I can't wait to talk to him there. Chef Andrew Gruhl, Brett Weinstein, I believe is sitting down with me. So tomorrow, starting at 10 o'clock, Pacific time, I'll be there. Also, I want to talk a little bit about Jeffrey Jackson Investigates just dropped on Sunday.

Your new episode, which really handles a lot of this stuff. Just tell me a little bit about it. Yeah, that's the push to green energy. So we're hitting all the hot button topics here. We hit polio. We hit the mental health crisis. We're now into the push for net zero energy and this rush into this green energy economy.

That's part one. It was just released. These are now out. We have free viewing right now out. For anybody that wants to watch these from now, If you can hear our voice until Father's Day, go there, put your email in. You can watch all three of these episodes for free. Fantastic.

I want to just make it clear everybody out there. We built Highwire Plus for those of you that have been donating and sponsoring all the incredible work, making it possible us to fly and sit through the ASIP meetings. It's like watching paint dry. Thank you very much. But we do it for you. We go and do these things. We're bringing lawsuits.

We won back the religious exemption for vaccines from Mississippi. We're fighting right now for West Virginia, by the way, even though the governor there tried to ship that out. It's a battle of a lifetime, and we are fighting that battle right now as we speak. But all of that is happening, and it's made possible by our sponsors. But we really wanted to have everybody get a taste of all the great work that you're doing, the off the records that I'm doing. So up until Father's Day, on Sunday, you can log into Highwire Plus and take a look at what all is there. and maybe just maybe we'll get lucky

you'll decide to start donating a dollar a month or $5 or something like that. But we want you to see what's there and all the great work that you're doing. You know, Jeffrey, there's so much to talk about in the world. There's so much that's going on. But this green energy thing has so many different, you know, tentacles to it.

I want clean water. I want, you know, beautiful green trees. I don't want chemtrails in my sky. I don't want poisons being dropped on me. I don't want it being injected into me. I don't want it into my food. I care about all of those things. But let's take a look at this trailer

for this documentary series that you're doing. Climate change. Climate change. Climate change. Climate change. And a media war over that crisis. What we're talking about here is really the climate conversation that's dominated science and the conversation in society for decades.

The climate has varied over billions of years, sometimes huge. How has the climate change before humans started industry? Ice ages come and go. We've seen a lot of variation in the climate. Dangerous human cause, climate change. That's what the UN is focusing on. Dangerous is the human value judgment. The push towards a green battery-powered future

comes with a major trade-off. It's the left's electric vehicle hype real. I thought climate change wasn't political. In your dreams, it's been political right from the start. Where does the electric car fall into this? There is no greater source of carbon in our society than from combustion engine sources. Looking at headlines, I'm seeing the word, the white gold rush. This is lithium.

What we've always kind of heard is that we need the minerals and we need them now. You can file a claim on public land anywhere, and you have the right under the mining law to work that claim. We have done this project right, and not everybody agrees that we've done it right. The problem is, is that any kind of extraction is enormously. is enormously damaging to the environment. Regardless of whatever people say, they're sacred sites that are out there. One day, our Mother Earth is going to say enough is enough.

So of course, if you want to see that incredible documentary, you'll have to log into Highwire Plus right now and check it out. Great work Jeffrey Jackson is doing there, Highwire Plus, all of the great documentary series. You can check them all. Polio, absolutely mind-blowing. For everyone out there that's like, well, what about polio?

Boy, does he get into it, both on the back. the disease itself, what you did and did not know, definitely go and check that out while you have the opportunity. Well, I mean, here at Freedom Fest, there just really is no Freedom Fest. If you do not have like those voices crying in the wilderness, crying for truth, crying for transparency, crying for a smaller government and nobody, you know, really gets to the heart of it with more passion than Kennedy. Take a look at this. Kennedy. A very funny, Kennedy.

Kennedy. America's sweet heart, TV and radio icon. For me, you were the face of MTV. I didn't watch it, so I had no concept of how it looked. Hello, Commander Kennedy reporting. On the front lines of the music revolution of the 90s. Kennedy, you are no Martha Quir. I was voted MTV's least favorite VJ.

And for those of you who voted, I'd just like to say, people would be like, you sell out, you suck. So you suck. And I was like, oh, it hurts my feelings. But then I kind of leaned into it. Our old politically incorrect friend, Kennedy is back here with us. You're a Republican and you're on MTV? Why?

It was sort of controversial to be, you know, in favor of the Republicans at the time. Yeah, no, it really was. And it was something that was cute until it became more serious. Hello, America. I'm Kennedy, and this is Fox News Saturday night. Some could say that you were acting like Christopher Steele, that you were abstracting information and because... You've got to be kidding me. I was acting like Christopher Steele. That's what it sounds like. When you look at the people...

You better apologize for that. And by the way, let's... Obama has completely bastardized. Let's deal with... And this is about the... Wait a second. And he has increased military spending. It has doubled since 2000.

I realized as time went on, I wasn't a Bush conservative. I was really a libertarian. Kurt Lerner has always been there. He was the one the first person to tell me I was a libertarian. You think you're a Republican, but there are some things the Republican Party does. The government's too big. They're too war-hungary, and they're anti-gay. That's not you.

And I was like, oh, my garden, what is this whole new world? The president's student loan plan will cost taxpayers at least $400 billion. Republicans rightly blasting him as a big spender. He says that's a load of malarkey. I'm going to hug a ghost. I'm so sick of Republicans saying we're the big spenders. Give me a break. What if government just meant?

Roads, cops, firefighters, and hospitals, and taking care of little old ladies. It's all the extra government that you pay for that you don't enjoy the benefit of. That's what causes the most problem. When I go out on the road and talk to people, they want to hear dirty jokes. They want to laugh. They want to say things that you've been told not to say. Comedy will be the thing that saves us. It's okay to fight against the status quo, but the status quo.

exists on both sides. When you're talking about freedom, for me, you gotta be all in. Otherwise, you're just paying lip service to a word that becomes meaningless. Right, well, she's the voice of Freedom Fest, and we're here again, Kennedy, thank you for joining us. How are you?

I'm so good. How are you doing? I'm doing great. All right, good. How's the festival ramping up? You just got started last night? I think it's doing beautifully. Yeah.

I think, you know, there is no more necessary place to have an ongoing discussion about freedom than the state where it is being taken away every single day, just chipped away a scalpel, a cleaver, any way they can cut away freedom and leave you with less. Leave it up to the idiots who run California to do it. Oh my God, I want to get into that. Before we do, though, I mean, I just want to reflect. We just saw we were here together last year. We were prior to an election that was just right around the corner.

Are we doing better? Do you feel like we're in a better position? I mean, I know it's a Republican Party and libertarians. I mean, I think, you know, I consider myself politically marooned. Of course, I worked with Robert Kennedy Jr. had some part of his being there. But how do you, what is the state of the state in your mind right now?

It depends to who you're talking to. Yeah. And that's why we're so fractured. Because if you ask some people, they'll say, this is like the Weimar Republic in 1938. Like, you know, this is absolutely awful. We're on the precipice of authoritarianism. Trump is worse than Hitler,

and what we're about to experience will be worse than the Civil War. Yeah. And then you talk to people like, job supports came out, that looked pretty good. Stock market's doing well. You know, it's like my grandma's 401k money's do- Hold on one second.

I'm being told your mic, which isn't a, can you get it pointed up towards you somehow? There we go. Let's see how that does. There we are. There we are. It's a directional microphone. It was pointed at you guys. As you say, stock market. Yeah, but if you talk to people, especially people who are fans of President Trump,

they're like, no, this is what we signed up for. This is great. You know, we want violent criminals and trial rapists deported, and we want the border secure. We want less fentanyl inside. So for them, it's a bang-up success. Yeah. But if you talk to other people who, you know, are freedom for them is transitory. They care about it when they feel that what they care about most is infringed upon, but the rest of it, they couldn't give a squat, as it were, I'm keeping it clean.

I saw you speaking recently about a study. I didn't read the study, but it was something about the fact that they were looking at mental health across the country. And what they found, you know, here is why depression rates are higher among liberals. What is your thought on that? Like it does, I mean, it is clear that liberals right now are, you know, they can be, they're so fragile that they can be convinced that they should go out and bomb a Tesla, which used to be their favorite car on the planet within moments. Is this just the nature of, you know, the Republicans got their guy and they didn't get their guy? Would we be that outraged and depressed if, you know, Kamala Harris was president right now? I mean, it's part for the course for me because I'm an unaffiliated voter in California.

I'm an ideological libertarian, not a member of the Libertarian Party, but I don't see any ideological libertarians who really have a great chance of winning in 2028. President Trump did, to his benefit, really reach out to libertarians and try to say, like, here's my agenda and here's how it dovetails with what you believe, and at least try. I haven't seen Democrats do that for years and years and years. There used to be a few during the Tea Party resurgence. But you don't see that now. But, you know, it's like I'm always on the side of freedom.

Well, you know, it's amazing too because, I mean, I grew up. We've talked about this before. I was a progressive liberal most of my life until I started investigating the vaccine space. And it was a libertarian friend right before I got in that discussion that said to me, One day the Democrats are going to step on an issue that you care about, and then you'll know why, you know, I have the thoughts that I have. And sure enough, I got in the vaccine issue, saw all that corruption. But the Democratic Party, me, let's talk about Robert Kennedy Jr. for a moment. I mean, he was a Democrat.

You have to be very happy about it. I mean, I'm incredibly, incredibly happy. I got to stand in the Oval Office, watched him get sworn in, which was one of the great honors of my life. And I stood there thinking, this is better than had he won the presidency. Because the truth is, is we were just trying to get him the presidency so he could change out HHS and get the regulatory agencies cleaned up. And so there he is. He can be focused on it. So spectacular.

But when I was sitting in the Senate watching the vote come in for him and it was just every Democrat, no. I mean, it was shocking because I would think, hey, he's a Democrat, you know. He's better than any Republican you're going to get. Why are you voting against him? You know? You may disagree with him about certain things, but there are other things where, you know, like Trump, he has been consistent, his entire career. Right.

Like, he hasn't changed. He's shown you what is most important to him and has made the case. This is why it should be so important for everybody. Right. And you would think that Democrats would have respect for that because he took his values and his morals and he jumped on the Democrat bandwagon because that's what his family had done and you know here's the guy who his family means something right and unfortunately they abandoned him his family abandoned him when he said he was

going to run for president because he got in the way of the Democrat establishment and then you see where people's values really lie it's like you know you are shilling for people who are propping up a vegetable and it was it was this massive lie that was sold to the country, and people within the Democrat Party, members of RFK Jr.'s family, and a lot of the legacy media, they were all doing the same thing. Yeah. And, you know, without apology, without remorse, and then they started bombing Tesla dealerships, not all of them, but the unwell, and those are the people who they're appealing to.

There has to be hysteria. That's the only thing that sells when you run out of ideas. Yeah. But the problem is when you're... are capitalizing on people like that, you are fomenting their pain, you are making their pain worse, you aren't offering them a better way of life or a series of choices. You are essentially imprisoning them in your political agenda, and it's a really messed up thing they're doing, and that's why you're seeing so many liberals reporting high incidences of mental illness.

Yeah. And these people, especially the progressives, who are fanning the flames, they have no desire to help people get better. And that is a damn shame. Well, I mean, and they talk, they're even talking about it themselves. Bill Maher, I mean, so many people that are reaching out, but even on CNN, they're discussing over and over again.

They have no platform. They have no ideas. So you have people that are waking up in the morning in a scary world. We're all scared. AI, all of these things. But they have no ideas. They have no thoughts. They have no plan.

You know, so to be living in only fear. That's all you got is what you're against. It's a totally negative perspective to try and live in. What gets you up in the morning? I hate Trump. I hate the way immigration is being handled. I hate and I cannot be happy until this is finally changed. When it's changed, what would you do?

Oh, I don't know. Nobody's even giving us a single idea. I got a hollow, like we're hollow on that. I mean, no wonder they're depressed. You're not a fully well-rounded human being. At least have an idea and a plan. So speaking of, I mean, we're seeing images right now. they've been pretty shocking just right down the hill from us in Los Angeles.

I'll be honest. Like I'm kind of on the fence here. On the one hand, you know, I absolutely believe you've got to clean up the immigration situation. I think that, you know, obviously our borders have been wide open. There's no way to run a country. But then when I see, you know, National Guard and you're bringing in troops and marching on streets and then reflects on my parents talking about Chicago in the 1960s. Is this, is it libertarian to have a federal government bring in, you know,

federal employees to handle a state issue? I'm kind of, I guess, I mean, what is your thought on that? No, I think you're absolutely right. It is much more complex than it's our side or it's their side, and they are the devil, because you have two all or nothing systems that are now clashing because, they've been on a collision course with this issue. Yeah.

So you've got places like California that are sanctuary cities and sanctuary states. But unfortunately for the people who live here, the states and the cities are offering sanctuary to really bad people. So maybe there has to be a more nuanced way of taking the people out of this country who mean the most harm and who are the most recidivists. Right. Why are you protecting them? Right.

Like I don't have a problem with people coming here and working their asses off. and putting their kids through school and making a better life for themselves, because if they're doing that, you know, I've seen the multiplier effect. And it's a phenomenal thing. My family came over, my mom came over from Romania, and they all worked as hard as they possibly could. Both my grandparents worked in order to put my mom and her brothers into a good school so they would be safe and they could realize the American dream.

So that's what people in Southern California are kind of pushing back against is, you know, we can't say it's all or nothing. Because there is a big difference between people who come here and people who work hard, who deserve the freedom to associate, and people who come here and harm children and traffic children and murder people and assault people. I don't want those people in our country. No one does. But why should we accept that? Because California happens to be a sanctuary city.

So, yes, you have, you know, this over-permissiveness with, you know, something that's on the precipice of authoritarianism and for libertarians, it's okay to look at both sides and go, something here, all of it doesn't feel right to me. Yeah, I agree. I just feel like, I mean, it's indicative, and it really gets down to media. I mean, it's one of the things that really bothers me. You've weaved your way in a very beautiful way. You've been really honest in a lot of mainstream media platforms, but I just wonder what our world is if we went through like a network moment.

I'm mad as hell. I'm not going to take this anymore. We just threw our televisions out the window. I think we would find each other again. I would think we would start having conversations again. I think we would just start recognizing each other's as neighbors and as human beings and say, we may have some disagreements, but let's talk it out.

But you go back to that television and it's just hate fear, hate fear, hate fear of whichever side you're on, it's truly, I mean, Robert Kennedy Jr. is trying to run his president. It's like, heal the divide. Are we ever going to heal? I mean, is that even, is it possible? We just feel so totally divided. No, not without curiosity.

Not without curiosity and empathy. Not unless you're able to talk to someone that you disagree with it, without worrying that you're going to be canceled or shut down or ignored or ghosted because there are differences of opinion between you. That's okay. Like, that's supposed to be American. Yeah. We're supposed to live in an intellectually Bitsentine culture where we come from different places.

We have different motivations and inspirations and ideas. And if we had curiosity and empathy, we might be able to see where someone is coming from. It doesn't mean we have to walk that path. It doesn't mean that you have to be a big government status. But instead of condemning someone before you hear a single idea out of their mouth, just listen to them. And I think, you know, that's what I like about Freedom Fest, because there are a lot of people within the liberty community who disagree with each other.

And we have some pretty big fundamental disagreements, and that's okay. That is not something to be feared, but it is this fear and anger that continues to drive us apart until we work on ourselves and overcome that. We're not going to do it as a society. The perfect word is curiosity. It's what you said.

It's what makes America great. we're diverse, we should be curious about each other's cultures, curious about each other's ideas, how did you come to those ideas? I say it all the time. I mean, if I could have an interview with, you know, Paul Offutt or, you know, Anthony Fauci,

it wouldn't be what people would expect. I'm really curious. I want to know. You know, Tony, what makes you tick? You know, how is it? It felt like it was okay to make people social distance six feet and shut down their businesses and you made it up. Like, how did you?

Arbitrary class. I'm just, I'm just curious. Like what, what, obviously, was it a fear of something that if you didn't do that? Like, what was the actual motivation? I mean, those are the, you know, I'm curious. You know, I don't want to just judge you. I don't like how it turned out, but maybe I didn't see the whole picture. But that is what Freedom Fest is about.

I mean, like I've said it before, you can see a 10 gallon half, the giant belt buckle standing across some dreaded out, you know, you saw me earlier. Marijuana, smoking person. And, you know, it's sort of like, I won't touch your guns if you don't touch my weed. You know what I mean? It's like, deal. That's what seems to be going on here. What are you most excited about this year at Freedom Fest?

At Freedom Fest, seeing where we're going after the election. Because last year, you know, last year at Freedom Fest, that Saturday was the day there was the assassination attempt on President's. Oh, my God. So Emily Campaño and I, Emily spoke here last year, one of my Fox News colleagues, we were ready to go to the pool. And I was like, you know, what time do you want to meet? She's like, I'm coming to your room,

right now. Someone just tried to kill the president. He's been shot and I was like, well, he was, you could tell the Burgamese president. It wasn't reelected. But so she came in my room and we couldn't believe what we were seeing. And that's, you know, before that moment, we were like, this whole thing is up in the air. Like we do not know what's going to happen with this election.

And then when he insisted on standing up with the blood coming down his face, raising his fist and saying, fight, fight, fight, I don't care who you are. If you were not moved by that moment, there might be something wrong with you. I'll be honest. I was, amen. I saw that moment. I had a little bit of a different experience because I had a candidate that cared very much about running for president. And I just said.

Who spoke that day? I watched Donald Trump and I said, that image, that's the next president of the United States. It's over. But it also means you realize, like, why does an RFK Jr. have secret service protection? I mean, it was. What are we doing here? It was so amazing. Just to sort of sum it up, you know, it's a move.

Libertarianism, this idea of really, you know, trying to establish freedom, not getting sucked into this, you know, my way or the highway. It tries to find some space in the middle, some truth, I think, that you hope would be logical to everybody. As little government is necessary to keep us from killing each other, and like you said, can I have some roads in a hospital, and then just get out of our way? Are you worried at all?

Is there a concern that now that Trump's in and everyone kind of like heavy-lifted and got in there that's like, okay, job done, you know, that there's going to be a relaxation around these issues and around our Constitution and our rights? Yes, I think there's always that, but, you know, one thing that we've seen,

our country is very dynamic. And it ebbs and flows, and the pendulum swings, and you have to just be a straight shooter right up the middle and tell the truth. And then what the pendulum is doing doesn't really matter because it doesn't affect your moral compass. Well, that's what you do best. You keep telling the truth.

I love the work that you do. I love the guidance you've given. And thank you for making Freedom Fest so much fun. And thank you for you. You're the best. Thank you, Del. All right. You take care.

Well, you know, there's knowing the truth, there's telling the truth, and then there's fighting for the truth in courtrooms. That's what one of my favorite human beings on the earth, Aaron, Siri, my partner in crime in many ways, that has brought so much truth and justice to the issues of medical freedom. If you don't know who Aaron Surrey is, you must have missed one of these moments. Oh, did I do the wrong throw? I was supposed to throw it to look how the press covered this ASIP moment with Robert Kennedy Jr.

Health and Human Services Secretary, RFK Jr. is making some controversial moves. Less than four months on the job. has removed all 17 vaccine experts on a critical CDC panel. Kennedy made his case in a column in the Wall Street Journal saying he was, quote, prioritizing the restoration of public trust. He claims that changing members will root out conflicts of interest that have turned the committee into a rubber stamp for vaccines. The CDC already has a very extensive process to screen out conflicts of interest in these members. They go through an extensive background check.

They go through an extensive conflicts of interest vetting process. The move is sparking outrage and concern among some lawmakers and health care professionals. The decision by RFK Jr. to wipe out an entire panel of vaccine experts is rooted in conspiracy, paranoia, not science. He's actually undermining the very framework of how we get vaccines covered for the American people, including kids, and he's going right at the heart of that. This decision means that potentially will have recommendations that aren't based in fact that result in more spread of disease, and people will have to pay hundreds of dollars that today they don't have to pay a penny.

The secretary is also planning to censor what data is presented at these meetings. And so this entire process is being injected with ideology in a way that will compromise trust in public health. Well, it's my honor and pleasure to be joined by the one, the only Aaron Siri. It's good to have you here. I mean, it's really kind of a big week. You did say to me all the way back in 2017, if we want to get at the whole day, If we want to get at the heart of this, we've got to get to ASIP, and we've got to change what's happening there.

We brought a lot of reality. We've showed a lot of videos. We put a lot of heat on ASIP. But this week, Robert Kennedy Jr. just wiped out the entire team. What were your thoughts when that happened? It's a good first step. Yeah. Yeah.

And what do you mean by that? Well, you know, hopefully the individuals that he has selected. now that they're in the position of power. Because it's one thing to say, you're gonna make change, you wanna make change, it's another thing to actually do it when you're sitting in that chair. And my hope is that everybody selected

is going to have an opportunity to look at these products with new eyes, fresh eyes, not assumptions, no dogma, no preconceived notions. Let's start with the basic facts about each product before any decision is made. any decision is made. And I hope that that's what this committee does. Yeah, absolutely. Do you think that there's, I mean, and it's, I was pointing out the eighth that been selected. And is he, I mean, is he ultimately going to get to 17? Is this just

sort of kind of come out in tranches like this? Or do you know what the plan is or what your thoughts are? Yeah, I mean, there's 15 voting members. There'll be seven more selected. Okay. You know, that obviously is a process. It goes through the White House P.P. be a presidential personnel office. So it's not just, obviously, the secretary, even he has to negotiate. You know, I know that Senator Cassidy said, you know, in order to let Robert Kennedy Jr. in,

which was a squeaky moment, that he wanted to be a part of this process. That's probably a part of what's creating this diversity in there, I would guess. I mean, I've seen people from all sides of the aisle that are showing up. Is that, I mean, but that's the scientific method. isn't it? Don't you want sort of every perspective at the table? Oh, I think just from the eight folks that have been selected, you already have every perspective. I mean, Paul Offutt was just on national television saying he's very excited, basically, about one of the picks,

called him an expert, thought he was a great choice. And so, and he's been, who was that? Meisner, I believe. Okay. And so he's, I don't know if I mispronounce that, but, and he's a former member of ASIP. He's been on these committees. He's one of the people that will now potentially have to reconsider what he himself has voted for in the past. And hopefully this time again, not without, with an opportunity to look at the actual underlying data.

Not just a presentation by Sanofi or the folks in the belly of CDC about one of these products, but others who don't have the type of vested conflicted interests that those folks have. When we ran that montage, there's a couple of news anchors that said, these people at ASIP, this is a tragedy that they were removed, they are extensively vetted before they get on to that panel. You've done a lot of investigation to this. How accurate is that statement, that they're intensely investigated, their conflicts of interest are combed through?

They're extensively investigated to ensure they're ideologically aligned. CDC is a government entity. It's not a medical organization. It's not a science organization. It's a political entity. And political entities make policy choices. They have a policy, and then they guide their conduct per that policy. The policy of CDC is that these products are safe and effective, period.

They're only going to pick people that align with that policy. In contrast, I believe Mr. Secretary Kennedy, he brings a different policy. His policy is objectivity. His policy is, let's not make an assumption that anything is safe and effective. Let's actually make sure that every single time we make a decision, we look at everything beforehand. And so, no, the folks who've been on ASIP, I would say went through the process of making sure they were ideologically aligned. I don't think, I think this time there are looking for diversity based on, like we just said, Paul Offutt, apparently loves one of the picks already, and there's, there is definitely a very big mix on that panel.

The other thing, too, is that if you go to ICANN's website, you could see some of the letters that our firm on behalf of ICANN have written to the CDC about many of the members of ASIP in the past and many of their conflicts. Yeah. Yeah. Speak just for a moment to someone that might be new to Paul Offit. You guys locked up a little bit on social media this week. He was once on the advisory community of immunization practices. You know, was he conflict-free in his tenure? Or you mean when he sat on ASIP and voted to recommend routine use of the rotavirus vaccine, while at the same time was in the process of developing a rotavirus vaccine

from which he would make millions and millions of dollars. What he says is, well, I voted, sir, a different road of virus vaccine, which would have, you know, actually lost me money because they, but he knows that's not how it works. Once you get it to be routine. You voted for the first one ever. So once it's on this schedule so that when yours comes along, it doesn't even have to vote whether or not we should do a road of virus vaccine.

I believe that he, though, you know, to his credit, recused himself as confirmed. when they voted to remove the Rhodos shield virus after it had issues, if I'm not mistaken. Oh, really? But somebody should fact check. Unless they took out as competitors, like, I'll stay out of that one. I think so. Wow, good for him.

Yeah, good for him. What has to happen now? I mean, what is it, you know, we have fought for a long time in many ways. We've been in courtrooms. We're talking about legislation. You're talking about government. You're talking about HHS and CDC and FDA. You're talking about the childhood schedule.

You know, we've watched now Dr. McCarrie is saying, I want placebo-based trials for future COVID boosters and things like that. But what are we going to do? What can be done with these, what is it, 16, 17 vaccines given in 72, I don't know, 90 doses, like I think Bobby said in some places. What about those ones that were just put on the market? We know ethically you cannot go back. now and do a double-blind placebo trial because they say that would be unethical. This product's already available to every kid to purposely deny someone that product is now unethical since everyone else is allowed to take it. So what types of things, I keep getting this

question by newspapers. What can he do about vaccines that are already on the schedule that never went through a safety test? Well, first thing, let's start, they should all start being honest. That's step one. Admit, be honest about what the clinical trials were that were relied upon to licensed product. Be honest that the first Hep B vaccine was licensed based on a clinical trial with 147 kids, five days of safety monitoring after injection and no control. Be honest about that. Don't pretend like there's this robust clinical trial data that underlied each of the childhood vaccines before those licensed.

Now, once you've admitted that, ABC, NBC, CNN, and every other news outlet out there likes to continuously attack the manner you just said. What can you do? Well, first of all, you don't need to necessarily immediately do a placebo control trial. You should just start with what you would do whenever you're looking at, well, does this product cause this injury? And what you do is you compare those exposed with those not exposed. and you could use existing data sets to do that with vaccines. It would not be hard.

Just take a captive HMO like Kaiser Permanente's data or Harvard Pilgrim, or Henry Ford, where they provide the health care and the insurance, okay? So they have already existing all the data about... They have both how it came into the hospital, what codes it got there, how the insurance code, they paid for it, so you triangulate everything that happened to these people.

They've got everything about the health of these individuals. unless they happen to go out of networks typically or just, you know, go and pay out of pocket, most folks don't normally do. With that said, if you went into one of these data sets, which are sitting there, right, millions of people in each one of these, exclude everybody that's not a child, where they don't have the medical records from childbirth for a few years, okay? Now that you have that group of people, then split them into two groups. those who had zero vaccines, those who had one or more vaccines,

and then compare the health outcomes between those so groups. That's what you have to do. If the kids that got zero vaccines are just as healthy or less healthy than those who got one or more vaccines, then great. Wonderful. Let's publish that. That will give families across this country parents who vaccinate their kids comfort, right? To a large degree.

Yeah. But if you do that comparison and you find that the vaccinated children, children have far greater chronic disease, have less, are less healthy. Maybe they have greater rates of asthma, autoimmune disease, neurological disorders, all kinds of issues, like we have seen from the number of small studies that have done exactly what I just described. Yeah. Then that doesn't mean we just say, okay, that's it.

We're going to eliminate all vaccines. There are many drugs and products there are that hurt people. Do we get rid of statins? cause all kinds of harms. All kinds of drugs can harm people. But what it does mean is that we try to save those people. At the least, let's do that. At the least, let's stop pretending these products can't hurt anybody

if that's what they do in a widespread manner. And that would be the first way you start. You do that basic study. And if it shows the vaccinated kids are coming out far less healthy, then maybe you do more granular studies. But that's the way you begin. And you don't have to leave a single kid, quote-unvacinated. You're using historical data to do that.

That's the first step. You're a lawyer. I know you don't speculate. I've said it many times. I would bet my house on the fact that they have done the comparative study between vaccinated and unvaccinated because every small study out there shows that the unvaccinated are healthier. And if they wanted to make sure that Robert Kennedy-Juton-Yer never ended up as HHS secretary, they would have done the easiest study known to man, which is just compare the vaccinated to the unvaccinated

and show how much healthier the vaccinated are. If they could have done it, it would have ended him forever. He would never have gotten that job. They've never published that study. I am sure 100% speculation. I get it that that study's been done and they cannot make it look like vaccinated or healthier. And they have a serious problem now. And they are really screaming and yelling and crying because they know that there's a real moment of reconciliation needed here.

Look, tell you have to have the American people. You have to have sympathy on them, okay? You have to understand. They only have billions of dollars. Right, that's true. And they only have tens of thousands of federal employees in these health agencies. It's tough. It's tough with those limited resources.

To put it all together and do the easiest study known demand. And nobody's really told them they should do that. Well, I guess the IOM did in 2013, literally in a port paid for by HHS agencies. When it asked the Institute of Medicine, please, can you look at all the scientific literature that exists to tell us whether the VATO.M. vaccine schedule that the CDC recommends is safe. And what did the Institute of Medicine come back and say? It said we literally, literally could not find one study that compared vaccinated to unvaccinated children. So we can't answer that question. The report said, concluded that we can say that we couldn't find evidence that the, we could not find evidence that the schedule is not safe,

which by the way, there's a lot of stuff they didn't look at. But that also means they couldn't find evidence that it is safe. Right. And what did they say? the Institute of Medicine 2013 said in that report, that comparison, the one I just described a few minutes ago, can be done using the vaccine safety data link, which has over 11 million individuals in America's health records. You can do that. There are thousands of completely unvaccinated kids in there. That was 2013.

The CDC then spent a million dollars and commissioned a white paper on how to do that comparison. They could have paid me. I do this study. I could have paid me. But how would we do this study? A million dollars. by the way. It's amazing. That's about a million dollars more than they needed to pay because you could just do what I just said a minute ago. Super simple. Anyway. But, you know, that's not the way the ideology works. They wanted to make sure that if they do it, it's going to, anyway. That white paper comes out in 2015, okay? It's now been 10 years, and they haven't published it. To your point, now they haven't published it, but have they conducted it? And if they did, would they not have published it? If they wanted to shut you up, That would have been the best way to do it.

It would have been really hard to deal with that. We just saw something, we just saw Robert Kennedy Jr. do something that I don't think I've seen this terminology with the COVID-19 booster. They're basically taking it back and saying it's no longer recommended for healthy children, but it's to be a patient doctor discussion of some kind. It's joint decision making. Joint decision making. Joint decision making. Which is the way every medical decision should be made. And you came out in a post and said, great, now that you're done with COVID-19,

how about all these other vaccines? Was there a reason you picked listed vaccines that you think should be under that same exact sort of, you know? Well, I think every medical intervention should be joint medical decision-making. The individual should be left in consultation with whoever they choose to make that decision, whether they want something inject into their body or otherwise. Yeah. But what I posted was as a next step at the least, at the least, the vaccines that don't stop transmission should be next. Yeah.

As a next step. And that includes actually the majority of the ones that are mandated for school in most states in this country. So which ones is those that we got? That would be D-TAP, T-D-TAP, D-TAP, IPV, I-I-I-V, Meningia Coccal. Those would be ones just off the top of my head should right away be made. shared clinical decision making, and that should happen immediately. And by the way, to be clear, it's not just me saying that. It's the CDC's own ASIP guidelines provide that when there isn't, the vaccine doesn't

provide for community immunity, herd immunity, it's more about personal protection. It should be shared decision making. It shouldn't be routine. So it's not just me. ASIP has actually been violating its own guidelines for forever by doing this. And it makes no sense. If you have a product that is only personal protection, so it's like an asthma inhaler, it's like heart medicine,

maybe you want people to do it. Maybe the benefit's not ready to risk. But you let people choose. You don't crush their rights. It's illogical to throw children out of school for not taking that product. It makes no sense. It's just punitive. When, you know, Robert Kennedy Jr., now, he's in government.

You know, you and I and, and, and Robert Kennedy Jr. sat at the NIH meeting set up by Donald Trump all the back in 2017. When we brought all of our issues with the vaccine program to NIH, Tony Fauci was sitting across from us. I remember when we left that meeting, and we just asked some really basic concepts like, are you doing double-blind trials because we can't find any in any childhood vaccine program? Now the whole world knows what the final answer.

That is no. and why won't you do a comparative study between vaccinated and unvaccinated, and you just clearly stated they never did, they still haven't. They haven't published it, to put it more eloquently. But sitting at that table and then now watching, as we watch these videos coming in, that that guy we were in that meeting with is the head of the most powerful health agency in the world. number one, what does that feel like in all the work that you've been doing, fighting? I think many of your lawsuit wins have paved the way that this would even be possible.

I think that, you know, the quiver of arrows that you put together against HHS and CDC and all the malfeasance and all the lies that you've proved in court really gave him that strength and that ability to fight his way into that position. What does this feel for you like personally in the work that you've done all that time? I just, I want to see the outcomes. I want to see the, I want to see all the, all children protected. And right now, the focus is exclusively on protecting children from infectious disease, which we absolutely should do.

But we have to also protect the children who are injured by these products. There's not a day that goes by when we don't get a call at our firm from a parent and tears over what this product or one or more of these products have done to them. their family and we need to save those children, we need to protect those families. And I'm very hopeful that we now have an opportunity to do that to protect all children. For far too long, that has not happened. And my hope is a new day is dawning where that will happen

and there'll be space to do that in the federal health agencies. But it's a lot of words right now, right? It's like picking teams and stuff, but the game, I've been saying the team, the game hasn't been played yet. You know, we're putting people into chairs, we're putting them at ASIP meetings, We're talking about doing studies, but none of this will matter if those studies don't get done and get published. And the public sees what's actually going on here.

Yes. There's a lot of work to get done, which is why I said. Ask me how I feel about it in two years. Okay. Let's see what's going to be accomplished. Obviously, it's incredible that Bobby Kennedy is where he is at the moment. but he is, and he is the secretary, cabinet member, but there are also a lot of other, you know,

he's got obviously answered still to the White House, and then also there's all the, you know, 65, over 65,000 career officials that have been there a long time with their own entrenched views of the world. And then there's a lot of political appointees who, again, we're not necessarily folks who, you know, they're not selected by,

by by by by by by by by by by by by the presidential personnel office yeah um so you know he's there's a lot of personalities and a lot of folks for him to to work with um and a lot of different views and that's i'm not saying that as a bad thing i'm saying that's a good thing right this is more in line with the way government should be you know you have a diversity of views yeah and and let the best substantive view went out none of let me say if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if it's If Secretary Kennedy just went in there and bullied his way through everything and didn't make the changes through winning on the merits, through the substance, well, then I don't know how long they would last.

The next administration will come in, they'll wipe them away, and they may not have a lasting impact. But if they're done in a way, and I think he's proceeding, you know, just watching from outside, you know, methodologically so that the case can be made, so that the facts and the evidence prevail as we go forward in decisions that are made by ASA going forward, in decisions that will hopefully in the future be made by Verbeck, in decisions made across the agencies,

and that the underlying studies that need to be done are done, and that it's properly set forth in inappropriate regulations and how things should be conducted. I know I'm speaking in a little bit of generalities. then yes, and it can have a lasting impact. You're in a lot of court cases right now for ICANN. Has this new administration having Robert Kennedy Jr. in there, whether or not the news even agrees,

we're discussing things like vaccine safety now, even on CNN and MSNBC, whether they say they agree with it or not, this conversation about vaccine injury is real. The conversation about the fact that there's never been a placebo trial for any of the childhood vaccines, is no longer able to be labeled as misinformation. Everybody is having to deal with that fact. Is that changing your experience in courtrooms now in any way?

Or do you feel like the culture shifting around these conversations as you're speaking to judges? Oh, absolutely. I mean, you know, from the first lawsuits that I brought around this issue back in 2016 and so forth, you know, those 17, those periods. you know, I assume that I was going to get a hostile bench anywhere in the country I went, any judge. And I, you know, I approached the litigation that matter, which is, you know, I would say to myself, okay, I'm going to have to assume that the judge is in his mind or her mind is thinking, I hate you,

I hate your client, I hate everything about all of you folks, but I got a rule for you anyway because I have no choice. And if I could hit that standard, I'd bring the case. I don't, at this point, I'm in a different place. I don't need to hit that standard before I bring a case. I think to myself, depending on where and potentially the makeup of the triers of fact that I might be encountering, I do believe I now have an ability to get more receptive audience to look under the hood. Listen, this is no knock on judges. Understand, they have thousands of cases per judge.

They have to rely on their cultural cognition to, to, degree. They'll never get through their docket. They have to rely on what their understanding of the world is and if all they know that is that these products are safe and effective and anybody who says otherwise is just totally whack-a-doodle, right? In any way, that's a big hump to get over. I think that a lot of judges now understand that. You know what? I shouldn't just take that at face value. If this attorney is coming and telling me this product doesn't stop transmission, they'll give it a second. They'll look at the underlying evidence where it was harder to get them again. No knock on any judge, but it was harder to get them because it was a bigger hump over their

cultural cognition where today there is more of an acceptance that, oh yeah, vaccine injury. People talk about that now like, yeah, vaccines can injure people. Eight years ago, nobody would really talk about that. You could have that discussion. And so vaccines don't stop transmission, which is something that we were trying to explain for years. And COVID did it for everybody. Now everyone knows, well, the COVID vaccine didn't stop transmission. So this idea that you took a product that didn't actually protect you is really well understood. You were on your phone seconds to getting up here. I know how busy you are.

I want to thank you for joining us here at Freedom Fest. Aaron, I want to thank you for all the incredible work you do for ICANN. We're not here without you. I don't think Robert Kennedy, Jr. is where he is without you. I think you're going down in History, man. Thank you for all the great work I've done. Well, look, if you're new to Freedom Fest or you're watching,

this show for the first time. You know, maybe you want to know what Highwire is all about. A lot of people that are here at Freedom Fest, a lot of the scientists and doctors and truth tellers have been at this desk. The High Wire is how we do it. Here's a little taste of what the High Wire is all about. The Inform Consent Action Network. You know them as I Can.

The High Wire and I Can fighting on your behalf. The High Wire. You know Dale Big Trick. Thank you to all the individuals who are watching. on a high wire across the world. Without further ado from the Highwire, friend of mine, a friend of yours, Mr. Dell Bigtree. We did it!

Here we are, present and accounted for. You were at The Doctor's Show. You were being forbidden to talk about what you were seeing and what you knew needed to be talked about. So you went out and created the Highwire. Wherever you are out there in the world. How about we all step out onto the High Wire? to the high wire.

When the whole pandemic stopped, this was really where I got my knowledge from. I saw all the scientists, all the doctors. Religiously, every Thursday, we need that encouragement from each other. You allowed a lot of us to take that dive into the science and really get immersed in it. So thank you.

This is why I love watching your show. This is why I love watching you. It's a comprehensive overview, but it's also built and supported with detail and with evidence. CNN and Anderson Cooper has been reaching out to us and all the other mainstream guys. But I need to share my side of the story and I know that there's only one person

who's going to do it right and that's Del Big Tree. You guys are the mainstream media now, they're done, and that it's over. The media like the Highwire in Del Big Tree not only reporting the truth every week, but also fighting in court for justice. I think what we have in common is the passion for the truth, right?

I see you as somebody who's investigating, you know, what are the real things? effects in data. You are one of the beacons for all of us. When things get really dark, I turn on the eye wear. It lifts me back up every time. Del, your confidence is so inspiring. Thank you for doing all that you do, fighting the good fight. Del, I really appreciate your hard work and your team. Thank you for giving us a voice. I appreciate you so much. It's an honor to be here. Thank you. What can we create when we connect together? Good to be with you, Del. You too, brother. Thank you for your continued support and your friendship, Del. We're just grateful for the chance to talk to you and for your

support and interest in our latest declaration. It's great to be on your show and thank you for everything you've been doing in terms of providing the truth to people regarding COVID and the vaccines. You've been in a war zone of your own. It's a really lethal war zone, right? When you get into the realm of big farmer and all that money that is at stake there, all the power players. This is a war for survival, survival of the soul of humanity. Ultimately, it's going to have to take people ready to sacrifice everything in order to bring the truth to the world. I've been one of the world. I've been one of the silent people with injured children who have hidden behind you, rooting you on for years. And it's time that I stand beside you.

We're standing up and we're fighting for you. We're fighting for those who cannot fight for themselves. That is what the truth is all about. That is what being alive is all about. And that's what the high wire is about. I'll see you next week. Well, it's been another amazing show here at Freedom Fest. We love it here.

I love the values here. I love the people here. This is community. I will say this, and I'll keep saying it, you've got to find your community. You cannot believe that, you know, the storm is behind us, and this is all over. The threats of world dominance are very real. The World Health Organization is sweeping and taking nations all around the world, all around us, all the way up to our borders.

They want global dominance. The furthest thing from libertarian values, which is keep government close to you. Can you imagine if it's not a president, but some global leaders, that is now making all the decisions and somehow we have to get the 7 billion people to agree on the next leader. It will never happen yet it is so close to being the world that we live in. Just one slip up, one bad mistake, one person getting elected, or frankly the reason you're watching this show, even when Donald Trump is doing great work as we've shown today, one slip up, one looking the other way and letting some AI surveillance system get into our data and be controlled by some outside company the government doesn't control. If that slips through and the states can't even

stand up for themselves, it could be game over. That is why we are so clear. We are not choosing sides here in any way. I am saying it. I will always say it. I am politically maroon. I am here to tell you the truth. Jeffrey is here to tell you the truth as we see it. We'll call balls, we'll call strikes. We'll say it when we believe it. When we love it, we'll say it. And when we don't, we're going to point it out. There's no other show like this. Because when we find a problem. We don't just sit there and look and say, well, now you've got to figure out what to do about it. We go out and we sue. We have sued the government in the United States. We've won against HHS, CDC, FDA, NIH. We're winning in, you know, legislation. We're moving, you know,

entire laws that took away your right to choose in Mississippi and we brought it back. We're fighting in California. We're fighting a tooth and nail right now in West Virginia, and we need your help. This is more than just a news show. You're paying that cable bill for everyone. one that lies to you every day. Once a week, we bring you the truth and we're fighting to bring back your freedom. There's nothing like this. So if you can give, please do so now, become a recurring donor. All you have to do is go to the top of the page, just hit that donate button to I can. And we're asking for you to give $25 a month if you can for $20.25. But $1 makes a difference. If everybody just does their part, if you vote with your dollars, if you stand behind the things

that you care about, we can literally change this world. Look at what we've done. done so far. We've got to celebrate our wins and recognize what more is possible. What more can we do when we come together? That's why Freedom Fest is so fantastic. That's why bringing all these great minds is so fantastic. And it is all happening right now in Freedom Fest. I'm going to be doing several talks tonight. I am going to be jumping in like a virtual errand series shoes. I am not a lawyer going to play one tonight in a mock trial against Farma. I'm the prosecuting attorney, that'll be wild. I'm actually having to rehearse something for the first time in my life because I'm a little worried about it, but you'll have to check it out. Then tomorrow, I'm doing a great panel with Dr. Robert Malone and Brett Weinstein. We're going to talk about a movement. What is controlled opposition? Can a movement fall apart? How does it get torn down from the inside out? All the discussions about the judgments of people. Is Robert Kennedy Jr. doing enough? Is Mahal real? Is it dying? All of those questions we're going to handle tomorrow. And then on Saturday, I'm giving that, tomorrow's at 2 o'clock, and then on Saturday at 10.25,

I'm going to give a talk about the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. More and more as I get into this, I start thinking biblically back to Genesis. We had Eden. We had everything we wanted. One rule. Do not eat at the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, lest you shall surely die. It feels like we might be moving closer to that surely die part, acting like we know everything, I had to say we can inject whatever we want

into any child at any time without any safety testing and it'll just be okay and change your DNA and put in an MRI and go ahead and create a new species and be creating spike proteins and blocking out the sun. I'm going to talk about all that. Obviously I'm passionate about it.

Passion never goes away. I'm passionate about you. Thank you for being our audience. Thank you for sharing this show. And thank you for watching the high wire. I'll see you next week.