The Highwire with Del Bigtree - Episode 430: DEATH BY COMMITTEE

Episode Date: June 28, 2025

Del takes a hard look at the newly-overhauled CDC ACIP panel. Air Force insider Kristen Meghan blows the whistle on geoengineering. Jefferey Jaxen breaks down the biggest wins and red flags from ACIP���s two-day meeting. Meanwhile, new research warns that the AI tools you’ve grown to trust may be quietly failing you. West Virginia’s governor throws his weight behind an ICAN-supported lawsuit defending vaccine exemptions, signaling a pivotal showdown in the Mountain State. A just-published SIDS study uncovers a biological pathway that could finally explain the long-debated link to early-life vaccinations. Buckle up for a packed episode that cuts through the noise and delivers the facts you won’t hear anywhere else.Guests: Kristen Meghan, Aaron Siri, Esq., Gary Goldman, PhDBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

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

Good morning, good afternoon, good evening. Wherever you are out there in the world, it's time for us all to step out into the high wire. Well, of course, it was a huge week in Washington, D.C., where the first ASIP meetings took place with the new selected group of advisory professionals. put together by Robert Kennedy Jr. We're going to talk about death by committee coming up later in the show. But first, I actually want to talk about an issue that's been growing. If you thought vaccines was a difficult issue, and believe me, I know what it's like to talk about that in the media. There's another one that is getting surprising traction right now, and that's the idea of geoengineering and chemtrails.

If you've been watching the news, there are many, many representatives. and government officials that are now attempting to pass laws to block these lines or the poisoning from the sky. Take a look at this. Call it a conspiracy theory. Others say it's a concern either way. Florida lawmakers took a big step forward toward banning weather manipulation. The bill bans the release of chemicals, substances or use of a device to affect temperature, weather, climate, or intensity of sunlight. Supporters of the bill cite concerns about potential environmental and public health risks. This is about protecting Florida's environment and public health. With no federal guidelines in place, Florida must take responsibility for its own airspace.

People got a lot of kooky ideas that they can get in and put things in the atmosphere to block the sun and save us from climate change. We're not playing that game in Florida. According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, nine states use cloud seating or weather modification activities. and 10 have banned or are considering banning it. Last year between Hurricanes Helene and Milton, GOP Firebrand and Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Green at this viral post. She claimed the federal government was controlling the weather,

stoking conspiracy theories that the White House was trying to influence the 24 election. Claims are getting even more bizarre. Marjorie Taylor Green, the Congress movement in Georgia, is now saying the federal government is literally controlling the weather. We're controlling the weather. It's beyond ridiculous. It's so stupid. It's got to stop. My biggest concern is the stratospheric aerosol injections that are continuously peppered on us every day.

That is not happening in my agency. You know, we don't do that. It's done, we think, by DARPA. And a lot of it now is coming out of the jet fuel. Yes, sir. So, you know, those materials are put in jet fuel. I'm going to do everything in my power to stop. it. Well, obviously you have Robert Kennedy, Jr., the end, representing the federal government perspective, at least this new government under President Trump. But across the country, there's been over 31, or I think 31 states have brought clear skies

initiatives to stop chemtrail. Some of them call it geoengineering, all sorts of different bills and how they were named. And out of them, two of them actually won. The legislation has passed in Tennessee and Florida. So this is a huge, huge growing topic. And something that I think a lot of us care a lot about is what is in our air? We're seeing, you know, soil samples and things on our trees. They don't look the same.

They don't look as healthy. They seem to be coated in stuff that is falling from the sky. Well, we've covered this in many different ways. But even just watching that news montage, one of the things I want to say is you have Marjorie Taylor Green, you know, I guess, you know, claiming that some of these giant hurricanes were political action. I don't know if that's true, but what I do know is when President Biden says it's ridiculous. Controlling the weather, seriously, he's also lying. We absolutely know that we've been controlling weather since Vietnam. We've talked about that. China has bragged that it controlled

the weather around its own Olympic Games. So these are things that are clearly going on. And when you start seeing representatives acting like it's crazy talk to say it's going on, now how is it being used? That could be up for debate. But in this conversation, one of the really great friends of the Highwire who worked with us, Chris and Megan, who worked with us all through COVID as an OSHA expert explaining what was and was not possible from a mask, how healthy they were, what types of issues that we were complaining about for the health of our children in schools and all the things that were happening from COVID. Well, it turns out that when she was in the military, she got focused on this issue of these chemicals

and started seeing some of these chemicals being shipped into different, you know, I guess, hangers around the military. Well, let's take a look at her backstory and then we'll see what she has to say about it. My name is Kristen Megan Kelly and I am a senior industrial hygienist and an environmental specialist.

I joined the Air Force right after 9-11 in 2001. When I was in the military, I worked in bio-environmental engineering, which is the equivalent to OSHA, EPA, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I was stationed at three different Air Force bases, Royal Air Force Lake and Heath in England, Tinker Air Force Base in Oklahoma, and Warner-Robbins Air Force Base in Georgia. Part of my job in the Air Force was to track every chemical that was being brought on to the base, chemicals that were cancer-causing to cause blindness, affixiation, and I had to figure out who was using it, why, and making sure that people are being prepared. protected in their job and that those chemicals don't make it home to their families and don't make their way into navigable waterways. It was a very fulfilling career. I felt like I made a difference. Actually some of my work became an Air Force best practice. I believe it was in late 2006 I had first heard of the term chem trails and everyone was pointing out lines in the sky and saying that this was a nefarious program that the government was behind and I actually thought that was in

I'm over here spending time making sure that people are safe from the very chemicals that are being claimed to be sprayed above us. That made no sense to me and I was actually offended because it was kind of a slap in the face to what I did in my profession. So I made it my mission to attempt to debunk this chemtrial conspiracy theory. I started doing background soil sampling in my backyard because I lived right behind the flight line and I did aerial sampling. I was finding chemicals, stronium, barium, aluminum, and there were other heavy metals like tylene and benzene. And these chemicals I was finding were the exact same chemicals claimed to be used in this conspiracy theory. Should chemicals like this exist in the environment naturally? And that answer is no. So they had to have come from an external industrial source.

So I started to really go back and look at a lot of the chemical acquisition. even before me. As part of the chemical acquisition, I would basically fill out an electronic version of what is called an Air Force Form 3952. And that is a form that I would have to review and make sure I had what the chemical was and it let us know the health hazards type of PPE to be worn and that we know how they're using it and disposing of it. One of the major issues was realizing that key information on those material safety data sheets was missing and you You cannot acquire a chemical that doesn't have the full data of its hazards.

It's an instant decline. And that is a red flag to me and I was seeing that the exact same chemicals I was finding in my sampling, nanoparticulate size, barium, sulfates, stronium, aluminum, they were being brought on base in large quantities. Tons of this material going to classified buildings. I could not think of one legitimate reason that those types of chemicals, that those types of chemicals in that form would ever be brought unbased and for what process would it ever be used for. And these same chemicals are the ones that were claimed to be utilized in geoengineering.

Well, it's my honor to be joined now by Kristen Megan Kelly. Kristen, it's good to see you. How you doing? It's great to see you. I'm doing great. Yeah, we're not wearing masks anymore. So it's been a while. I think the last conversation we're having was just trying to get out of COVID and back to sanity. So, You were definitely very helpful in that. By the way, like your work in OSHA and although you still doing work like that in studying chemicals and things in our environment? Yeah, I've never worked for OSHA, but I'm the civilian equivalent, which is occupational, environmental health and safety and industrial hygiene. We're basically exposure scientists that is toxicology in occupational and environmental settings. All right, great. Thanks for clarifying that.

So I didn't realize when we were talking all that time. I remember you had talked that you worked in the military, but now this has become. such a hot button issue, you know, what is coming down from our skies? So I always love it when I hear a story about someone that went out to debunk something. I've known several whistleblowers like this that actually was like, that's crazy. And in their attempts to try and debunk it, all they end up doing is proving we have a real issue here. So to begin with, let's talk about the samples and, you know, what you've found and how you do with sampling as a professional to see. So if I I go out into my yard right now in Texas where my garden, I start digging up dirt, do you believe that we're all going to be seeing the same types of chemicals across the lands in America? Well, when it comes to environmental sampling, it's not black or white. You have to understand what are your nearby industrial processes because you have

industrial processes that can have allowable dioxin exposure through their exhaust under PM2.5. So it just depends on where you're at. You have to know the background and you have to know the EPA reporting. So it's more complex. Okay. So yes, a lot of people around the country are going to find this in their soil. But please understand your background first because I live right. I'm in a manufacturing area of Michigan.

Okay. So I'm always going to find dioxins in the soil, different things. But yeah, so you have to go into an area and understand the type of soil. So when I was in Oklahoma, it's very clay. So I know that that's not as permeable. So I will take samples down to about three inches. And I did what's called grid sampling, knowing the background, because I know how to find that. And I also did air sampling.

So when you do air sampling, you want to do area, active sampling, not passive sampling. And I would tie it to different flight patterns and times, but also looking at the weather patterns, because when you think about nanoparticulets in the air, it's a part of my profession, whenever there's a chemical release or East Palestine I was on about that, we have to calculate dissipation rates based on the weather itself, before we modify it. So then you have to calculate time and when should I sample? How long is that going to take? Days, weeks.

So it's very complex, but I did the sampling. I was kind of like just a broke airman at the time. And I went and I rented my own equipment. I didn't use any government resources and I did the sampling and I paid for my own samples. Wow. I mean, I think about that. I've had my house tested for mold here in Austin before.

And they'll take a reading outside at the same time to take a reading inside because I remember one time, They said, well, you actually have high mold in your house, but it's equal because outside you have high mold right now. So you're fine. It would only be if it was sort of out of the background, which was coming from the outside. So that's sort of what you're saying is you have to understand what the environment naturally provides or what a factory down the road is spewing versus what actually might be falling down from the sky. Now, when we talk about these issues, aluminum, strontium, barium, Since, you know, environmental health, like in the health of humanity is a huge part of what you're talking about, what are the health risks? Since this is clearly in our environment, what is what are the health risks of these chemicals? Well, one thing I've tried to explain, it's so weird how my profession always ties into something nefarious the government's doing, but understanding routes of entry, routes of exposure, and something called systemic toxicology, when one hazard, multiple hazards attack the same target organ. So as you know, and you're champion in exposing informed consent and issues with vaccines, aluminum. Aluminum is different if it's injected, ingested, or

is an inhalation hazard. And when you're dealing with an inhalation hazard, you're going to deal with neurodegenerative issues. You have respiratory issues in the lung that's causing a great burden on the respiratory system. And also immune issues. So because aluminum, as you know in vaccines is an adjuvant. If it's respirable, it can also trick your body into be an adjuvant, and then you're overwhelming your immune system, so then you can have immune disruption. So that's just one of them. And then when it comes to barium and a lot of my naysayers say, well, it's used in medical issues. But there's a difference, again, between ingestion and inhalation and insoluble versus soluble barium. Because when you're doing with the barium compounds

that are used in stratospheric aerosol injection or solar radiation management forms of geoengineer, it's a different form and again different between breathing it in just like I don't know about you but I don't eat lotion so you can put it on your skin so it's understanding those routes of exposures and then porstronium is one of its biggest issues is that what it does to bones it deteriorates bones weakens bones especially those that are still developing so the irony in all this like I've said is that the very same chemicals I have to engineer out of a workplace and I have to put people in personal protective equipment for or find alternative

green processes. We're acquiring these things and we're just putting it out into an issue out into the atmosphere or the stratosphere, I mean. And then now it's a community public health issue because it has human and environmental impacts. Like this is absolutely disrupting our ecosystem and the weather. Like it's in fact, it can impact monsoons. And I always use the joking reference, although I think it's not real time traveling. You know, you see all those movies. You do something over here. Some might not be born. So if you're taking from here, you're disrupting mother nature. So there have been people that are promoting what they deem less safer forms of weather modification like cloud seeding.

But I can call every one of them out because it's about the risk versus benefit. And it's also about informed consent. And some of these do not have long-term studies of being highly respirable. And then again, now we're ingesting it because it's impacted our food sources. Well, and I think you make a really good point. And again, it's sort of this hubris that exists through all of the things that we cover here. on the high wire that somehow you can mess with, you know, killing off while one of the viruses are bacteria in your body and not disrupt the million that are teeming and dancing all over your

hands inside of your gut biomes. So many of the things like glyphosate that's killing off, you know, that's an antibiotic that's essentially killing bacteria in our stomach. It could be having, you know, God knows how many different consequences. And when I think of aluminum, especially, Dr. Chris Exley, who's, you know, Mr. Aluminum, they call it. the most studied scientists in the world on aluminum. I remember he made a statement that he stands by, no aluminum, no Alzheimer's, that the studies, he did the studies on people

with brains with Alzheimer's and found incredibly high rates of aluminum. And then years later, he ended up dissecting brains of autistic children, found that the aluminum was even higher in those brains than in the Alzheimer's brains. And so when you think about breathing aluminum and these issues that are coming in, You know, it's really just that one alone is something we've looked a lot at. And you're right, as you know, people like we were getting into sort of, you know, really splitting hairs, I think.

Well, cloud seeding is engineering, but if you're pulling all of the water out of an area where it wasn't normally going to drop and then it's not there to drop naturally where it was, certainly that's affecting cycles. But now we're seeing, you know, Bill Gates is admitting to wanting to block out the sun. We're putting things up into our stratosphere and atomizing things there. And I guess my question to you, though, is the real weather modification, like, weather as a weapon. That's something that, you know, I've said it before. There's no doubt that we study that. There's no doubt that that was already back in Vietnam. We were using, you know, what we could to adjust, whether to cause all sorts of problems for the people in Vietnam.

And I know that there's a lot you can't talk about the military, but is it safe to say that our military is still involved in studying and perhaps using the weather as some form of a weapon on this earth? Well, I can only speak to what I saw. And I started investigating this around maybe 2007 and finally came forward in 2010. but I think a lot has to have progressed because now, you know, they, excuse me, they disguise it as research or proposals. And when they start doing that, you know they're already doing it. So I think it has been privatized, but to theorize, of course, I mean, most of our government sociopathic, and I try not to question what they do. But I guarantee you it's about a race like to the moon.

It's a race to who can weaponize the weather for many reasons to handicap, you know, ground combat, handicap or to remove people's inability to grow, grow food. I mean, think about it. You can have everything you need in life. If you can't have fresh water and food, what do you have? Absolutely. So now when you look at, I mean, you're talking, it's, you know, right after 9-11, you're in the military, you start looking at these things. As you see these bills popping up, and we're starting to see, you know, a very vocal pushback now against chemicals that are clearly in our air falling from the sky. do you think, you know, is there a particular way they're approaching it? Like I wonder things like should we just say get rid of all lines. Like if we call it geoengineering, do they just have to say,

well, you'd have to prove it's geoengineering or, you know, but when we see these laws, clearly we are now starting to pay attention to the fact that there's more lines in the sky, there's more clouds all the time than we've seen. What do you think of these bills and what do you think the future is of these bills as you look at them in the approach that we're taking? state by state. Well, I just first have to say, like, I never would have thought it would be so fully talked about. I can't even, before I was helping with the mandates, I was the Kemptrow lady, then I was the

mask lady. And I just tried to be an ethical person in my profession. So I'm still kind of like, this is happening. So I think it's great because so many legislators have reached out to me and I know you've interviewed Dan Wigington, people that are speaking out against this. I think it's great. And I think it gets the conversation going. But I think until it is actually defunded and stopped at a federal level, it kind of just reminds me of the 1980 smoking sessions in the restaurant.

What you're doing here can dissipate and gravitate over here and then fall down. So I think it's great because it's getting the discussion going. But like I said, if you just Google the term or duck, go, whatever, the term geoengineering, it is being openly admitted. And I always say when the government says they're going to do something, they're already doing it. Just like if your wife said, you know, let's have an open marriage. I'm pretty sure she's already doing that herself. I hope I'd never have that request inside of my house. Christian, I want to thank you for all the work that you're doing out there.

And, you know, by the way, since, as you said, you were the chem trail leading, and now it's huge, and you were the mass person, we got rid of that. Is there anything else you want to tell me that you're up to that we could just jump the gun and get on it right away? because clearly you are tracking with some of the biggest issues that are dealing with our health out there in the world today. Yeah, I'm still deeply embedded to what's happening in Ohio with the East Palestine trained derailment. You know, surprisingly so, I saw that, you know, RFK Jr., people are going to investigate it. But myself and another gentleman, Scott Smith and my colleague Stephen Petty are still heavily involved. So I always try to still do my consulting, but then offer my work for free to help people that are impacted,

by government neglect. And what I mean by that is the very agency's designed to save us are the ones protecting the people that are hurting us. And that's not OK. So I still have my day job. I just wrapped up the very infamous Karen Reed trial. Some of your viewers might know what I'm talking about.

But no, I'm just doing my work and just trying to protect the little guy from government overreach. Is there any way we can track the work that you're doing, social media, things like that? Most of what I do is on X. And my handle is at Christa Mesh. Megan and on TikTok. And on there it's Kristen Megan TV.

Somehow I've survived on both apps and I just try to share most of my work on those two apps. Okay, great. Kristen, thank you for joining us today and keep up the good work. It is very exciting. I would imagine I keep thinking next year. I mean, I was saying we had a lot of bills this year,

even dealing with vaccine freedom. I think there's gonna be a tidal wave next year as more and more of these states realize that they have power right now. They have a federal government that's listening. Robert Kennedy Jr. saying he wants to have a talk with DARPA. So things are moving. I think next year is going to be a very busy year for all of us. So get some rest, would you? Oh, thanks, Dahl. Thanks for having me on.

Thanks for being here. Take care. All right. Well, you know, investigations, especially when it comes to federal government, have to do with scientists. Now, how many of those scientists can you get on your side? You know, how are they going to get along? How are the votes going to get down? We have a lot coming up here to talk about ASIP. I also want to talk about I have an amazing guest coming up in Dr. Gary Goldman. This is a doctor, scientist that once worked for the CDC. In fact, he did a lot of work that we were interested in around the chickenpox vaccine. But now he is getting into SIDS, sudden infant death syndrome.

If you know anybody whose baby just sort of instantaneously died for no reason or sudden unexplained death, one of the least scientific terms you could ever imagine, and it's been here for decades. We're going to be talking about that coming up. He's got a study that he thinks he's found perhaps the mechanism by which vaccines could be causing that. It's going to be a huge breaking story. But first, the breaking story of the week was the advisory community on immunization practice. So let's get Jeffrey Jackson, the Jackson report in here so we can talk about it. Well, Jeffrey, you know, I spent hours yesterday listening to these meetings. some good, some bad, definitely different.

Definitely more conversations, not a lot of just nodding, some actual pushback going on. But tell us what were the highlights of what happened. Yeah, I was really happy to see a lot of these more expanded conversations instead of just the rubber stamping. And, you know, this was the first ASIP committee since HHS under Kennedy's direction retired the last 17 members for a couple of reasons. One, to restore public trust and why, because of the conflicts of interest.

and really they haven't done their job, and that was even admitted by Martin Koldorf, who is now the new chair of ASIP. But while all this was going on over yesterday, and today, as we're still speaking, this ASIP committee, we have the CDC interim director, Susan Monterez. She actually had her confirmation hearing yesterday, and really, it was somewhat uneventful

when it came, if you compare it to Kennedy's confirmation hearing, which was just like fireworks. But you can see some of the headlines here, Kennedy and vaccines loom over Senate confirmation hearing for CDC director. She was asked a lot of hard questions. She really didn't say she would disagree with Kennedy. She said she'd follow the law.

It was pretty uneventful, but that's all happening in the background. But I want to go right into this ASIP committee because when we go into this. Well, one of the things they said about the CDC really quick, though, is that I think what I was listening to is one of the complaints is she's not a doctor. She's really a research scientist, which CDC tends to be a doctor's position. I think what Robert Kennedy Jr. sees in her is her ability to do the research, right, which is what he wants to do while he's. is in there, which is why I think she's an interesting pick. She's been very pro-vaccine, so there's a lot of people in the medical freedom movement that are concerned about this choice.

But it's a research ability, her ability to use modern technologies, AI and things like that, that Robert Kennedy Jr. is pointing to his reasons he likes her as a pick for CDC in this current climate. But I know the pushback is, well, she's not a doctor. Anyway, I still wish we'd have had Dr. David Weldon, who has been my first pick for head of CDC since I got involved in this conversation with Vaxed all way back in 2016, but those days are behind us. So we're where we're at now. Likewise with Weldon. And you got to say to the detractors, Bill Gates isn't a doctor. Tadros isn't a doctor of medicine and science, but they

seem to try to usher us through the pandemic. So I think we should see if we can give her a choice. But let's go right into ASIP. So when we talk about vaccines, obviously there's a lot of issues around vaccine hesitancy where people are pointing the fingers at every but Koldorf came out and just said, it's because of the agencies that we have this hesitancy. It's because of how they perform during the COVID pandemic that there's this massive vaccine hesitancy. So how bad is it now? Now, I just want to draw people's attention to, you know, when you start hearing like during the measles outbreaks, you start hearing, well, it's went from 95% uptake to 94%. So, oh my God, the people run around out their hair is on fire

because they don't know, they think everyone's going to catch measles. Listen to these numbers at ASIP for the COVID vaccine uptake recently. This is the latest numbers from yesterday in the ASIP committee. Check it out. Vaccination coverage among older adults reached 44% for one or more doses and 23% for all adults greater than 18 years. Approximately 5.6% of children less than four years of age were up to date with COVID vaccination according to current recommendations for that age group shown in light blue.

In children five years and older, up to date, is defined as receipt of at least one vaccination since August. For children between 5 and 17 years of age, almost 16% have received at least one dose. Overall, approximately 13% of children between six months and 17 years of age were up to date with their COVID vaccinations at the end of April 2025.

For immunocompromised adults 18 years and older, who received their first COVID vaccine dose in August or September of 2020, 24, 8% were fully vaccinated with two doses by the end of the season. Wow. I mean, those are, those are shocking numbers essentially averaging out about 87% of children are not up to date on their COVID vaccines, which means 87% of the parents of children have said, I don't care what the CDC is recommending because this is recommended. We're not doing it in shockingly low numbers amongst immune compromise and people that might have an issue that you would think. might even, you know, be higher like somewhere at 16%. You know, these are just, these are abysmal numbers for anyone.

And one of the interesting conversation, remember, that came up was just the question at ASIP from, I'm not sure it was miser, but said, should we be taking into consideration on this vote at ASIP, how many people are turning it down? Like, if we approve it, but no one's using it, does that hurt how, you know, the competence of the work that we're doing here? like, should we let the outside world affect this vote a little bit? Super interesting question, I think a pertinent one. Absolutely. And you can even see it in the headlines, too. So this is how the recent headlines are showing. It says avoiding the COVID, this is in MedPage,

avoiding the COVID shot talk with patients, avoiding it with patients. Here's what to do. So it's basically talking to pediatricians and doctors saying, like, this is how you tiptoe around that idea of trying to give people the shot because it might not be that popular in your practice. That's mind-blowing because in 2021, shot was rolled out, we were greeted to headlines like this. People, they were trying to turn people into marketing arms. Seven ways to talk to hesitant loved ones about COVID vaccine. Another one,

how to talk to your family and friends about getting the COVID vaccine. So times have changed. How to avoid the subject is the new headline. How to avoid the subject altogether. La la la la la la. I love it. We've come a long way, Jeffrey. Yeah, exactly. And like you said, they've lost a lot of traction on the immunocompromise section because that's really the high water mark, because that's, still recommended there and just people are not taking this but let's go to some more serious conversations that we're coming out of ASIP and that's the VAERS vaccine adverse event reporting system and it you know you and I know we've reported on this for a very long time this is a passive system our interviews with doctors and medical professionals a lot of doctors and medical

professionals don't even know this exists so that's the first conversation but let's hear about VERS and their COVID reporting for deaths take a listen all right as of May 3rd 30th, 2025, there have been 19,417 domestic deaths reported to VAERS after COVID-19 vaccination. Before I delve further into the data, there are a few important considerations related to evaluation of death reports in VAERS. First, the FDA emergency use authorizations and CDC COVID-19 vaccination program provider agreements required health care providers to report all deaths following COVID-19 vaccination to VAERS. Regardless of cause or circumstances surrounding the death. Of note, this requirement does not apply to other vaccines. In addition,

VAERS generally cannot assess causality of adverse event reports, including deaths. We conducted an evaluation of deaths following MRNA COVID-19 vaccination in VAERS through January 31st, 2023, which I will describe in the next set of slides. During this time period, there were 17,631 domestic VAERS reports of death following COVID-19 vaccine. CDC takes every report to VAIRs seriously, especially deaths. CDC requests medical records, death certificates, and autopsy reports for every death reported to VAERS. After review by a CDC clinician, 52 of these reports were determined not to be a death and were excluded from the analysis. An additional 1,790 reports were

were excluded because the vaccine type received was something other than an MRNA vaccine, which was the focus of this analysis. 2,940 reports were excluded because we had no information, no information on the cause of death, despite exhaustive efforts to obtain this information. This leaves us with 12,849 reports with the cause of death available through autopsy, death certificate, medical record, and in a minority of reports, through the VAERS report alone. The cause of death was classified based on ICD10 categories. Next, we assessed all deaths reported in the general U.S. population during this time period.

These data are based on death certificates for U.S. residents, which are maintained in the National Center for Health Statistics multiple cause of death database. These data on cause of death are categorized by ICD10 diagnostic codes. We then conducted observed to expected ratio analyses for each age group by comparing the number of observed cause specific deaths among vaccinated persons reported to VAERS to the number of expected deaths in the U.S. population within 42 days of vaccination with an MRNA COVID-19 vaccine. We found that the reported rates of death after MRA COVID-19 vaccination were below background rates of death in the general U.S. population.

All right. This is one of the biggest piles of baloney I've ever heard. And if you'll bear with me, Jeffrey, I just had the last minute decide I'm going to try and use a visual here to explain how ridiculous what we just heard is. For those of you out there, VERS clearly says, and every time we point to VERS, they'll say, well, it doesn't have a control, so you really can't prove causation. But what did she just do there? The CDC just proved the lack of causation. So if it can't prove causation, it can't prove that doesn't, that there's no cause there.

It's not capable of doing that, but that's exactly what she just did. So let me explain to you for those that are out there, why this can be confusing. It took years to figure this out. So a real study of, you know, of causation requires that we have a group that gets, in this case, the vaccine. And we have a group of people, let's say about exactly the same, that get a placebo. This is how a study has to be done. And then we track both these groups, usually in terms of like Grandpa's Viagra, like 10 years. or maybe for Enbrell or some other pharmaceutical product.

We tracked them for like six years. But in the case of vaccines, we like to keep it to four or five days with no placebo group. But that's besides the point. The study is being done right. One group gets the product. The other group does not. And then we figure out, well, after studying them for, let's say, three years, we found out that out of this, you know, 20 people, you know, let's say eight of them died.

And out of this 20 people that didn't get it, two of them died. And so what we recognize is that the death rate is much higher in this, you know, in the vaccinated group or the drugged group than in the ones that received the placebo. And we even have a percentage, you know, you can say, you know, eight out of 20. What is that roughly, you know, I don't know, almost 50 percent or something like that. You get the idea, 40 percent, 30 percent. But you take that 40, 30 percent death rate. And then you say, well, let's put it across the population and we can see where we're at. But you can't do that when you don't have this group.

When you don't have the control to compare it to, this number doesn't make a lot of sense. Right? We don't know how many we're talking about. So we got to put this group away when we're talking about VERS. And so what we realize with VERS, as she just pointed out, is that they had an incredible number, by the way. If you bring up the VERS, the open VERS, and you just look at how high the numbers, of reports are, they're insane, 19,417 deaths. Folks, there's usually up until COVID vaccine,

about 400 deaths reported every year, which I've always said is an astronomical number. We shouldn't be accepting that. But there's been 19,417. So here's how they did their analysis. First of all, they say, let's just take December of 2020 through January, 2023. So it's really about 17,000 deaths.

And of the 17, we went in and we threw out. 52 of them because we just didn't think they actually died. Then there was 2,900 of them. So 3,000 of them out of, you know, 17. So like, you know, what is that? Almost 5%, 2%, I don't know, whatever is. Huge. A huge group we just took out because we said we cannot bind their death records. And then we threw out another bunch, like 1,000, because they didn't actually have an M RNA technology, they only had some form of COVID vaccine that wasn't MRA. So we were left with this little group that we reduced down based on our own really excellent science.

And then we looked at all the deaths that happened in America and we said, well, let's just compare it to the background rate, which is about this many. And as it turns out, when we compare the reported deaths on VERS from the COVID vaccine, it's actually even less than the expected background death rate that was happening in the country. But remember, the country had COVID. The country had people getting vaccinated. We didn't know who was vaccinated. Who wasn't?

We have an all rise in all cause mortality. There were more people dying that year than we'd ever seen. But still, when we looked at those numbers, these didn't seem so bad. But you see, there's a problem. This is the reason you can't use veras this way. You can't whittle it down to the ones you just can't ignore. which is roughly, you know, 12,000 deaths. We can't really ignore them, but we're going to compare in the background.

You can't do that because what if this is only 50% of the amount of deaths? Because she said every doctor was told to report deaths, but we have talked about this on the show, Jeffrey. How many times have doctors said, I wanted to report it, but they said don't report the deaths that's going to make people be afraid of the vaccine? How many people didn't even know it caused death? How many doctors didn't do it? How many doctors didn't have the time?

Clearly, we know that this is not the total number. So what if it's only 50%. What if it's only 50%. So now how does this compare to the background rate in the United States of America? Not so good, but hold on a second. Even worse, most people think that VERS is underreporting by like 90% that we're only getting about 10% of the numbers.

So that means it's got to be more like, you know, get all these back, you know, I don't have enough. It's like this compared to this. But what if it's actually what Harvard, medical school said in a study, can we bring that up all the way back, I believe, was in, was it 2007. Likewise, fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported. What if it's that bad?

Well, if it's that bad, then this is what the number should have been. But we don't know because VERS has no control. We don't know. It's just random reporting. But if this is actually the number that should have been on VERS and this is actually your background rate. What did we just learn? We learned that the, oh wait, hold on a second. CDC will tell you right now you're not allowed to do that comparison. You can't do this comparison because you don't have a control. But wait a minute. When you whittled it down to this,

you had no problem doing the comparison. When you could make it look like that, oh, we'll compare these two groups. But folks, these two groups are not the story. This one is. And this is the story that is being ignored by the CDC as we speak, then is the same type of baloney that's being blown around inside the ASIP meetings right now as we're talking. I hope that helped it make some sense. We all need a control.

So if we don't have a control, then you don't have a control, which means what should have happened here is the only thing we know about the 12,000 deaths that we could not get rid of is this many of them had myocarditis or paraciditis and died from heart swelling. This many had blood clots.

This many had brain aneurysms. This many died of cancer. And then we say, well, how do those rates add up? And did we look to see what those blood clots were like? Were they made of fibrin? Were they different blood clots than we ever saw in any other child in the world? You see, that is the only studies that can be done, but they refuse to do that study. They refuse to look at autopsies and really get into them.

In fact, my understanding is most of the deaths during COVID had no autopsies. So even though they tell you, we really clearly investigated it, all you did was set up a total bull crap comparison that nobody with a brain or anyone with understanding of math should ever accept. All right, Jeffrey, I'll throw it back to you. Sorry for the distraction. I hope that made some sense. No, I want to add to that. It's interesting because you're watching the meeting at ASTA for the last two days. They continuously say world's leading safety monitoring, world's leading safety monitoring.

So you get this impression that, oh, they're doing, and it may be world's leading. If that's the case, that's actually tragic. But then they use that very system to look at deaths. This is a major issue here. And they just go, no, nothing to see here. And like you pointed out, their control group was background population during a pandemic, background population with raging chronic health disease with lowest, with the lowest life expectancy.

in the developed world. That's your background rate against deaths, and you're going to say, all good, move on. And then the other question would be, okay, well, some of these people died. Obviously, it can't look at causality, but some of these 12,000 have died from the shot. So let's have a conversation about that.

Let's find out how many had died because this is not a pandemic anymore. So if we're giving a shot, it's killing people. But I want to talk, I'll let them speak on that. Because we have Vicki Pledsworth. She's a registered nurse, also a doctorate in public health science. On the board for National Vaccine Information Center, NVIC as well, she called in with a comment, and it was about the VAIR system. This is what she had to say.

Okay. I am very concerned because with uptake being as low as it is reported, and also their reports to VAIRs are extremely high compared to other vaccines. They are, the last time I looked, it was about 1.1.1.4. million reports that came in. I don't know the extent to which underreporting is still an issue for this vaccine, but there are published studies suggesting that under reporting is about 10% of adverse events are actually reported. So that being the case, I think we need to be very careful and also have access to data that we,

we probably wouldn't ordinarily have. And that is I'm very interested in learning more about what we now know through animal studies, the studies that we would typically have for preclinical trial data, the reproductive toxicity data, the various biodistribution studies. I think this would maybe help to sort out some of the control. confusing information that we have. Thank you very much. Do you want to? Could I make a comment? I just wanted to respond to your concern about

bears underreporting. And what I just wanted to share is that some of those reports suggesting vast under reporting in bears are inclusive of things like sore arm, rash, things that people don't normally report to bears. I'm not sure about anyone here, but I never reported to VAERS when I had a sore arm last time for vaccination. But CDC has conducted a number of studies that we have published in the literature that shows that for serious adverse events, the reporting rate to bears is much higher. So it's up to 76% for anaphylaxis, depending on the vaccine, up to 64% for Guillamboree syndrome, again, but depending on the vaccine.

We've looked at this for inesception following rhodovirus vaccine. vaccine associated polio following polio vaccination. So I think I just wanted to point out that for serious reports, we are confident that we get a majority of those reported to bears. Dr. Leevin. First, this is very useful information. I still think that if I take the myocarditis example, I still think that we probably have, we can see if we actually compare the rates based on VERS versus the rates based on clinical diagnosis

versus the rates based on actually testing the troponine levels of people before and after vaccination, we see underreporting depending on the system you're using. And VERS is probably still underreporting it. Maybe not at the extent of 10%. And the other thing is the other thing that, if I understand correctly the data, we do see in there's some serious adverse events and some actually new ones that are being reported at rates that are far exceeding other vaccines, even when you normalize to the number of doses, which does suggest something, I think.

This is such an important conversation, Jeffrey. And again, I want to point out how this game is played, right? She said, well, we've done studied. We believe that it's really the sore arms and things they're talking about when Harvard says less than one percent. It's the little things you wouldn't normally look at. And we've done our own internal studies to prove that we're right and that our, you know, that our science stands up. But look what she uses, right?

She uses anaphylaxis, for instance, 76 percent in our study, 76 percent report anaphylaxis. Well, Jeffrey, anaphylaxis happens within minutes of the delivery. I mean, it's one of the few things. It's not going to happen tomorrow. It's going to happen like that's why they said stay in, they said with COVID vaccine, stay there for 45 minutes because if you're going to have an anaphylactic reaction, which is an allergic reaction to the vaccine, it's going to happen within 30 to 45 minutes.

So of course, that one's at 76%. It happened right before their eyes. They got the vaccine and they dropped over like all the videos we've looked at. And then polio. I love this. And polio is very high reporting system. Well, yeah, we live in a country that doesn't have polio. If you suddenly get polio right after getting the vaccine, there's really only one.

one way to get it in the United States of America. So I'm pretty sure that's going to be pretty high, too. And then she puts Guillain-Barre's syndrome there at 64%, which, you know, I guess is okay, but it's still 38% below where it should be. And where would these numbers be that we were just talking about COVID if you missed it by 38%? And by the way, if you don't tell doctors to be looking for Guillain-Barre syndrome, which is what they all know. It's one of the few vaccine injuries that's really recognized, then they're looking for it.

And they're looking for myocarditis and parricarditis. But as I think it's Dr. Levy pointed out there, even when looking for it, we saw underreporting when you actually test troponin levels when, like, you know, we just randomly grab people and said, how did this affect your heart? We feel that we see that's affecting them much higher than is being reported. So this whole thing is so bogus, and they're going and cherry picking the obvious ones. Well, yeah, polio, you would be getting a high report, and antipalaxis. But what about death?

You know, what if death happens three weeks or a month afterwards? What if your heart finally shuts down or all of it suddenly goes wrong, you know? And by the way, what if we weren't even considering you vaccinated because only right after your first shot? So much here that was hard to watch and hard to listen to how they play this game. All right, promise. I'll let you go on from here. Yeah, and that's, I would be willing to bet that most doctors who even know what VERS is don't even know what the adverse events of the the COVID vaccine are the serious adverse events.

I would imagine when it comes out to a month, three months, six months, a year later, if a child or a person comes in the office and says, you know what, I'm having some problems walking, my nervous system, I can't connect with it. Oh, that's no way they're connecting that. We've talked to so many doctors, they're not connecting that to, oh, that COVID shot. A year ago, I gave you for 10 seconds in the office that did that. So that's a whole separate question, but the idea, the reason we're hammering this. up there, Jeffrey, the head of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of

people that was talking to everybody that was having these neuropathy issues, which is at the heart of follow the silence, he's the one that should know. He saw the trials. He's sitting in Zoom calls with them. He's saying to their face, I don't believe it. So how many doctors were reporting it that had, you know, that, that didn't know. I mean, this is where, this is the problem, when you say a product is perfectly safe, and when Peter Marks gets on Zoom calls and says, this idea that people are dying in

higher numbers is absolutely ridiculous. Well, then no doctor's going to report it because they don't want to seem like they're being ridiculous. So we know these numbers have got to be so incredibly low compared to what actually might have been the death rate had you been reporting everybody. We were reporting everybody that died right after the COVID vaccine. Well, how big is that number? I'll bet you it's massive.

And I'm not saying they all died from it. But boy, you wouldn't be able to say compared to the background rate, it really wasn't a problem. And the reason we're hammering VERS is the CDC will say we have this world-class safety monitoring system that has a lot of different monitoring mechanisms in there. But they keep falling back onto VERS and saying, well, we check with VERS. VERS is what's used for a lot of the studies. And Robert Malone asked a great question, just kind of a follow-up question to this whole VERS conversation.

He's obviously now an ASIP member. And talking about the COVID vaccine, why is the COVID vaccine different? Why do we really have to pay special attention to this shot? Take a listen. All right. These polynucleotide vaccines are significantly. different from traditional vaccines. We're aligned on that, particularly in the pharmacokinetics. Having a product that is associated with an antigen that is present in the body for over 700 days,

according to the Yale study, is unprecedented in vaccinology. And that type of profile has been associated in animal models with characteristics that are now being observed in humans that are, we might say, is a type of immunologic adverse event, having to do with things like broad-based immunoglobulin-class switching, which are really not being captured in any way by our data, and yet are fundamental to some of these concerns that are being raised about whether these products are associated with. with secondary effects on overall immune function that might impact other infectious diseases.

This was one of the basis for one of Dr. Levy's pointed questions about the vaccine effectiveness sampling estimate method. So I infer that really in the safety analyses, I think the public would benefit with expanding your mission, that's a good thing, right, to include some of these immunologic potential risks and benefits as well as the actively incorporating

the possible risk of risk of delay onset effects given that the pharmacokinetics of this product are very unusual compared to even live attenuated vaccines. Does that make sense to you? Well, what I will say before turning it over to my colleague to talk more specific about the immunologic components of your question, I think, you know, we started vaccination back in December 2020. And so we have several years now if, you know, we are continuing to monitor in a very robust way to capture any and all adverse events, even if they're cumulative over years from different doses. If we were seeing any effects on organ systems or, you know, safety concerns of any kind,

we would be well equipped to pick those up in our safety systems. By the way, she ends up saying moments later in a totally different answer, you know, VERS has a very difficult time tracking long-term effects. Obviously, the further out you get from vaccinations, she says, you know, you have confounding issues that are coming up, and so it's really hard to track long-term. So they'll say whatever they have to to get through the conversation. But great points by Dr. Malone. Yeah, and it's fascinating.

Her answer is this great point, Dr. Malone, but Vares has got it. Don't you worry. It's not like, you know, it's not like you're the inventor of the technology or anything. So let's talk about what Malone is saying. Immunologic adverse events, harming the immune system. This is a new term for a lot of people, but we've been following these studies, and he listed a couple of those points here. I just want to illustrate those, because these are real. This was just two months ago from the Cleveland Clinic.

They had a study looking at the formulation that this year is, there's past year's formulation of the COVID vaccine, and they looked at a 16-week study period, and just to see how effective it was. It said, consistent with similar findings for many prior studies, the higher studies, the higher number of prior vaccine doses was associated with higher risk of COVID-19. Then they go on and say, we don't really know the reason why, but the more shots people took, the more they had a chance to get COVID. And so that's the immune system. Something's happening with the immune system. And then he was talking about the spike protein. There's the Yale study that's from February 2025. And that's showing here that the full-length spike protein is in

circulation up to 709 days after being vaccinated. It was never supposed to be there for a week Tops and it's there floating around causing inflammation. And then in 2022, Dr. Malone mentions class switching of the immune system. So this is the study here. This is one of the first studies to find this. And it talks about shortly after the first or second dose of the MRNA vaccine, the IGG response, this is your immune system's response to a foreign invader, to infection. The IGG response mainly consists of the pro-inflammatory. You want that. You want inflammation. you want it to fight pro-inflammatory isotopes, IGG1, and IGG3, and is driven by T-Helper, THH1 cells.

But they say here we report that after several months of, after the second vaccination, SARS-CoV-2 specific antibodies were increasingly compromised of non-inflammatory IGG2, and particularly IGG4, which were further boosted by a third MRNA vaccination and or breakthrough infections. So you don't want IGG4, you don't want non-inflammatory. That puts your immune system to sleep. It stops the infection fighting. and that's where the breakthrough infections come in. That's where my autoimmune disease come in, long COVID.

Cancer, by the way, cancer is, I mean, your body, this is your immune system. It's supposed to be fighting cancer. And IGG4 says it's not protecting against other diseases. You could have worse flu, worse RSV, more cancers, all of those things. And he's pointing it out. And as he's very clearly stating, 709 days, means this is a totally different product than you have ever been designed to look at before. You are looking at it, you know, very well,

way you usually do vaccines, but you're looking for a temporal association, which is sometime within a certain amount of days of vaccination. But if this is a time release where this thing is releasing in your body for 700 days over two years, then clearly at any point in time you could be having issues, and it's shutting down your immune system and make you available to all of these issues you would have to take into account. And clearly, he's like, do you get that? I mean, literally point is that.

Do you get that? Well, I mean, you know. Yeah, Dr. Malone, and boy, isn't it nice to have him in there, though, these types of questions being asked, it's really great because these are the types of challenges that should have been being made against VERS for the last several, like actually since 1986 when they designed the thing. Absolutely. And so VERS, the ASIP committee did talk about, they did have voting, and they voted on an RSV vaccine. That's the respiratory synestitial virus. We talked about some of the clinical data from chlesperovamab. that Merck's vaccine. It's actually a monoclonal antibody, so it's a little different than a traditional adjuvanted vaccine. But before that vote happened, we had one of the voting members, Retzit Levy, and he kind of put this into an encapsulated position, looking at all the data, showing the clinical

trials he looked at. There's two clinical trials he was talking about saying, I looked at these clinical trials. And I saw some more deaths in the actual treatment group than the placebo group. And I had concerns. This was this concern. All right. I'm a scientist, but I'm also a father of six kids, six children. And I think it's also important to put yourself in the shoes of a parent. So I'm trying, one of the things that makes me kind of beyond the science of the data,

I was asking myself, what if I would be just a young parent for a baby? And I had the amazing opportunity to be in that situation six times. And I know all the information. How would I think about this dilemma? And I think if I had a baby that was born early or had, God forbid, some underlying conditions, knowing the threat that RSV can pose to a baby like that, I would probably use these products to protect my child from this disease, because it could actually cause deaths to the baby. On the other hand, if I was the father,

and luckily I was the father of a healthy child that was born on time, knowing all of this, I would be concerned to use that. And I think that I understand that we're trying to reduce the burden of hospitalizations, and these are all very important metrics, but I think we also need to ask ourselves what a parent would say given this data. And I think that most parents that have a healthy baby would be concerned to use a new product

against the disease that has turned out in the past to be quite tricky against immunization and vaccination. I think they would be concerned. And as a father, I can feel that I would be concerned. I just wanted to share that. Thank you. I think this is a very important point because no matter how they vote, the parents never actually see all this data. If you watch the high wire, you're seeing this data, we talked about these studies last week where they nearly double the amount died in the new group.

And some of them were just comparing to old vaccines or old monoclonal antibodies. And there was deaths there too. There's deaths everywhere around this. And there's been deaths around the RSV vaccine program, which was discontinued back to 1960 because of deaths. But this time they've explained all the deaths away, as Dr. Meiser said, well, we looked at those extra deaths and we don't believe they were caused by the vaccine, even though there was twice as many in this group and the test group than there were in the control. So, I mean, I think this, Dr. Levy is making a very important point. I think if parents were informed, if they were watching the high wire, I don't think they'd be getting this vaccine, whether we approve it or not, which gives me pause. And it should give everybody pause.

Right. And it's great to hear from the parent, from that perspective of the parent, because we really rarely hear that from a voting member of ASIP in the past. They talk about doing good for public health, doing good for families, but really that humanistic approach there. That's the real approach. So then we move on to the vote. So this was that vote for the RSV monoclonal antibody from ASIP. Take a look. I think we're going to proceed to the voting. So the draft vote is ACRP recommends, and there's actually two then. The first one is ACIP recommends infants ages age less than eight months, born during or entering their first RSV season, who are not protected by maternal vaccination, receive one dose of kleserobimab. Why don't we start with Dr. Malone? Vote yes. Dr. Hebron? I vote yes. Dr. Pagano? Yes.

Dr. Lever? I vote no. I just want to clarify that My objection is based on the fact that I don't feel this is ready to be administered to all healthy babies. I think we should take a more precautionary approach to this. But I respect the discussion and the opinions of my colleagues. I vote no. Thank you. Dr. Meister? Yes.

Dr. Pesworth? I vote no. And as I'm a regular, I would just. equal vote yes. So we have five votes for yes and two votes for no. Well, disappointing result there to say the least. But again, I think it's important that we both state here, Jeffrey. I'm not a doctor. I didn't go to medical school. I don't know what you're, but I think you started medical school and said screw this or something like that. Yeah, not a doctor, definitely. All I can say is this is, is I just want to

make this point up until today, every baby that has ever survived and every human alive is here because RSV didn't kill them. I just want to make that point, right? The way, when you go into these meetings, they create a hysteria out of what problem? What problem do we actually have? I mean, for that, like, how many parents do you know? Oh my God, my baby died of RSV? Not, you don't know any. I think they even said it's something like 100 might die of this, probably usually, and I think almost always very immune compromise, have all sorts of other issues. Again, this is a solution looking for a problem. And if you've got one of those, ASIP is your place. And clearly, they're going to go ahead and recommend this to the public. So again, all I can say to you folks out there is you have

to make your final decision on all of these things. But if you were expecting your government to protect you, your government to have your answers for you, I wouldn't get relaxed right now just because you know some of the people that are in there, be informed. And that's what we're doing right here, is making sure people are informed. And here is USA Today in surprise move, RFK Junior's vaccine committee votes to recommend RSV shot for infants. People thought certainly the haters of Robert Kennedy Jr. thought something else would happen there. So look, the chips fell where the chips fell. Maybe we can get Dr. Robert Malone on in the future to explain why he voted yes.

I'm curious about that. And ASEP committee also did make a move to, again, it's still happening right now, but it also did make a move on thymiricol. So this is a preservative, it's a mercury-based preservative that's been in vaccines. It's been at the heart of a lot of concern for over a decade. It's not in many vaccines. It's in the multi-dose files of the flu shot, basically. That's the only ones left.

So that they did vote for all-age groups, for pregnant women, for young kids as well, to move that to single dose, which has no thymarol. saw none of that mercury compound in there. So this is a long time coming. It's the kind of driving home that final nail in this conversation on the way to a new one. And as we move forward, maybe we can look at aluminum, some of those adjuvents now into these vaccines. But this is the bigger conversation.

Before this even happened, before ASEP even started, I noticed something that happened. It was very similar to what happened when you release your documentary faxed. No one saw the movie, but every media outlet said, don't go see the movie because it's anti-vax. Well, this is what happened to ASIP. Now, I want to also put a background here before this ASIP committee, before really RFK Jr. took HHS and Trump became president. Anytime people like us or anybody questioned vaccines, we were sowing dissent in the government. We were going to hurt people or kill people. If we had a view outside of the government, outside of the CDC, alternative information, we were censored.

we, some people were put on terror watch list. This was no joking matter. So now I see the corporate media do this. Again, this was before ASIP even started. This was last week. Outside groups organized to form unbiased, independent vaccine panel. This is in the wake of health secretary at Robert F. Kennedy Jr., decision to shake up a key federal vaccine advisory committee outside medical organizations

and independent experts are looking for alternative sources of unbiased information and even considering forming a group of their own. So they're trying to form their own groups to make their own recommendations so governments and schools and states can follow those. These are trade unions. Think American Academy of Pediatrics, places like those trade organizations. These are heavily compromised organizations. These are the same people with conflicts of interest with pharmaceutical companies. Now they're trying to do their own thing.

And this is a concern of talking point. So this narrative went out everywhere. It wasn't just one organization. You saw it even in local media. For example, in New Jersey here, this is an op-ed in New Jersey. New Jersey must act to protect public health from federal sabotage. Again, said that ACE committee didn't even start. This was written.

And they're saying we need to put into our health mandates, our health acts in our state that our vaccine recommendations can come from not just the federal government, but also trade organizations and medical bodies and basically whoever we want, we're going to start our own body and say these are a vaccine recommendations. So how the tables have turned when this is happening, and even you have Wisconsin, and even you have Wisconsin's Department of Public Health when HHS came out and said, we're not recommending the COVID shot for healthy children anymore. Wisconsin came out and said, oh, yeah, we are. We're going to put our own press release. And we're still going to recommend those to every person, six months

or older. We're going to give it to pregnant women. We don't care what you say, ASIP, we don't care what you say, HHS. We're doing our own thing. So you're seeing a lot of a breakaway, this breakaway with groups. And remember, if they were smart, they would kind of just shut up and let ASEP regain the trust of the public. Let Kennedy do the work to regain the trust because they've lost the trust so bad. And they're continuing driving down the loss of trust road. Let's see how that goes. Well, imagine what just happened right now with these states that are like coming out again in Wisconsin.

We're not going to listen to them. Oh, but they just approve RSV. Should I not listen to them? Imagine the confusion they got now. What a weird world we're living in right now. It's hard to know what side you're actually on or what boat you're in. But on one hand, look, they're doing our work for us, right? Jeffrey, the saying don't trust the regulatory agents.

Don't trust the federal government with your health. I second that. But I also wouldn't trust my state government either. I think the only person you can trust really is yourself now and your own ability to do an investigation. Absolutely. And that's always how it's been parents as well. You only trust the parents for the children's vaccines. And it gets to the point where you're starting to try to think through all this stuff.

and your brain is getting a lot of work and it's starting to get overtaxed. And that brings us in the next study, talking about the brain. And what happens when your brain is on AI? This is out of MIT's Media Lab. This is a study that came out. It's a very thorough study. And it's talking about, it's cognitive debt. It's talking about cognitive debt when people use artificial intelligence.

So what they did was they used electroencephalogram. So they hooked up these people with brain monitoring equipment. And they had, they put them in the three separate groups. So they had, they had them read an essay. They had one person or one group use just their good old-fashioned brain. You don't use any assistance. You just write. You sit down, you create, you write how we've always done it.

Another group had to use search engines. So maybe you can start looking at that search engines. The other group had to use these large language models like chat GPT. And this is what I had to say. It said brain connectivity systematically scaled down with the amount of external support. The brain-only group exhibited the strongest, widest, ranging networks. Search Engine Group showed intermediate engagement and large language models assistance elicited the weakest overall coupling.

That's brain coherent. So it's basically saying your brain didn't really fire when you're using AI. But then after the essay was written, they asked them, can you quote the work you just wrote? And they said this. Quoting accuracy was significantly different across experimental conditions. In the large language model assisted group, 83.3% of participants failed to provide a correct quotation. They couldn't do it. Whereas only 11.1% in both the search engine and brain only groups encountered the same difficulty. So there's a graph there of a bar graph to show that.

So that big red line is that 83.3% said, I don't know what I just wrote. So the question is, what are you learning? What's really being creative? You have no long-term memory of what you just did. How are you learning? The rest of the people said only a little over 11% said, I can't quote that, but the majority of those people could remember what they wrote and quote it. And this This brings us to, I mean, for this, this is a jump off of a big conversation I want to have just finishing off this segment. So when we are interacting with cognitive tools like AI, like these large language models, you can see it's affecting our brain, it's causing our brain to kind of just sit back and

shut down and relax. But at the same time, AI is also reaching out towards us. So this is Mark Zuckerberg. So after a little over a decade of him helping to create the loneliness epidemic with Instagram, meta, Facebook. He's now saying that his grand vision is more AI friends than human ones. That's Wall Street Journal. So he's saying you're going to have chatbots as your friends.

So what happens when AI is reaching out? So humans have always had domain, dominion over this external physical realm. And we've created computers and artificial intelligence. That was always relegated to like the computer, the, it's just the computing realm. But now it's switching. The computing realm is coming out to us and we are going in to the computer. realm. It's this massive switch. And one of the biggest ways we're getting into that realm is through our phones. And so this is the conversation I want to end up with here. And obviously

when it comes to brain development, children are the most susceptible. So there's a meta-analysis here of longitudinal studies. You know those things bears can't do and the vaccine manufacturer just can't seem to do in safety testing? So there are long-term studies over a long part of someone's life. This is a meta-analysis looking at screen use, electronic screen use, in children's social-emotional problems. And it says, our findings suggest there are causal effects between screens and poor social-emotional well-being and children. That is, screen use may increase the risk of children developing social-emotional problems, and children with social-emotional problems may be drawn to screens, possibly as a way to manage their distress. So it's this negative feedback loop. One is

looking for the other and vice versa. And with smartphones, so the first iPhone came out in 2007, Apple's iPhone. And since then, it only took seven years up to 2014 for researchers to create because there was so much addiction happening. They created a smartphone addiction inventory. This is what used now to study addiction to people that overuse their smartphones. And there's been so many studies, there's been over almost a decade of studies showing excessive phone use, negatively changes the brain. So that's not exclusive to AI. But now we're seeing just the presence of your phone. This is the headline. The mere presence of one's own smartphone reduces available cognitive capacity. This is at a published journal. It says the present research identifies a

potentially costly side effect of the integration of smartphones in a daily life. Smartphone induced brain drain. We provide the evidence that the mere presence of a consumer smartphone can adversely affect two measures of cognitive capacity, available working memory capacity, and functional fluid intelligence without interrupting sustained attention or increasing the frequency phone-related thoughts. So just having it there, people's people's brain, it's like, it's like the specter is pulling your intelligence out. But thankfully, we are created with the ability to adapt. Probably one of the big best features of being human is our adaptive ability. And the brain has neuroplasticity. That's the brain's ability to reorganize and rewire itself, rewire its neural

connections when it encounters outside work or influences. So it works both ways. So here's another study of this headline, giving up your phone for just three days can reshape your brain activity. So it can start to reshape it back. It can actually start to rebuild it. So when it comes to that conversation, though, I'm not an expert, you're not an expert, but some of the experts that do work on phones, some of the world's experts, what do they do with their phones? Well, Pavl Duroff, he's the creator of Telegram. He recently was interviewed by Tucker Carlson and asked exactly that question. Listen to this. All right. I haven't used the phone for for a year almost I find it France took it oh France took it but

even before it took it I wasn't using my phone I didn't have a SIM card in the phone I just use it to test Telegram the app because we have constant product updates I have to test it like at least twice a week but I don't I'm not a user of a phone so I just want to say again you're an engineer too I mean you're not like a marketing guy you're like a build the app guy so you understand the technology yes because you built it. Yes. So you're coming from a highly informed perspective when you make technology choices.

Is that fair? You could say so. Yeah. One of the most informed probably in the world, and you don't have a phone. What is that? Like, why don't you have a phone? Well, I don't use phone regularly, right? I probably own a phone.

But I don't use phone. I don't carry a phone with me because I find it extremely distracting. I find it also potentially harming my privacy. And I also just I don't think it's a necessary device for me to have. When I want to focus on something, I would rather use my laptop or my iPad and put together some notes or some interact with my team. So I wouldn't want to just open my phone.

and disappear their consuming short-form content. And that's why I don't use a phone. I'm trying to extract this from you for one simple reason, which is I think that when you come across someone who knows an immense amount about technology, really understands the technology, it's interesting to know his perspective on technology. Like, with everything you know, you don't use a phone.

So I just think, you know, people can draw their own conclusions from that. I don't want to lose myself in my phone. I don't want to be distracted. Privacy issues. I mean, he's kind of saying what we're seeing in these studies. I don't want that in my life. I don't want my brain to experience that. There's one section of my life that I can definitely relate to this.

It's just in the little driving app that I use. And I'm telling, I joke all the time. If the power ever goes off on my phone or somehow this app got wiped out, it doesn't matter that I just drove where I am. I might as well have been kidnapped. I have no idea where I am. Because I've just totally turned my brain off. Just go left, go right, go left.

By the time I'm there, I don't know what direction or anything is. So you get it, right? If you're not using your brain, certainly if AI is writing your stories or, you know, anything like that, you're not going to remember it. Jeffrey, a great reporting. Thank you for that great dive on the advisory committee on immunization practice meetings. Obviously, you know, we're turning a corner. At least more of the right questions are being asked. I look forward. They didn't vote on COVID-19, right, on the vaccines or anything like that.

Because a good part of the original discussion yesterday was all on that, but it was really, I think, laying course for future votes and things that might be happening. All right. Well, have a great weekend. I'll see you next week. All right. Thank you. All right. Take care. Well, you know, hopefully what you recognize when you watch the high wires, there's no other show that is bringing you this level of detail on the things that are really going to affect your lives. when this woman's basically stacking up army men and making the wrong kind of conclusion, it's actually going to affect your life. It's going to affect the health of your children, whether or not they can get in school or not, all because these recommendations go, especially if you're in one of these states, that mandates the vaccine without any form of an exemption.

This is a huge part of what we've been doing here. And we've been talking about the free of the five. For many of you, there's five states left. we won back to religious exemption from Mississippi. But then, you know, all of a sudden it went to Free the Four because after Mississippi, West Virginia's own governor ended up, you know, having an executive order. And this is because of the work we had brought lawsuits to West Virginia. He actually agreed with us back when he was the Attorney General.

So when he became governor, he said, you know what, I'm going to do it for you. Aaron, Dell, like I remember the cases. So he wrote an executive order saying you have a religious exemption out of vaccination. here in the state of West Virginia. And so we went, yay, now it's free of the four. But just about a week or so ago, before that, Aaron started bringing a lawsuit because the school boards in West Virginia are pushing back.

They're saying we're not going to listen to the governor. We don't happen to update West Virginia Board of Education issued statement on vaccine compliance. Basically, it says the WVBE direct the state superintendent of schools to notify all school districts to follow the law that has been in effect since 1937, you haven't been able to opt out based on religious exemption. So now we're kind of back to Free the Five, which is what we're going to talk about right now. In really an unprecedented moment, our own attorney Aaron Siri stood on stage with

the governor of West Virginia, bringing, talking about the lawsuit that I can that we are bringing, to codify, to strengthen and solidify this executive order by the governor. This press release, this press conference went down yesterday. Take a look at this. Today, a lawsuit was filed in Raleigh County Circuit Court on behalf of a young woman, a mother, exercising her religious liberty to seek a religious exemption to the state's compulsory vaccination policy. I think it's important to do.

Miranda Guzman is suing the county school board and the state board of education on behalf of her four-year-old daughter. She's seeking an injunction against the state board of education's decision in hopes that her child will be able to attend school this fall. How many people in this room by a show of hands know somebody whose children could be excluded from school if the governor's executive order is not honored? Almost everybody in the room raised their hands. Plaintiff here is a god-fearing woman, single mother, who's just trying to raise her child. She has a number of religious exemption, religious beliefs that are contrary to these, giving these products to her child, including, as the governor said, the number of these products, and actually all of them in one way or another,

are implicated in abortion. For example, the MMR and the Varicella vaccine in every single vial. has millions of pieces of cellular and DNA debris from the cultural cell lumbina border fetus. While the Bible says you should heal you're sick, what it doesn't say is that God messed up and that a child born today needs 29 injections by the first year of life, including in utero. There is no meaningful evidence that such exemptions have led to increased incidence of disease at the population level. We're not aware of one shred of evidence that by moving to be a state that respects religious liberty and exemption, that there is any, that there is any negative public health effect. I dare the other side to provide that.

They're misleading you. We're going to tell the truth. We're going to make sure the truth gets out. I am not going to let an unelected body of bureaucrats stop and strip religious liberty protection. that are afforded to them under West Virginia law. Period. I have a message to to all the medical organizations out there who are fighting against letting kids back in school.

They are part of this community. They're not going anywhere. They are God's children. And they shouldn't be excluded from school. And the attempts by medical, quote, unquote, health authorities to exclude them by these organizations, you are hurting your own agenda. When you try to bully people

rather than persuade them on the merits, that doesn't cause them to come around. That causes them to fight. Well, that's what we do in these situations. There's a moment to fight. There's a time to fight. This is our fight. This is the fight of the informed consent action network and the high wire and the general that guides us through all of these fights that works for us, works for you. joins me now, Aaron, Siri. Aaron, this is, I thought we were through this, right? I thought we were through West Virginia, but then you've just got these pharma shills that seem to be planted everywhere in the nooks and crannies of humanity. So tell me a little bit about this case.

How does this case work? Why is it important? What can it achieve in West Virginia? So we brought a lawsuit in federal court and we sued the health department because they didn't provide for a religious exemption process to be able to get a religious exemption to send your child to school. Well, as you pointed out, we brought one federal lawsuit that said that. We had another federal lawsuit. We actually did get an injunction on behalf of homeschoolers relating to that. And as that was going on, the Attorney General of West Virginia agreed with our position in the case when he was the now governor who was then the Attorney General,

who then filed an amicus brief, a friend of the court brief actually agreeing with us on a little bit of different grounds, not on the First Amendment, but under state law. Anyways, when the governor, the attorney general then became governor, as you pointed out, Yeah. Governor Morrissey bravely, honorably, he did the right thing. He did the brave thing, which is he didn't do what was expedient. He didn't do what was popular. He didn't do what the majority agreed with because if that's all rights protect, they're useless. He did what he's supposed to do.

He did the brave thing and he said, no, we're going to protect this minority no matter how much others might not agree with me because that's what rights are for. They're to protect the minority, folks who have views that are difficult maybe to accept. He signed the executive order, just like you said, which is it honored under the state law that there should be a religious exemption under basically the equal protection religious statute called EPRA. With that said, okay, what that did is it granted exactly. what we were seeking effectively in our federal lawsuit, which was supported by ICANN, which is that the state health department grant religious exemptions and following the issue into the governor's executive order, that's exactly what happened in West Virginia.

The health department of West Virginia started to issue religious exemptions. Families were obviously elated. Here they are. They finally can attend, their children can finally attend school. Okay. But, and so I should also add that we dropped our federal lawsuit. Why? Because we got everything we were seeking. We got the health department. It was now issuing release exemptions. Now comes a new actor into the mix, and that is the State Department of the Board of Education. The Board of Education, an unelected body of individuals. And not doctors, by the way. Like educators. Yeah. They decided on their own that no, school should not. not accept the religious exemptions that are now being granted by the state health department.

So the state health department is still granting them. The Board of Education is telling schools don't honor them. And so now we brought another lawsuit to, and we have now sued the State Department, the Board of Education saying that what they're doing is a violation of West Virginia law and that they need to honor these religious exemptions. So just another round, you know, and we are confident. that will eventually prevail in this one. And if there's another roadblock, we'll go and fight through that one, too. As many as they want to put up.

You know, they could keep trying to take away people's rights, but we're not going anywhere. Why? I mean, like, here's an interesting position, because we're always asking the question, is it better to deal with things legislatively or in the court system? But really, here's a situation where we really have put that to the test. You have Governor Morrissey who uses his executive authority to bring about change in West Virginia, Virginia, something we've been fighting for. I've been to West Virginia almost every year for the entire time we've been at this since the end of 2016. You finally get this relief, but really we're

back to the court really is the stronger place, isn't it, to just define the law as we want it, understand, to set that precedence, which really will make a difference in this case. We're doing everything. So through ICANN legislate, we are trying to get, the law in Arizona, excuse me, in West Virginia changed. I spoke before the legislature there. I know you've spoken to them in the past. And the bill was up and it was, you know, relatively close to restore religious exemption through the legislative body.

And if we could have done it that way, we would have taken it. Yeah. But, and, you know, they're going to keep work. That effort is ongoing to try to get it through that means. At the same time, we're pushing through the court system in the manner I just described. And separately, the governor, just to be clear, his executive order is just really reconciling two pieces of law. It's not like the executive order in itself created the religious exemption. It did it. All that executive order did is said it as follows.

The existing law in error in West Virginia provides that you need to have certain vaccines to go to school. Then subsequent to the passage of that law, West Virginia passed EPRA. This statute says that the state of West Virginia cannot unduly burden religious practices. Okay. And here, this clearly, this vaccine law clearly unduly burdens religious practices. If you can accommodate children who are for secular reasons like medical exemptions, you can accommodate children for any reason, there's all types of situations where you don't need vaccines to go to school in Washington.

If you can accommodate teachers, if you can accommodate others, then you can accommodate religious beliefs. And you can let those children attend school as well. And all the governor was saying is when you read the older law in conjunction with the new law, it's clear there needs to be a religious exemption. That's all he was doing. He was just properly interpreting West Virginia law. So, yeah, we're going to, we're not, we're not, we're fighting on every front.

The goal is for these children, these families to be able to live their convictions and be able to attend their children's school and not have to choose between those two things. Well, I really appreciate the work that you do for ICANN and the High Wire, Aaron. This is a special moment. It was great to see you standing on the stage with Governor Morrissey. It's great seeing you speaking at these state capitals all across this country, fighting this fight for our work, but for all the children out there and the families. I just want to thank you.

I've said it before. I think you're going down in history. This fight is in your hands in so many ways, and no one could be handled. it better than you, so thank you for the work that you're doing. I appreciate the support and the ability and the opportunity to engage in these fights. So this civil right, individual right, is critical. It is almost in many ways a last frontier for these massive corporations. They view our bodies and our children's bodies as a commodity,

and the more that they can control them, the more money they can make. And so I do view it as maybe one of the central civil rights issue, individual rights issue, constitutional rights issue of our time. All right. Well, that's why it's so important. I'm going to talk about that. I'm going to let you go. Stick around after the show.

I want to do an off the record with you. Since you were the first one that said to be, Del, we should go to these ASIP meetings. This is where it's all happening. I want to get your take because we've been going to those as-sit meetings for years now. Off the record right after the show. We're going to talk about what you thought of these ASIP

meetings. So if you want to stick around after the show, we're going to do that. Thank you, Aaron. Thank you for this lawsuit. You know, you've got our, our prayers are with you and with the state of West Virginia. Thank you. All right, thank you.

So look, you may be sitting there going, wow, how do they afford those lawsuits? I mean, lawsuits against, you know, like in states, and we're all over the country, and we're fighting in California, we're fighting in Maine, and, you know, how if you, if you're brand new to this show, this is one of the most unique experiments that's ever happened. Could we do a show where we point out the problems in the world that we're seeing, and then we take one of the greatest attorneys that's ever lived and we go and try to solve the problem to fix the problem? That's what we do here at the high wire. I don't, if there's another show like that, please write in, let us know I want to support them too. But I want to know where else you get to go where you get to actually make a difference in the world, to see the issue, and then stand up like warriors with us and then make it happen.

save the children's lives. Make sure that children can go into school this next school year in West Virginia without being vaccinated with that new RSV bull crap that was just passed by ASIP. If you want your kids to get through that, especially in West Virginia, and you want to set precedence saying you better not mess with the high wire and Aaron Siri because if you try to pass a law in the state that has medical freedom right now, we're coming after you. And by the way, the rest of the free of the four, which is what it's going to be when we're done here, know that high wire and Delibetra and Aaron, Syrac coming after you. We're all coming after them.

But the only way we do that is with your support. You know, no one's independently wealthy here. We're not doing this on our own. The nonprofit informed consent action network, one of the things I love saying to the press is, you know who our biggest donor is? The masses, the people. It's the $5. It's the $10 a month that brings in most of the funding that makes this show,

and especially these legal cases happen. We are the most successful nonprofit in this space at winning. We won against CDC, FDA, NIH, HHS. We won back to Religious Exemption, Mississippi. We planted all the seeds that are growing right now in West Virginia that is going to be this oak tree of freedom that we are going to grow there right now through this lawsuit. But we really need your help right now.

We are fighting on every front. And if it's not clear that the Savior is not coming through ASIP after what we just showed you and everything else, This is how we do it. As Aaron said, we strike from all sides. We are involved in legislation. We work to get people into office that can make a difference. But we don't go to sleep.

Then we fight and we go to battle. We get into courtrooms and we'll stand on state capitals and we'll do shows and we'll out people, we'll out the truth and we'll show you the real science. It's taking a huge team to deliver all this for you. I hope it matters to you. I hope it matters enough that you say, you know what? Today I'm going to become a recurring donor. Just go to the top of the page thehighwire.com.

hit on Donate to I Can, and I don't care how much it is. We're asking for $25 for 2025, but honestly, whatever you can afford, even if it's a nuisance right now, ah, it's a nuisance to sign up, just go through with it. Whether it's $25, $0.50, $1, $10, or if you're doing really well, maybe it's $100 a month. It is all going to a great cause and we'll make it easy. You can do it by mail, by stock, international transfer, crypto, vehicles, gift cards, legacy giving, you can text us right now, 72022, and all you have to do is type in the word

donate. That shouldn't be that big a nuisance and just say, you know what? Today I'm going to start giving because it actually makes a difference in the world. In a place where we can all be pessimistic and we can look around and say, ah, nothing's really happening. There's a lot of great things happening. It's happening little spits and spats in some big moments and then some bad ones, but we are true. We never stop. We never stop fighting for you. I hope you'll help us by becoming a donor today. And thank you for all of you that have made all the work that possible that we've done since the end of 2016.

Really, really great victories have been a part of the work that we're doing. And you, those that you support us, you get to pat yourself on the back. And guess what? Everyone's supporting us right now? How do you care if you're coming in late right now to this horse race? When we win West Virginia, if you were donating, you'll get to say, I did that. All right, I look forward to that moment. Speaking of advisory committee on immunization practices, speaking of the right to opt out of a vaccine program,

there are vaccines being given on day one of life, the hepatitis B vaccine, when only 0.5% of women is my understanding that are giving birth this year or even hepatitis B positive, which was the only ones that are at risk, 99.5 of them still have to be. to get a hepatized vaccine to be able to leave the hospital. Don't you want to be able to opt out of that? Don't you want, when the advisory committee and education practices, we know that they're looking at autism, but they're looking at everything. What about all the different issues that have been covered on the high wire through the

years? One of the big ones that we used to talk about and haven't for some time is SIDS, sudden infant death syndrome. Sometimes it's called sudden unexplained death. The sudden unexplained death of an infant under one year of age, usually during sleep. I think it's sudden unexplained death when they're over one years old. But this is a ridiculous term. It's not scientific, yet it's what we've just relaxed into for decades.

This was an issue that was really, I think, best described in a beautiful family, Nick and Marjorie Coton. And their baby, yeah, the famous MMA fire, he came on the show. Their son Nicholas passed away after a D-TAP vaccine. Just to remind you, we just wanted to revisit this story to bring importance to what's now happening in science. Grab your tissue box. Let's remember this incredible family and this ordeal that they went through, take over this. Nicholas was just an extraordinary special baby.

From like the moment he was born, he was happy, healthy, never cried, loved his sister, loved us, played all the time, ate everything in front of them, you know, just happy, happiest boy ever. No, I think every father always looked forward to having a son and doing a lot of the things that, you know, fathers and sons do. He was just a special kid, man. He'd walk into the room and he would lighten up that room and he'd get everybody. laughing and then smiling. I remember I woke up and she said, you know, it's weird, Nicholas is sleeping, you know, pretty late, you know. And so she went in and she cracked the door, stuck her head in, and then kind of went around the hallway

and then kind of did a double look, and then she went in and realized he didn't move and I was in the kitchen, you know, emptying the dishes from the dishwasher, and I heard her scream and I knew right away. I knew right away she came out screaming that he's dead he's dead he's dead and you know I ran over and just fell on my knees she held up for about an hour and then they said that um you know he got let him go and you know she didn't want to let him go so i kind of had to take him from

her arms and carry him back into his room and and put him back in his crib and uh to say goodbye to them so they can finish their investigation. When the detectives came in, I mean, they asked us about Nicholas's history, and as healthy and happy as he was, I had told him he was recently vaccinated. That was the only thing in my mind that was sticking out. He was vaccinated 17 days prior. Plus, he was sick on an awful fever. He was really lethargic a few days before, not like himself.

It was a Sunday prior to his death. He had a really high fever, like a hundred two, hundred and two, two, two. to two but like Nick said not himself I never read an autopsy report so I didn't know what I was getting into maybe she did but I just as a father I felt I needed to read it I saw the whole you know a manner of death natural and that's when it kind of set me off and I got really mad about that you know there's nothing natural about a 20-month old kid just passing away the only thing that they found wrong was slight swelling on his brain fluid in his

lunged and an enlarged liver. So to me, knowing what I know now, all three of those go hand in hand with vaccine, injury and death. It's a cerebral edema, so there's fluid around the brain, swelling of the brain, fluid in the lungs, and then the liver congestion, which is where everything goes through to process out for toxins. And that's it. The bottom, you know, it goes through every system head to toe.

It's very detailed. And then at the bottom, it's sudden unexplained death and natural cause. And to me, there's nothing natural about a 20-month-old baby, just not waking up. question to you is, you know, you hear sudden infant deaths or, you know, sudden unexplained. I can imagine a statement like that or giving it that term for like a year or two. We've had this term for decades. Right. Right.

Like 30, 40 years. Do you now have any faith that they've really looked into what's causing these deaths? No. Well, I want to thank Nick and Marjorie for allowing us to revisit that story. My understanding is this their anniversary today. They now have three beautiful girls. Their family is thriving, proving the power of the human spirit and our ability to go through incredible tragedies. So our love goes out to Nick and Marjorie and happy anniversary to the two of you.

And thank you for your story. Right now, we want to talk about it because we may be on the verge of understanding what is causing SIDS. And at this moment where we have some pliability inside the federal government, we're hoping to make this as loud a statement as possible. But a new study was just done by Dr. Gary Goldman. Dr. It was born defenseless why infant liver maturity may be the missing piece in understanding vaccine safety, SIDS and NDDS. Of course, he's the co-author on that. He's also a former research analyst for the CDC and did incredible work in California. on the chickenpox vaccine.

But it's my honor and pleasure to finally, this is a doctor we've wanted to have on the show for many years now to be joined by Gary Goldman. Dr. Goldman, thank you for joining us today. Yes, thank you for having me. Tell me about what was very interesting in reading your study, that it really comes down to the liver, and I found it interesting as we were

revisiting that interview that was done years ago, ago, Marjorie at the end of it said that the issues that they saw was some inflammation in the brain, but issues with the liver. And I don't know if that directly correlates, but what you're talking about is this importance of the liver. So tell me, first of all, why did you get into this study? What was it about SIDS that drew your attention to begin with? Well, it just wasn't only SIDS, the immature CYP-450 enzymes, which are largely inside the liver, are responsible for metabolism and detoxifying various drugs and even vaccine excipients and components. And so it can have a, there is so much variation. within an individual, especially infants,

this is something that needed attention. We have infants that die of SIDS, an unknown cause. Why is that? Yet some are perfectly healthy. And it comes down to the, each infant has a very individualized, specific set of enzymes, partly genetic, part is developmental as with age. And these enzymes take two to three years to fully mature.

So giving vaccines at a preterm or at a young age can cause numerous issues due to the immature liver CYP-450 enzyme system. Now, this enzyme, is this a new discovery? What made you suddenly start looking at it? Because it's the heart of, I mean, what you're saying is this is the enzyme that breaks down a lot of the junk or the toxins that are in vaccines, but also environmental toxins that we're taking in, right? And we see that babies are very toxic nowadays.

Yes. Well, let's see. Basically, we could start with adults. And let's consider two examples. For patients that are prescribed warfarin as a blood thinner or anticoagulant, the FDA recommends considering genetic testing to account for individual differences in how the drug is metabolized. And it turns out they test a cytochrome, which I call it. called CYP 450 enzyme. Now there's a whole family of these. There's 57 different families of these genes and they all tackle different substrates or different substances. Now the CYP, cytocrone P-450 enzyme

labeled 2C9 is the enzyme that plays a primary role in metabolizing warfarin. And certain genetic variance can reduce that enzymes ability in individuals to cause a breakdown of the warfarin. Some individuals, the breakdown can be slow, in some it could be very fast. If it's slow, it results in the accumulation of the drug in the bloodstream. And this can raise the risk of excessive bleeding and in extreme cases lead to fatal outcomes if standard doses are used without adjustment for slow metabolizers. So that's the case where

this testing is already done in adults. There's one more example. I'll be quick. Suppose an individual has a mental health condition involving serotonin imbalance such as depression, anxiety, panic disorder or post-traumatic stress syndrome, PTSD. If they, if they are prescribed a selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitor and SSRI and CYP-2D6. Another cytochrome P-450 enzyme reveals they're a poor metabolizer that drug will stay in their bloodstream longer than intended. This will lead to elevated drug levels and increase the risk of psychiatric side effects, including suicidal ideation. So pharmacogenetic testing is increasingly used to guide safer,

more effective drug prescribing. Just as it helps tailor adult drug dosing, it could also identify genetic variations in the key enzymes in infants and children. And these enzymes play a critical role in metabolizing and detoxifying vaccine excipients, including aluminum salts, polysorbate 80, and certain preservatives. So pharmacogenetic testing could help identify infants with genetically reduced enzyme activity, allowing clinicians to individualize the timing

and selection of early life vaccines. And this personalized approach may reduce the risk of e-excipient accumulation and adverse effects during vulnerable periods of immune and neurological development. That's amazing. And you point out such a great point in that. So what you're saying is we already know these enzymes are important so much of the fact that we are doing this testing to protect adults that are about to take a drug. that we know that has to have a certain breakdown level or the drug could become toxic and even dangerous in the form of SSRIs could lead to suicidal ideations. Yet we don't give our brand new babies that we know their bodies are not really fully developed these enzymes. We know that they're just starting to develop them. We are not doing this type of testing, which we respect adults when they have to take products, but we're not doing this for vaccines.

So that seems like a no-brainer to me. How did you focus your study in then on, you know, SIDS specifically? How many kids, you know, did you look at? Like, what was the process of the study that you were looking at? Well, first, we, it wasn't only SIDS. This is extensive for virtually any adverse condition. So autism could be affected by this, too. autism and other neurological disorders.

Yes, and I can explain why. Before modern medicine, infants were exposed to natural toxins and contaminants, like you mentioned, in the environment, mainly also through breast milk. And without vaccines, infants had no need to metabolize synthetic excipients or aluminum-based adjuvants. The CYP-450 enzymes are mainly located in the liver in those cells called hepatocytes, and they're responsible for metabolizing and detoxifying, get this, 70 to 80 percent of drugs and also some vaccine exhibits. And these enzymes are underdeveloped at birth, and they mature over the first two or three years. years of life. And so that's why that's a nice graphic that we have. It shows that it takes

a significant period for these enzymes to really kick in and have the developmental maturity to do the job of detoxifying. So we could take, for instance, hepatitis B given on the first day of life, those enzymes may not be able to that. Bring that up. When you're saying this, I want to be Look at this graph. Folks, look at this. That is where you're at 5% development of this enzyme to break it down. A hepatitis B vaccine is coming in. We've talked about the fact that the aluminum load is, you know, 10 times what the oral dose that was ever approved. It's massive. There's also aluminum in the vitamin K shot that you're getting on that very first day. So you're just pounding that little fetus that doesn't have the enzymes to break all this stuff down. And that's just

the beginning of this journey to, as Aaron Siri just said, 26 to 29 vaccines by the time you're at 12 months, many of those coming at three months and six months. I mean, it just, it's kind of mind-boggling, I think, Dr. Goldman, because back when you were a child, and probably maybe, you know, early on in med school, it used to be, we knew, don't vaccinate a child until they're like two years old. Their bodies aren't able to handle it. Yet, we're just plows. these kids, 26, 30 vaccines within the first year of life. Yes. And we have a related study dealing with number of infant vaccines and the increase, as those

increase, infant mortality increased among developed nations. And we, in the analysis there, eliminating that early neonatal vaccination saved one death per thousand births, just eliminating that alone. Wow. So a lot of these studies are interrelated. And even today, as you said, there's over 20 vaccines scheduled in the first year of life, each carrying adjuvants, stabilizers, preservatives, multiple traits. and these multiple trace doses can add up reaching unsafe levels.

And you're right about the METIS study that from the FDA has a value that's likely eight times higher for aluminum safety than it should be according to other federal agencies. Yeah. So this really calls for greater attention to individualized risk and particularly in infants with known vulnerability. Now there's a genetic difference. I think we have a graphic on that that leads to variations in lever enzymes. There it is by ethnicity. And if you notice whether a child is a poor or a rapid metabolizer can vary.

by ethnicity. A small percentage of infants in all ethnicities are poor metabolizers shown in that red bar. Most of them are average in the green and some are rapid. If you have a rapid metabolizer and vaccinate them, the reaction may occur, the immune activation may occur so quickly, the child may need another immunization. to kick in with protection. So it ranges from poor or even no metabolizing to ultra-rapid, which could also lead to difficulties. Let's see. Sometimes people wonder that with these metabolic differences, it's still routine medical

practice to vaccinate all infants, including those who are preterm, using the same vaccine schedule. And this approach fails to account for the differences we just saw in developmental maturity by age and interpersonal genetic variability. Now, even more concerning, immune activation itself, which occurs when you receive a vaccine, creates a vicious feedback loop with these cytochrome P-450 enzymes. It makes these enzymes less capable to detoxify the vaccine excipients, and it amplifies the systemic toxicity. So that immune activation alone, causes the Cytochrome P-450 enzymes to work less efficiently

the cytocrine such as interleukins, interferons and tumor necrosis factor they are small signaling proteins that coordinate the immune response they act like a text message between immune cells directing them when and where to respond some cytokins create inflammation to fight off the invaders. Others cool it down once the threat is gone. But when working properly, cytokines keep the immune system balanced. But what happens is in infants with immature CYP-450 enzymes, this balance can easily tip. Their bodies may lack any efficient shut-off switch for cytokine activity, a prolonged cytokine activity. A prolonged cytokine

and response can lead to chronic inflammation, tissue damage, and increased risk for seizures, autoimmune reactions, and neurodevelopmental disorders, including the possibility of SIDS. So a short burst of cytokines is helpful, but when the signal keeps going too long, it causes more harm than good. And I prepared a special illustration for the audience. with it's called the infant yes versus the adult cult cut and imagine an infant liver as small as a fragile cup it's still developing with only a narrow drain at the bottom each vaccine dose while intended to protect

can add a few drops of excipients like the aluminum or polysorbate 80 in adults the liver's training system driven by fully matured CYP-450 enzymes clears these enzymes clearcies enzymes clearcies excipients efficiently but in infants this system is immature the drain is slow what enters the cup lingers longer placing extra stress on the body's delicate balance one dose may not overflow the cup but multiple doses before the drain matures can lead to a quiet overflow, subtle and unseen.

The result? Potential disruptions in immune signaling, hormone regulation, or brain development. So we may not notice the spill, no rash, no fever, no seizure, but something has shifted. And as these shifts accumulate across generation, we risk accepting a new normal, forgetting what true resilience in an unburdened infant once looked like. That's so brilliantly laid out and easy to understand. We have this tiny little cup. The enzymes in it are just developing. They can't break this stuff down the way an adult can. They can't get it out of the body. And so it's just overflowing, which really fits what a lot of the science I've looked at

in the study of autism that I got deep into in 2016, so many parents saying, my child just didn't methylate as fast as others. They couldn't detoxify quick enough so that overload, and we don't know what toxic level of the babies being born at already. We know there's 260 drugs and chemicals in the umbilical cord of most mothers, so our babies are being born toxic to begin with. And then we just start injecting them with these crazy toxins,

aluminum, polysorbate 80, formaldehyde, you name it. And I just sit here thinking, you know, Dr. Goldman, that first year of life should have just been a baby drinking breast milk. That is all that baby should have been experiencing. That's all that experienced for hundreds, if not thousands of years. And now we are just assaulting this liver that was never, I mean, whether you believe in God or evolution, was never designed to handle this toxic liver. that our medical establishment is pouring into these bodies saying it's going to make them

healthier. My question for you is I know it's insane, but you used to work for the CDC. Did you used to believe this vaccine program made sense? I mean, you know, what was your transition in looking at this? Well, you know, I bought into the whole vaccine program. My children were vaccinated. In fact, I considered getting it. employed in a CDC funded project to be like the gold standard in my career. So it wasn't until eight years of experience that my persuasion and thinking started to change. What was that experience specifically? What was it that triggered it for you?

Well, that could be a whole story in itself. But I'll go into a little of it. Basically, during my eight years with the project, I authored or co-authored some 11 or so studies that highlighted positive aspects of the Veracela or Chickenpox vaccination program. Okay. And these studies were quickly approved by the CDC. and the Veracella

Active Surveillance Project Principles. Okay. Usually they were, yes, you wanted to say something? No, no, go ahead. So you were getting a quick response. You were doing studies showing, you know, the benefits of the backseat

and those were getting published right away. So all good. Right. And so the CDC was thrilled to see a decreasing trend of 80% in reported chickenpox cases. I think I sent a graphic of that. A number of cases by month for 1995 through 1999.

The program's a success. Right. But when you get into the details, there's a naturally occurring cycle of chickenpox, a three to five year cycle. So we were in the peak of the cycle. and it was decreasing naturally anyway. So when you look at that chart,

the first three years are decreasing, but that can't be due to the Veracilla program because it's not even widespread yet. It's due to a natural occurring cycle. That's the way chickenpox works. It has this multiple year cycle. But the CDC wanted to publish a paper on it and and did praising its continued use and so here's what happened what we started in 1999 where the

chickenpox no longer showed seasonality to get calls from school nurses who were starting to report cases of shingles in their school-age children and in their whole career they hadn't seen this many occur so what we did was I made a petition or justification to start the surveillance of shingles in the next five-year cycle starting in year 2000 now here's where the problem begins why wasn't shingles started initially with the the project by not surveilling or doing surveillance. And for people, let me just interrupt just really quickly.

The shingles is the same herpesoster virus, right? It's a reoccurrence usually comes in adults because it's been dormant, but it comes from the same base virus. Just want to make that clear that shingles is usually something that happens in an elderly, rarely in adults with your immune compromise, but you start seeing kids. I just want to make that clear. Okay, go ahead.

Yes. So basically, let's see, we got where I was here. You said that we should be tracking the very cell of vaccine at the same time we're tracking shingles. Yes. So the FDA even suggested that there might be an increase in shingles. And yet we started this project and totally ignored. the pressing problem or the pressing question would shingles increase because just a 20 to 25% increase in adult shingles would in adult in those adults would actually offset every benefit if every case of chickenpox or hospitalization or death were removed it would if wow if incidents increased and we

were not able to answer that question with the beginning of the project. Why is that? That should show something is very amiss here. And then did you end up tracking the shingles? What do we learn about shingles? Yes, we started collecting shingle cases in 2000 by the end of the year, the incidence rate of shingles in children who were not vaccinated, who had, a previous history of natural disease was approaching the same high rate in adults this chart actually shows 446 was the ascertainment per 100,000 that is, cases of shingles in children that's the same that was in adults because they lost the exogenous boosting that occurred from circulation of the wild type natural disease.

So you're saying, let me make that, let me understand that. So kids that had caught chicken pox, we didn't realize they're being boosted by being around their siblings or other students that were getting chicken pox. Once you started vaccinating that there wasn't a contact with the kids that had had chicken pox. They weren't being re-boasted by being around those that were infected. And therefore, they start exhibiting shingles, which is this sort of disease that comes when you do not get the boost from being around chickenpox. Is that the basic gist of it? Yes, nicely said. It's a reactivation of the same herpesoster virus that initially enters the body with a primary chickenpox infection.

Right. And so basically, even among adults 2000 to 2001, it showed a statistically significant increase. So these were preliminary, deleterious, adverse findings that the CDC desired to seemingly ignore or suppress. Now, what the CDC did was they conducted a separate study of Schingles incidents in a community, where Veracella vaccine was not even widespread. And guess what? They found no impact. So this study was severely criticized and was used by the CDC to indicate

there were mixed results on the issue of increasing shingles and their rates. So now they had a study that showed no effect of universal Veracella vaccination program on the closely related Schingles epidemiology. When the CDC did publicize or report Schingles incidence rates, they were not ascertainment corrected. They were unadjusted so that they merely reflected the incidents of reporting to the VASP, the Veracella Active Surveillance Project. But I used capture, recapture statistical methods,

and I was able to determine the number of chicken, pox, and shingle cases the project had missed. So this provided an ascertainment corrected or true number of cases in the population. And it turns out that CDC's reported incidence rates reflected only half the true rates in the population. Now, these incidence rates, based on 50% case ascertainment, were public. and quoted by other researchers. The shingles rates in the VASP appeared much lower than other historical studies, but they were only half the true rates. Wow.

So this contributed to a repetition of misleading shingles incidence rates when presented to the CDC or quoted by other authors. Amazing. Interestingly, Dr. Julie Gerberding, who served as director of the CDC from 2002 until her resignation in 2009. Well, then she became the president of Merck's vaccine division, which is the manufacturer of the Ferrisella vaccine. So it's easy to kind of put two and two together there. How well were you received at the CDC when you started correcting their numbers and putting out

the real shingles dead. And by the way, there are countries. My understanding is the UK doesn't mandate the chickenpox vaccine because they know it increases shingles in the adult population for all those reasons. They saw that the risk benefit wasn't worth it. Just as you pointed out, so you're not alone. Other countries have opted out of the childhood chickenpox vaccine for exactly this reason. But when you pointed out, what other nations now know to be true, how did the CDC respond? Well, again, the VASP, which is Veracella Active Surveillance Project, which provided annual reports to the CDC, they, in some cases, published and presented the scientific papers that I produced, word for word. Everything produced from the VASP went through me as the sole research analyst.

I even received a certificate from the CDC for the achievement and dedication to the project. But after 2000, the CDC and principal investigators of the VASP were persistent in their seeming suppression of my data and analyses pertaining to shingles. And this persistent obstruction to restrict my research resulted in my resignation after eight years with the project. And I stated in my resignation, I'll quote it, when research data concerning a vaccine used in human populations is being suppressed and or misrepresented.

This is very disturbing. goes against all scientific norms and compromises professional ethics. And I had discussed my findings with Dr. Philip R. Krause, back then, the head research scientist of the FDA. And he supported publication of this preliminary data and results. Wow. So you've been at this for some time, Dr. Goldman. And obviously, when you start watching the CDC cooking the books as how I would describe what we're talking about, that must be very disheartening. So as we sit here now, more and more, we've got COVID vaccines coming on.

We just had the advisory committee on immunization practices meeting over the last two days. We've been discussing that throughout our show. But the vaccine program is that an all-time, you know, I mean, the amount of vaccination. vaccines are given at an all-time high. Confidence in the vaccine program is in an all-time low. But as we look at, you know, many of the conversations that are being had, Robert Kennedy Jr. and is run to be HHS secretary kept saying this is the sickest generation of children we've seen. We've seen this dramatic rise in autoimmune and neurological disorders from roughly 12% in the 1980s to now, you know, between 50 and 60% of our children are chronically.

ill. He's saying is going to start doing comparative studies in your heart, having worked at the CDC, the work that you're doing, do you believe if it's all put on the table and it all should be, we're not choosing sides, do you think vaccines are going to stand out as having been a contributing factor to this decline in our children's health over the years to now more than one and two is permanently and chronically sick? Well, I'm not prepared to make such a global state But the vaccines do need their timing, the number, what is in the current immunization schedule does need to be adjusted. And I'd like to share with you one more bold move that I made personally. Okay.

After I resigned, I went ahead and published the Schengel studies that I had previously submitted to the CDC and that VASP for their review and approval, but they never responded. Three of my papers were published together in a well-known European journal called Vaccine. But prior to their publication, I notified the CDC and VASP of my intentions to publish to determine if they wanted recognition as authors since the data was collected from this CDC-sponsored VASB project. The response I received was a notice from the Los Angeles County Legal Department to cease and desist publication in a medical journal. So I called the attorney to get more explanation. I asked why this demand to cease and desist.

He said, the principal investigator does not agree with your findings. I said, well, it's not uncommon for researchers to disagree on findings. Why don't we leave the discussion up to the editors of the journal to decide if the studies are sufficiently robust to publish? And he said, you don't understand, Goldman. They do not want it to be published. So the conversation ended, and my attorney argued that the data were available to anyone through the Freedom of Information Act, and he threatened to follow up with a million-dollar counter-lawsuit based on federal and state false claims acts. And so the season desist demand was dropped and all my studies were

peer reviewed and accepted for publication. Wow. I think you're my new personal hero, Dr. Goldman. I want to thank you for all the work that you've been doing over the years. I want to thank you for this incredible research that makes so much sense. You're really putting together a couple of, I think, missing dots in this conversation. We need to start looking. the enzymes that are inside the liver of our babies. Are there enough there? Are they differing between different babies? That would explain why some kids are having severe reactions and others aren't.

Some of these kids just cannot handle the toxic load that's happening. We're testing adults for this very issue. You're making the point we should be testing our babies and children before we start vaccinating them. So we're going to continue to watch your work. Do you have any social media? or is there a best way to look out for the work that you're doing right now? Well, yes, I'm looking for a pharmacogeneticist

that specializes in these cytocrone P-450 enzymes. Okay. Possibly a coroner who has access to recent infant deaths. So that, because a lot of times they don't do the brain, testing and metabolic testing that would show it's not SIDS. It is a vaccine-related death. And also, we wonder, why are males affected more than females in autism? Again, that goes back to this immature enzymes. The testosterone that's involved, it puts a much higher load on these enzymes. And so just briefly, that's why males seem to be more affected.

So, you know, the goal is to first do no harm. And so pursuing personalized vaccination strategies using routine pharmacogenetics at birth, enzyme profiling, or at least delayed scheduling, that could be the next frontier in safer, precision, public health. Dr. Goldman, thank you for taking the time today with so much clarity you've explained an issue. We're going to do everything we can to find you some technicians that can maybe help with

this coroner. We have a huge audience out there. A lot of them are scientists. We'll let you know who reaches out. And I appreciate you coming on the show. We've wanted to do this for a very long time. Obviously, everything happens at the right time for a right reason. Thank you for joining us today.

Thank you. All right, you take care. You too. Wow. I mean, look at what he's saying. You have these enzymes that are we now, we know for a fact, are just starting to develop in an infant, we're slamming them with the hepatitis B vaccine, vitamin K shot.

God knows what, two, three months later. And then the activation of the immune system, the immune system kicking in shuts down the enzymes that are already depleted because they're underdeveloped. So that could be an issue. I mean, what we, I mean, I just want you to recognize what just happened here. We may very well have just heard the mechanism by which so much of this harm is happening from vaccines. Is it really liver and enzymes?

Could we test for it? Could we see who's strong? Who's not? It's all happening right here on the high wire. But in Washington, D.C., it was happening at the advisory committee on immunization practices. One of the sections that people say, well, what's really happening here? I'm not happy with the results that came out of there, but I am happy with the discussions that are happening. I was also happy to hear that there's some new groups.

They have these groups that get together and study certain issues at ASIP. Martin Koldorf talked about those groups and a couple of new ones that I think are important because it's things we've been talking about. Take a look at this. Work groups play a very important role in the work of the ACIP. Selected from around the country, workgroup members are experts on the vaccines, diseases and safety issues under consideration. They investigate issues in detail and forward recommendations to the ACIP. Work groups must be shared by an ACIP member, so new shares are currently being appointed to the EXIP. to the existing work groups. There are currently 11 important workgroups looking at

vaccines for Shikungunya, COVID-19, cytomegalovirus, human papillovirus, influenza, menacococcal disease, MPox, pneumocococcal disease and RSV. Some new work groups will also be established. The number of vaccines that are children and adolescents receive today exceed what children in most other developed nations receive and what most of us in this room receive when we are children. In addition to studying and evaluating individual vaccines, it is important to evaluate the cumulative effect of the recommended vaccine schedule. This includes interaction effects between different vaccines, the total number of vaccines,

cumulative amounts of vaccine ingredients, and the relative timing of different vaccines. vaccines. We will also be convening a new workgroup to look at vaccines that have not been to review in more than seven years. This was supposed to be a regular practice of the ACIP, but it has not been done in a thorough and systematic way. We will change that. We are learning more about vaccines over time and to stray true to evidence-based medicine, we have a duty and responsibility to keep up to date with scientific research to make sure that the ACIP recommendations are optimal for both individuals and public health. Among other topics, this new vaccine group may look at the universally recommended hepatitis B vaccine at the

day of birth. Is it wise to administer of birth dose of hepatitis B vaccine to every newborn before leaving the hospital? That's the question. Unless the mother is hepatitis B positive, an argument could be made to delay the vaccine for this infection, which is primarily spread by sexual activity and intravenous drug use. Vaccines are important from combating measles. For the first dose at age 12 to 15 months, a previous ACIP meeting recommended two alternative options equally with either separate MMR and varicella vaccines in two different needles, or the combined MMRV vaccine in one needle, even though the latter caused an excess number of fever

seizures. Aware of this, most pediatricians administer separate MMR and Varsala vaccines, and CDC has also expressed a preference for that. To minimize vaccine adverse reactions, the ACIP may follow the leave of pediatricians and reevaluate his earlier recommendation concerning MMRV for one-year-old children. This working group may also look at new research concerning the optimal timing of the MMR vaccine. To resolve religious objections that some parents have concerning the MMR vaccine being used here in the United States, he could also look at other MMR vaccines such as the one used in Japan. Well, I wanted you to hear that because I think what you are hearing a, you know, a change, right?

Things are changing. It's sort of like a new coach has come into a very bad basketball team and is trying to turn the game. around trying to get the team to move differently. Are you going to come right out of the gate and start winning games? Probably not. We certainly didn't win some games this week, but we did see a better practice structure. We did start seeing things that could be leading to better results in the future. So let's celebrate what we can. And I think the fact that these focus groups are being developed are very important. This is what we've been fighting for at ICANN, the Highwire, since we began. Number one, can we look at this stupid hepatitis B vaccine that's being given on day one of

life? As I pointed out so many times, huge aluminum load for a sexually transmitted disease. Your child's not going to come in contact with to their sleep with prostitutes or sharing heroin needles. Finally, there's going to be a group looking at that. We're going to track that. But I mean, it's at least being said to the public. It's being said, you know, inside the halls of the CDC. Very They're going to look at the overall cumulative effect of the entire vaccine program. By stating that alone, they're admitting we've never done it before. Shocking, right? Shocking that they've never looked at are used healthier when you get all 72 vaccines

compared to those that maybe got some or none or timing and spreading it out. He talked about the cumulative effects, the reaction between vaccines we're going to start looking at. Wow, no duh. Finally, we're going to start seeing these focus groups looking at these things. We'll see who's in those focus groups. Does it make a difference? But at least the conversation is happening. And then conversations about the MMR vaccine.

Huge religious issues there. There's aborted fetal cell lines, DNA of aborted babies inside of that vaccine. Is it possible that people that want to vaccinate would do it if they could get a different vaccine or spreading them out or breaking up the MMR? All conversations that we would like to have. I want to point out that as we look at this, as we look at ASIP, don't forget the entire purpose of this group is to approve vaccines. They believe in vaccines. So if you are, you know, home birthing as my wife and I did with our children, and you're saying we're not going anywhere near those, this ASIP meeting is never going to be a television show you're going to enjoy because it has one purpose to get more vaccines in the world and hopefully they'll be safe. than they've been before.

But I'm going to point out that if we are expecting our regulatory agencies in the government in the United States to make your health decisions for you, I got news for you. They're not going to be making good health decisions. They're going to be making these broad, sweeping discussions that even a father on the panel will say, hey, if as a parent I knew how bad the trials were on this RAS vaccine, I wouldn't want to give it to my kids. But as soon as we vote, yes, no parent is going to note that there were problems. of those trials. That's what we're here for. I'm not going to tell you whether you should vaccinate or not.

I've been really open that I have a bias. I have not given my children a single one of these vaccines. I myself was never vaccinated. Somehow I have survived. Somehow when all you do is gave a baby breast milk for the first year or two or their lives and keep them inside the home and around their family, instead of injecting them with chemicals and aluminum and formaldehyde and polysorbid 80 and dimerosol, which will finally be removed and proteins and foreign proteins and hamster kidneys and monkey kidneys and aborted fetal cell lines, you know, shockingly, you know, for those that are going through that process, I think there's a reason why your kids are so damn sick, but that's just me. It's a hypothesis. I have a hypothesis that getting so outside of nature

that attacking the liver of a child whose enzymes can't even break this stuff down with sexually transmitted diseases that will never be a problem for them, maybe you're causing a problem. So finally, the conversations are happening. Thank God. But I would be remiss right now if I walked away with this show or from this show today without dealing with the one conversation that is driving you all crazy. What about wearables?

There is a tremendous amount of research that shows. that greater engagement with one's health leads to better outcomes. In recent years, American innovators have created and improved wearable devices so that not only are consumers able to better engage with their health through monitoring data, but they are able to share that data with providers. I believe American consumers, in line with the 21st Century Cures Act, should be able to access these innovative wellness tools. Secretary Kennedy, Do you agree that consumers should continue to have access to these tools? Absolutely.

In fact, we're about to launch one of the biggest advertising campaigns in HHS history to encourage Americans to use wearables. It's a way of people can take control over their own health. They can take responsibility. They can see, as you know, what food is doing to their glucose levels, their heart rates, and a number of other metrics as they eat it. And they can begin to make good judgments about their diet, about their physical activity, about the way that they live their lives.

We think that wearables are a key to the Maha agenda of making America healthy again. And we are going to, my vision is that every American is wearing a wearable within four years. I'll tell you this is why I would never want that job. Look, I don't wear wearables. I'm still concerned about my cell phone. I think that cell phone sitting in my back pocket is monitoring far more than I want the world to know about. But I'll tell you this, I haven't met a biohacker that's not wearing one. I mean, everybody sort of in the elite world of longevity and living forever has got some form of an aura ring or an Apple watch or a Fitbit.

So many people out there are using these things. And I think that it's crazy to have your own. health information just being thrown up on the cloud. I think that that's very dangerous, especially when you have new, you know, Yval Noah Harari from the W.E.F. In videos, we played over and over again. The show's gone way too long for me to, to play it right now. But he basically says that we are so obsessed. Now we're not just tracking where you are or what you're doing. We want to track under your skin. They want to know what your vitals are. They can't wait to see the next time that there's a debate going on to see what's happening inside of,

your vital organs is your blood going up when, you know, Donald Trump speaks or Hillary Clinton, they would love to judge what's happening with you. I mean, I'm sure in countries like North Korea, they'd love to just minority report and come in and arrest you because they know what you're thinking based on the wearable that's pumping up into the stratosphere for everyone to look at. So no, I don't think it's a good idea. I think wearables are kind of scary. But they also have massive health benefits for people that are using them, that are really tracking their blood sugars, and things like this, and I want to say this because I've been in some of the rooms, that the conversations that I heard with, you know, Dr. Oz and Robert Kennedy Jr. and

things that were all happening, you know, as the election was going on, this was something that they really cared about. And both these guys, I will tell you, the thinking that I heard right in front of me was simply what they don't like is that all of these people that are, you know, near the poverty line or are really struggling, some of them maybe in SNAP programs, that they're not. they have no access to all the tools that all the rich little biohackers get to use to look at their health and monitor their blood sugar. And they thought, if we're going to really do things, why don't we make these things available to those people that are underserved? Shouldn't everybody

have the same ability to say, hey, when I eat a box of fruit loops, my blood sugar spikes. And I actually start to research and look into it. And maybe I can make a difference. This is a tool, these glucose monitors that so many workout people, people, People are saying, you should use it. I can tell you, Robert Kennedy Jr. is not thinking, this is how we're going to control the world. He's thinking, this is how I can get a poor kid that is struggling with his health, trying or her health, trying to get through school, trying to focus, but are really not feeling good. This is a way that maybe they could engage. Maybe their parents can start to understand this issue that so many of us understand.

What they're seeing is when he says, everybody, I'm telling you, I know this guy. He's just saying everybody should have access. of the tools that the elitists have. That's how he's wired. It's how his father was wired. Could it go on to be used against us and track us and put us in all sorts of systems? And is it exactly where the W.EF wants to see us go? Probably.

Probably. So all I'm discussing right now is the motivation. I've been in the room and this conversation happened. They're really trying to figure out ways to stop the chronic disease epidemic, to stop the obesity, and the type 2 diabetes that is just skyrocketing all through this country. We have the worst issue of diabetes in the entire world, the worst issue of obesity. And if there was a tool, I mean, people I tell you right now, I know people in our movement that are pounding on Bobby's door every single day.

Will you start recommending OZEPB? Do you realize what a lifesaver this would be for all the people that are obese that have no other way to go, at least get them down to a body weight where they can feel good about themselves and maybe start working out. He's listening to that every day. I'm not sure right now he's saying no way. But when you are looking at trying to curb the chronic disease epidemic, and I'm making no apologies here, I'm just saying to you, put yourself in their shoes. If you only had two years to show we can reverse this, you might say, I'll use a monitor, I'll use whatever. Some of you would probably say, let's get into some peptides.

Whatever it takes, man, we are sick and we are dying and we are screwed. That's where we're at. So, yes, be clear. If you don't wear a Fitbit or don't want to, then don't. But boy, if you're wearing one right now and you're ever, if you ever, one of those persons, you've got an aura ring that you wear sometimes, or a Fitbit, or an Apple Watch, or if any of you catch your friends screaming about Robert Kennedy Jr.,

and they're wearing one of those things, you may want to check you with them say, hey, what's going on there? Because a lot of people are wearing this stuff. It may be the future for those that want to choose it. And for those that want the choice, even if they don't have a lot of money but want to do something about their health, shouldn't the government make that a choice that would be available to them to? I don't know. These are the issues that happen when you're a leader, when you're stuck in a position,

when you actually have to try and do what's right for the world. there's always someone that's going to see a negative side to it. Just like I see a negative side to a lot of this ASIP conversation that happened this week. I still think there are a bunch of vaccine promoters. I think that everything they think they can cure, they're at a war with nature. RSV has killed what? How many? I don't know.

Never even really heard of it until the, I've heard that polio vaccine might be part of the cause of RSV. I don't know. But as I said before, we lived until today. Just fine. Just like our parents live with 10 vaccines. Just fine. They were fully vaccinated. Now you need 72. England isn't giving a chicken pox vaccine. Other nations, as Martin Coldorf said, have a full vaccine program that's like 20 or 30 or 40 vaccines less than we are getting. So what is the right amount? Should we be vaccinated for every damn thing you can? Or maybe we should say, hey, how many people does this thing kill? How much assault do we want on the livers of our children? Where are their enzymes at? Can we do some testing? Can we test the entire group of vaccines? You know, they'll be given all at the same time.

Is it okay to give them the same time? Can we start being logical? I think that that's starting to happen. But let me say to you, you should have the right to just opt out, period. Period. That's what I'm going to fight for, tooth and nail. In West Virginia, in Connecticut, in New York, in California,

and any state that tries to take away your right to say, I don't trust that group of scientists that just looked at deaths in a trial and said, we're going to accept those deaths for an issue that really never kills healthy children. You deserve the right to choose. You have to be informed to be able to make those decisions. And I don't think there's a better show in the world that's informing you right now. We need you to share this everywhere you can. and we need your help to keep doing this show at the highest level that we can.

We're never going to stop investigating. We're never going to stop telling you what we see and how we see it. This is the High Wire broadcasting live every Thursday. I'll see you next Thursday on the High Wire.