The Highwire with Del Bigtree - Episode 432: BIG PHARMA ON TRIAL

Episode Date: July 11, 2025

Straight from the stage at FreedomFest, witness a powerful courtroom showdown as Big Pharma faces public prosecution in a live mock trial featuring Dr. Robert Malone, Michael Shermer, Del Bigtree, and more. With expert testimony, real debate, and an audience verdict, this is your chance to revisit the most explosive medical freedom event of the year.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

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

Good morning, good afternoon, good evening. Wherever you are out there in the world, it's time for us all to step out onto the high wire. Well, just a couple of weeks ago, I stepped out to a high wire of my own. Every once in a while I do something that's definitely outside of my wheelhouse and feels a little bit precarious. And what I'm talking about is the mock trial that took place at Freedom Fest. This was a trial that we were, you know, I was tasked to be the prosecuting attorney to bring a case against the pharmaceutical industry, basically proving all forms of malfeasance, that they're poisoning people, that they're charging too much for their products, that they're manipulating the market, and that they're controlling our government and our media.

All of that we had to do in just about an hour. And, you know, talking about, like, the way that pharma has a way of sort of fixing and rigging the game, it felt like that was what was happening at Freedom Fest. I mean, I am obviously not an attorney, but did the defense that is going to be standing up for pharma? Was that a real attorney? You bet it was, you know, a trial attorney. And then they had a real FDA lawyer as one of their witnesses from 2000. It was an FDA, the head of the legal team at FDA. So in many ways, it felt like it was out.

And on top of that, Michael Shermer was the one that was going to be the judge deciding how everything went. And Michael Shermer, as many of you know, he and I have had our moments where we've locked up over vaccines, safety, and especially vaccines and autism. So, you know, I had reached out to Aaron and I said, Aaron, I need some help here. I need some advice. My advice is don't do it, though. This is like a lose-lose. So always awesome when your team's like, God, you're back like that. But I went in anyway, and I decided, you know, this is probably more tongue and cheek,

and I'm probably making a big deal out of it. I would shed it as hard as I could. They wouldn't let the mock trial just to be about vaccines, which is my wheelhouse. They said, No, Del, we wanted to be more broad. You can certainly talk about vaccines as a part of it, but it's really about the whole industry itself, and we wanted to be well-rounded. So everybody gets a piece of all the issues they have with farmers. Like, all right, well, I'll look up on the costs of things.

and some of the drugs that have been recalled, and that's what I did. And, you know, in the end, there was a vote. And, I mean, actually, you know, how it goes. There was 12 jurors there. But I'll let you decide for yourself before you hear what the jury decided. You can see whether I win this case or not.

This is the mock trial from Freedom Fest. I hope you enjoy it. The mock trial is about to begin. And guess what happens at the... the Freedom Fest mock trial. Issues are argued, decisions are made, lives are changed. Big Pharma is going to be on trial and your lives will never be the same because you're going to hear so much information, so many facts, you're going to want to slow down and rewind. That's for Chat, GPT later. We're going to live here in the moment in real time.

And your judge tonight will be none other than Michael Shermer. Maybe the world's greatest skeptic. For the prosecution, arguing will be Del Big Trich. I was on his show earlier. It was really fun. And Dr. Robert Malone. Some titans of medical skepticism. Yeah. I'm sure they'll be signing autographs later. For the Defense. Catherine Bernard, Twyla, Braes, and Dan Troy.

He may be their Trojan horse. You never know. You may leave here going, you know what? I kind of didn't like Big Pharma before, but now I'm a fan. Hopefully, you'll say the same about me. Maybe before you're like, yeah, she's the worst on Fox News, but you know what? Kind of like her now. Thank you for that in advance. And here is your judge for the night.

Let's put our hands together for big Michael Shermer. All right. Now listen up. I'm dying to throw somebody out of the building tonight and make them run laps around to the hotel. Okay. I think we're the Marshall starts this, right? What's that baby? Yeah, whatever you were.

I think you're up. Hear ye, here ye, Freedom Fest Court is now in session for an important trial to determine whether the major pharmaceutical companies and the drug establishment have produced miracle drugs that allow us to live long and prosper. ...have abused their influence by producing drugs that are ultimately harmful to human health, creating dependency among users, and enhancing excess profits for Big Pharma. Judge for this trial he is about to begin. It is Mr. Michael Shermer.

All right. Momentarily honorable. Take it away, Judge. All rise. All rise. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, members of the jury, we are gathered here in this once great People's Republic of California to determine if the large pharmaceutical companies

and the drug establishment known as big fire. has on net balance misused their monopoly power to abuse the public trust. Defending the pharmaceutical industry is Catherine Bernard. Catherine Bernard is the founding partner of Bernard and Johnson LLC in Georgia and leads the firm's criminal and trial practices. She's tough. Naturally recognized for aggressive, honest approach to criminal defense. She works tirelessly to protect the rights of the innocent, which could be Big Pharma, and challenge

government overreach. Bernard, how do you plead? Not guilty, Your Honor. We will be defending medical innovation, competition, and human flourishing today. All right. We're going to begin this proceeding with a five-minute opening statement. First, from the prosecuting attorney, Dale Bigtree. Let me give a proper introduction here.

Dell is one of the most prominent voices in the health. Freedom Movement. You've all seen him here at Freedom Fest over the years. He's the host of the High Wire. Big Tree has challenged the mainstream narrative on vaccines and public health policy. He was also an Emmy Award-winning producer of the CBS show The Doctors. You may have seen that. And a key producer of the controversial documentary film Vaxed. Mr. Bigtree, welcome to Freedom Fest Court. Thank you, Judge. All right. Yes. After their opening statements, each attorney will call two witnesses who will be subject to cross-examination

on each side. Afterwards, the jury will rule on the case and if the defendants are found guilty, the judge—that's me. We'll impose a harsh sentence. Oh, you have no idea how this sentence is going to be—it's going to be brutal, so do your best. Let me give a few instructions to the jury. Here we go. You have been selected—well, not you.

No, just kidding. I've been selected because you have pledged to be an impartial observer who has not yet made up his or her mind about the drug industry. You are neutral. You do not have an opinion on Big Pharma. You listen carefully to the opening statements and the testimonies of the witnesses and the cross-examinations and so forth. And at the end of the hearing, you will be required to determine whether there is sufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, more than 50%, that the policies advocated by Catherine Bernard and her witnesses have proved. to have done permanent damage to the citizens of this country and thus are guilty of public

malfeasance or not. The decision will be based on a majority vote by the jury. You don't have to have all of you. You just have to have—let's see—one, two, three, four, five, six, carry the one. Seven. Is that understood? Can I get an—amon, brother? Okay.

Mr. Bigtree, you may begin with your opening statement. Thank you, Judge. Jury. Thank you for your time today. I want to point out that it's amazing how the pharmaceutical industry is able to get its corruption into everything we do. I would like to point out that the pharmaceutical industry has a real lawyer defending them today, and instead the other side only gets one that played one on television. But I'm going to do the best that I can do.

I want to point out that, you know, we have seen a rapid decline in health, especially in our children. As it's been pointed out by Robert Kennedy Jr., the new HHS Secretary, we have gone from 12.4% chronic illness in our children in the 1980s. Just in the 1980s, when I was in high school, we had 12.4% chronic illness, which meant either autoimmune disease or neurological disorders in our children. Now, at this point in time, we are passing 50%, some say 54%. percent of our children now have chronic disease, permanent disease, either neurological or autoimmune disease. That is the greatest decline in human health that has ever been recorded. For some reason, our species, we are the only mammal that is devolving on the face of the

planet right now as we speak. We are not able to handle disease, and our own immune systems are attacking our own bodies. We've watched depression rising in our girls by 95 percent more girls are on antidepressants now than they were just over 10 years ago. Roughly 10 percent of our teenage girls are on antidepressant drugs. Fifteen percent of our boys in school are on ADHD medications, and yet the rates keep rising, depression keeps rising. Twenty-five percent of girls say they have had a suicidal thought or some of the rates.

psychotic episode, and so still we look the other way and we ask what's doing this. We also know that the SSRI drugs are targeting serotonin, which is now known to not actually be the cause of depression, yet those drugs are being pushed out more and more and more on our children, and many books are being written about the fact that these kids can't get off of these drugs. When they try to get off of the drug, their doctor immediately says that the side effects from getting off the drug are actually their symptoms. and they put them right back on the drugs.

And so now we're looking at a generation of kids that are growing up without a sober day in their lives. It is estimated that boys born in 2019, 48% of their life will be on a pharmaceutical drug at least one. In girls born in 2019, 60% of their life they will be on a pharmaceutical drug. As I look out in this audience, I have to ask. ask you, do you remember us being that sick when we were kids? Do you remember the peanut allergies?

Do you remember the depression? Did you remember our inability to sit still in class? Something is happening. And we're giving more and more drugs, prescribing more and more drugs, calling out more and more issues, and the problems are only getting worse. Cancer in our children is up 40 percent since 1975, 40 percent, and now we are seeing commercials about heart attacks in children, saying you must recognize that a six-year-old girl can collapse on the soccer field with a heart attack.

You should be aware of this. There's an epipen in every single class because of anaphylactic reactions, things that never existed when we were kids. I would like to pose to you that there are many things that could be causing this, many environmental toxins, one of them being a vaccine program that starts at day one of life. decided, the pharmaceutical industry has decided that giving a hepatitis B vaccine to a day one old baby is mandatory in the United States of America. This is a sexually transmitted disease you can only get sharing heroin needles or sleeping

with prostitutes, yet we force mothers to give this to their day one old baby. Even after we test them whether they're positive for hepatitis B or not, and only 0.5% of births is the mother positive. So 99.5% of our babies are receiving a vaccine they do not need on day one of life. And I would like to say that that priming and the 72 to 90 vaccines we're giving to our children by the time they're 18, more than any of you in the audience have received is leading to this chronic disease epidemic. Thank you very much.

Okay. Thank you. Wow. Very good. All right. Thank you, Del Bigtree. You play one on TV very well. Now we will hear from Catherine Bernard making her case for the events.

Five minutes. Go. And good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, distinguished court, our opponents, and our wonderful audience. You've heard from Mr. Bigtree about things that are affecting our children and affecting the health and wellness of all of us here in this country and around the world. But what we are asking you to do is to take a larger perspective. Do you want a world in which insulin was not available?

Do you want a world in which the epipin was not available, in which asthma inhalers or the polio vaccine were not available to increase health and human flourishing? Ladies and gentlemen, I submit to you that that is not the vision of human life and liberty that we believe in and that the negative consequences that you will continue to hear about from the other side are not the fault of Big Pharma, a term that actually comes from the Democratic Party platform of about 20 years ago, rather than being any kind of technical, or legal summary of a competitive, innovative, science-based industry that has saved and improved and enhanced millions, if not billions of lives around the globe. The problems that we

are hearing about from the other side are problems of government coercion. They are problems of schools and prisons that seek to over-Medicate as a way of imposing their coercive status vision upon the world, not the fault of the scientists who have been working to tirelessly, not the fault of the medical innovators who have sit for centuries been trying to make human lives healthier and better. We hear about companies like Pfizer and Lilly. These were started by individuals, individuals who some of them were immigrants to this country, like Charles Pfizer in the mid-19th century, who brought forward an anti-parasitic that revolutionized the health care system of the East Coast of the United States, saving countless,

lives. The innovations that were developed by Eli Lilly in the later part of that century included things we take for granted, such as the gel capsule. What we developed in terms of the production facility that allowed for these pharmaceuticals to be created on a mass-safe basis, these are things that simply would not have been possible without the freedom to innovate and inhabit the corporate horsepower behind these medical innovations that would allow all of us to live healthier, safer, happier lives. So ladies and gentlemen, as you listen to the evidence before you from our distinguished doctors and nurses and health care professionals and those with experience in the regulatory industry, ask yourself, what is the role of human liberty and flourishing

in medical innovation? When we talk about things like somewhat the force that was referenced by Mr. Bigtree, the pharmaceutical industry has no force available to it. It is merely a creature of competition, freedom, and the free market. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what we stand before you defending here today. There can be no public malfeasance for an entity that is in fact not a government entity. The individual companies that engage in innovation, that engage in scientific development, that have produced things like Ivermectin that not only has, amidst cancer-fighting properties, but has cured river blindness in millions of human beings across the world.

That would not be possible without companies like Merck, who have agreed to provide billions of those doses around the world. So, ladies and gentlemen, it is true. There are many things about modernity that make us less healthy. Choices that we make, environmental disruptors, endocrine disruptors around us. But the pharmaceutical industry is our hope for saving ourselves from those things.

And I ask that you not allow yourselves to be taken in by problems that were caused by other entities that pharmaceuticals are simply attempting to solve. One minute? We will bring you the evidence to show this, and I look forward to asking for a not guilty verdict on the ridiculous claim of public malfeasance by individual competitive industries.

Thank you. All right. Wow. Well done. The lawyers are short, which means lesser billable hours. Thank you. Okay. As a reminder, we have two witnesses on each side. Each witness will be brought forward, sworn in, then we'll be interviewed or examined.

Sorry, I don't know what I'm doing. Examined and cross-examined by each of our lawyers, so we'll do that for all four of them. Mr. Bigtree, please call your first witness. I would like to call Dr. Robert Malone to the stand, please. Dr. Robert Malone, I'm such a fan. All right, please raise your right hand. Objection, Your Honor. Please place your left.

Oh, we have an objection. Sustain. She can't say I'm a fan. That's biased. You did not hear that. You did not hear that. Don't listen to that. I'm such a fan. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth,

and nothing but the truth, so help you, Michael Schumer's object of skepticism? I do. Please be seated. Thank you. Okay, five minutes. Dr. Robert Malone, many say that you are one of the inventors of the MRNA technology that was used for the COVID vaccine. Is that an accurate statement?

Yes. Is it true that that MRNA technology that you were using in some forms of gene therapy? Yes. It was used to deliver some sort of healing into the gene and try to make a correction. That was the intention. Okay. So when they decided to use the MRNA technology for the actual COVID vaccine, did they use the exact same type of MRNA technology that you had envisioned when you thought would make a good vaccine?

No, sir. Is it safe to say that one of the reasons you liked the MRNA technology as a vaccine, vaccine was because it degraded very quickly in the body. The immune system would attack it on its way to seek purchase somewhere in the gene system. So therefore, it wasn't very effective as a gene tool, but would be better as a vaccine because it would be short-lived, deliver antibody response, but then leave the body. Is it that short-lived, you know, time span the MRNA had that made it seem like a great vaccine product? And Your Honor, I would object to the leading question. He has him on direct, and that would be an appropriate question. for cross-examination. Surely Dr. Malone has the background to answer the question, if put to him indirect. I think I'm going to overrule on this one. Yeah. I don't even know what that means. Well, hang on, hang on. I don't necessarily side with you. I just don't go with that. Okay, all right. Is it true that the degradation of the MRI technology is what you thought would make it a good vaccine?

Yes, sir. Did they change the MRNA technology and add a pseudoridine to make that that MRNA technology actually lasts longer, thereby taking away its ability to degrade quickly in the body? Yes, sir. Okay. And by doing that, then it had other issues that could come up. Is it true that Yale just did a study showing that the MRNA technology is now appearing, the spike protein actually at the heart of it, is appearing in the human body of people

that have vaccinated up to 700 days after receiving the vaccine? Yes, sir. in a well-designed clinical trial. Is this what we were told was how the vaccine would work that this spike protein would last in the body for at least two years? No, sir. What were we told?

We were told that it would be localized to the site of injection, the draining lymph nodes, not spread across the body, and only be produced for a short period of time after which the RNA would be degraded. But it's not being degraded. It's lasting 700

days now. This spike protein, and ends up being the most dangerous part of the virus, which is that is what the MRNA technology is doing. It's making our bodies essentially become a manufacturing plant for the most dangerous part of the virus. Is that correct? Yes, sir. All right. In doing so, would you say, or do we know scientifically whether the vaccine creates more of the spike protein or the actual natural infection upon contact? Multiple studies have demonstrated that the vaccine, product produces more of the toxin, the spike protein, than the actual infection does,

and that that increased level of spike protein is distributed throughout the body, whereas in the case of the natural infection, it's more localized to the site of infection. It's been proven that the spike protein can cause myocarditis and pericarditis, is that correct? Yes, sir, and there's a direction now from the Secretary that the manufacturers will need to note this in the package insert in the near future. So would it stand a reason if there's more spike protein in the vaccine, then it can cause more myocarditis and pericrides than the natural infection? That's a reasonable inference in my...

I'd like to move on to your other specialty, which is the repurposed use of drugs, which you spent time working with the Department of Justice on. In the repurpose use of drugs, do you find that the pharmaceutical industry stands in the way of the use of repurposing things like Ivermectin for the coronavirus. In my experience, the industry creates barriers to the use of off-patent products, particularly for infectious disease. In the case of the COVID virus, did the maker of Ibermectin come out against its own drug and say that it shouldn't be used for COVID?

15 seconds. It has, and I directly. witnessed the activity of a representative of the manufacturer within the NIH active committee to dissuade the NIH from designing and sponsoring accurate trials to assess the activity of ivermectin as an early treatment for the COVID disease. One last question. Oh, no. Time's up.

Unless you want to give her an extra minute. One last question. Dozens of studies across the world has shown 80% reduction. and death from Ivermectin, do you believe that stopping Ivermectin cost American lives? I do believe that that's the case. Okay, thank you very much. Okay. Catherine Bernard, you get an extra 30 seconds.

You're still up there. You're not off the hook. Yes, sir. You're not off the hook. Please stick around, Doctor. I am also a fan and congratulations on your new appointment. Objection. The Department of Health and Human Services.

So, Doctor, surely you acknowledge that the pharmaceutical industry, produces vastly more products than solely these controversial vaccines that you have recently discussed with the opposing side. That is a true statement. And would the world be better off if we had no vaccines? Oh. The world would be better off, no, I disagree that the world would be better off with no vaccines. And do you believe that the government would be able to bring new drugs and products to market?

That question lacks context, counsel. Well, how would we get new medicines, were it not for the ability of individuals to form companies based around medical innovation, science, innovate, develop new products, some work, some don't, and then bring the ones to market that do work so that the individuals who have invested in them can make a profit and return on that investment? That is a market-based solution. There are other models. I don't endorse one of the other.

So you do not endorse a market-based solution in health care? Not what I said. I said there are other models for bringing pharmaceutical products to the citizens of the United States, other than the market-based solutions. you've not asked me for an opinion about my bias concerning any of those models. Well, let's go back to what you were discussing regarding the regulatory environment surrounding the COVID vaccines that were released. Several times you referred to they or individuals or entities that were preventing information from coming out.

Was that the pharmaceutical industry or individual corporate actors? or was that the FDA itself and government actors who had been engaged for the process of putting forward public health messaging according to a specific agenda? My observation was that it was both examples are true. Do you have an opinion as to whether you heard more falsehoods coming from the government or from the pharmaceutical industry? My observation was that the predominant messaging was coming from the government on this topic area.

And the government, of course, has regulatory authority over these individual actors within the pharmaceutical industry, correct? Technically, yes. Technically, yes. Do you believe that the industry has circumvented those regulatory restrictions somehow? I believe that the industry has developed the ability to closely interact with the government to advance joint interests. Let's turn again to some other types of medication. Asthma inhalers, would you agree that there are significant government regulations surrounding the accessibility of asthma inhalers and the drugs involved? Absolutely.

And do you believe that those regulations and restrictions, are in the best interests of the health of Americans and individuals around the world? Complicated. I don't have an opinion about best interests. Do you believe that there is any way that we would have been able to develop drugs like insulin and penicillin without the involvement of market forces and individual companies with a financial incentive in producing these drugs in a competitive market? The discovery and development of those products and a number of others were largely the consequence of direct government sponsorship. One minute. With technology transfer and commercialization by the private sector subsequently. Okay. And do you believe that that commercialization by the private sector has allowed for wider availability of these life-saving drugs?

I do. Do you believe that there would be any government mechanism that could operate with similar efficiency in providing these drugs to a wide segment of the population? I don't. Do you believe that Americans are getting sicker? That's what the data indicate. And do you believe that this is primarily a result of lifestyle choices, environmental factors, items that we take into our body? that are endocrine disruptors or something else. Last question.

Multi-factorial. Okay. Thank you for your new answers, Dr. I am also. Thank you, Dr. Malone. Mr. Bigtree, please call your second witness. I would like to call John Potter to the stand. Sarah, please raise your right hand. Put your left hand on this copy of sickening

how big farmer broke American health care and how we can repair it by John Abrams. Rabin, I need some epinephrine. MD. There you go. We're happy to help you out with that, Kennedy. Thank you. My friendly little dealers, love this job.

Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? So help you, RFK Jr. Yes, ma'am. Wonderful. Have a seat. Right. All right, Mr. Bigtree, go forward five minutes. Here we go.

Mr. Potter, you are an attorney, is that correct? I am. Do you have some, you know, your work is something to do with patents around drugs. Is that right? It is, that is what I'm doing currently, yes. Okay. What does it take to get a patent for a drug? You should have an invention.

You have to do something that is new, that is innovative, that hasn't been done before. Okay. And when a drug finally gets a patent, it essentially establishes a, a monopoly on that product and that usage for some period of time. Is that correct? That's correct. The patent is in the Constitution. It is a fundamental part of our economy. And it is essentially a government-sanctioned monopoly where typically we don't like monopolies, but the incentive to invest and the incentive to innovate and to create new drugs, for example, is that you get a government-approved monopoly for a certain number of years.

And it makes sense because, I mean, developing these drugs oftentimes can, you know, we hear about $100 million dollar randomized control trials that they have to go through to establish safety and efficacy, and they have to, you know, make back that money and then make a profit. Is that correct? Absolutely. And also, I think it would be good to point out that not only do you have to make a product on that, a profit on that drug, but also many of the other drugs that went through randomized control trials that maybe didn't make it through. A lot of times people forget that drug companies are spending a lot of money.

of investment. And not just on the drugs that do get approved. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay, but 20 years seems to be sufficient to make a substantial amount of money on a successful drug. So as soon as it comes up for patent, do we ever see the pharmaceutical industry try to interfere with that process? So I think the question is when the patent is about to expire. Okay. And that's the time when generic drugs can come into the market and all of a sudden prices

drop by 50, 60, 80 percent. and drugs become much more affordable for everybody in this room, your employers, for Medicaid and Medicare. So the federal budget drops the minute that a drug goes into, gets out of patent, and generic competition comes in. Is it that competition that drives the price down that many other manufacturers can now get into the game and make that same product? I think in our free market economy, we have 200 years of history that when there's competition, prices drop. Okay. Now, at that moment where there's... coming to an end of a patent, what is something the pharmaceutical industry might do to try to extend that patent?

Well, they don't extend the patent, but they extend the monopoly. Okay, how do they do that? They extend the monopoly by having new patents. So they take the drug that has had its core formulation and its core processes and mechanics patented from before it went to market, and then they might add a new patent. They might say, if we tweak the ingredients just a little bit, we can add a new patent because it's a new formulation. If we change the flavor, if we put a coating around it that makes it easier to swallow, if we change certain things about it, but minute, minute things, they

can extend the monopoly by adding new patents. How often is the pharmaceutical industry doing this? It has become a business model. The typical pharmaceutical product used to have, the typical medicine would have five to ten patents on it. Now the medicines are having 10 to 20 to 30 patents on them. And they are being patented on a continuous basis with an armamenting. of patent lawyers that sit in the back room with an army of scientists trying to create new patents on old products in order to extend the monopoly on infinitum and charge everybody here 90% more than what they would pay if competition were allowed to happen.

The defense stated in their opening argument that innovation is key to the pharmaceutical industry and it's the innovation that we should appreciate, but doesn't extending these patents and things like this really interfere with innovation, interfere with the financial work of all the other companies that would like to be also making drugs in the market? One minute. I think that what we have here is, monopolies are being extended by excessive patenting, and then pharmaceutical companies are leveraging those patents

to sue all the generic drug companies and to prevent the generic drug companies from competing with that previously patented product. And we have, we have, we have, examples of the generic drug company getting sued, the court saying to the brand company, those patents are invalid. Those patents are expired. So then they come back and they sue you again with newly created patents. So that you just lawfare against you so that you just sort of back out of the way? You might recall the old existence of patent trolls that we were fighting

about about 10 years ago where you had crappy patents that were approved by the patent office, but lawyers got a hold of them and took you to court and took you to court and took you to court. This is pharma lawyers leveraging weak ancillary patents to basically take generic companies to court and to sue them over and over and over again even when the brand company loses over and over and over again And therefore the generic company the generic drug never gets on the market and the monopoly pricing continues way up here and we all lose a lot of money Sounds like a lovely heartfelt industry Catherine Bernardi get an extra 15 seconds go Thank you very much so mr. Potter you are a lawyer and a lot of as well as I understand.

I am. In fact, I'm a lawyer that was at the same law firm as Mr. Troy. Well, then you're obviously an excellent company. But you are, of course, familiar with the fact that over 90% of all drugs that are prescribed in the United States are, in fact, generics, correct? I am aware that 90% of the drugs prescribed in the United States are generics, and yet only 13% of the money spent on drugs goes to pay for 90% of the prescriptions, which leaves 87% of the 87% of the money going to pay for 10% of the prescriptions of the companies that still have

patented drugs, which is why they want to extend that monopoly as long as they can, because monopoly profits are very, very good. Well, and don't you want to encourage companies to make refinements that make medicines better and easier for people to use, take, and reduce the harmful side effects? I do, but that's a new product that is under a new patent, and the other product was under the old patent, and that should be subject to competition. And so you would rather that they have to bring an entirely new drug to market if they are able to come up with, say, an improved coating that is better on the gastrointestinal system and allows for better absorption of the drug with fewer side effects. You would prefer that they have to come up with an entirely new research and development process and get an entirely new patent for that rather than merely being able to extend the existing patent of a reliable and proven method?

Absolutely not. If they want to come out with a new and improved product and the basic product is subject to the competition because the core patent on the basic product is Expired then or if the court has already invalidated the core patents which happens time and time again if they want to come out with a new and improved That can be the monopoly but the core product is subject to competition and that leaves the doctor and the patient to make a choice about whether they want the core product or the or the improved product but the core product will be as we have in our examples $77 a pill versus the monopoly product, which is $16 a pill. Well, and you would agree, of course, that research and development, the return on investment in the pharmaceutical industry has stayed well under 5 percent, correct?

I think the return on investment for pharmaceutical litigation is well over 5 percent. Well, it's always good for lawyers on no matter what side of that lawfare, right? Especially if they've got some lobbying experience. as well, no doubt. The pharma lawyers are doing well. Well, but we're not here to determine whether the pharma lawyers have engaged in public malfeasance, although that might be an interesting discussion. We are here to determine if the companies themselves simply by the act of creating these drugs,

bringing them to market, and taking advantage of the regulatory landscape as the government has created it, if that is fundamentally wrong. Your position is that it is. I think as a lawyer you would acknowledge that it is your client who is in charge, not the lawyers and therefore if the lawyers are taking advantage of an exploitative system it's because their clients have asked them to. Oh, that's an excellent one. And as a criminal defense lawyer, I don't know that I fully agree with you because of course

as officers of the court we have a responsibility to make sure that we are engaged in candid communication regardless of what our clients may ask us to do, correct? The patent has been fully approved. That doesn't mean that the court upholds the patent. And my thesis is that when the court rules the patent invalid, the core patents invalid, bring the competition into market. Okay. And if I could follow up with some of the discussion that we had with Dr. Malone on some of these

drugs, do you believe that it has been the government or the pharmaceutical industry who has been more dishonest within this regulatory framework you are discussing? I don't have an opinion on that. You don't have an opinion on that. Do we have an opinion at all as to whether these regulators are acting honestly and in the best interest of individuals here in the United States as well? well as abroad? I think the Patent Office does, approves patents to the best of its ability, but the best scientists don't work for the Patent Office. Who do the best scientists work for?

One minute. Many of them work for the drug companies. Many of them work for other, you know, product companies doing great work. The question is not whether they do great work. The question is whether the 20 years of value and monopoly pricing for their great work has expired and therefore competition should flourish. Well, but I think we would agree we want these great scientists and great doctors to have a place where their medical innovation can flourish and can actually be translated from merely ideas in someone's head to an actual product that comes to market and can save lives and enhance lives across the globe, correct? We do. So what would be the alternative if we were not providing, if the pharmaceutical industry were not providing employment for these excellent scientists doing excellent work? I can't speak to the job market for talented scientists.

What I can speak to is that the work they do, the government has granted them the constitutional right to a patent that has a statutory limit. And when the statutory limit happens and comes to pass or the patent is ruled invalid by a court of law, competition should flourish, prices should go down, the taxpayer should pay less, the premium payer should pay less, the insurer should pay less, and we would probably have more people with more medicines, and hopefully they would be healthy, but we would be healthy, but Maybe Dr. Malone has a different point. Okay.

You can all agree. Free market competition is a good thing. Thank you, Mr. Potter. Mr. Potter, thank you so much. Mr. Bigtree, do you have any other witnesses? I do not. You are resting your case? I'm resting my case.

You are well rested, sir. I am. Okay. Well, obviously, I think it was a lot of fun. We're all out there having fun. You're about to hear coming up a real attorney bring the defense's case and their witnesses. But let me make this clear. You know I'm not a lawyer. I'm up there. I'm doing the best I can, having watched all the same legal television shows that you have, and acting like a lawyer

acts on TV as best as I can. A lot of people said, you're really leading the witness there, Del. But here's the point. I would never win the lawsuits that we've won against FDA, HHS, NIH, the CDC. that takes an expert. That takes maybe the best attorney in the world. And that's what Aaron Siri is. And that's what he's been doing for ICANN. And so even though we may be having fun in this trial at Freedom Fest, we are very serious about the cases that we're bringing. We are very committed to, you know, freeing the five, to getting back religious exemptions to the vaccine programs all over this country so that you always have a choice. We are fighting cases. We have one. I can't get into the details.

We believe we could be on the precipice of overcoming Jacobson versus Massachusetts. This is the 1905 Supreme Court ruling that basically said that Jacobson, a minister, you know, that he was not allowed to opt out of the smallpox vaccine, that the state had a compelling interest. Massachusetts had a compelling interest to protect the population. Therefore, guess what? They didn't rule that he had to take the vaccine. they ruled that he had to pay a $5 fine, something that has really been forgotten on this issue. But that 1905 case, everybody used it as, they're allowed to drag you to a hospital,

force a needle in your arm, keep you from going to school, all because of Jacobson versus Massachusetts. Well, guess what? We actually have a way forward, but we need your help right now. I need you to be funding this case because it is, we believe, going to go all the way to the Supreme Court. It's a very important one. We don't like to talk about our cases when we're in them because they're important, and we don't want to have any sort of bias from the judge that's involved. But this is one, if you help fund us now and you are a part of overturning Jacobson versus Massachusetts,

you will be able to say to your grandchildren, and your grandchildren will say to their children, you know what? My parents were involved in a case that was so important, and whether they were giving $5 or $10, I mean, Jacobson only had to pay $5, it made a difference in the world in the future of this conversation. That is how serious we are about the cases that Aaron Syria is bringing right now. So I need your help. Can you donate right now?

If you haven't before, or if you have, maybe you can up that donation. We are pressing, you know, pedal the metal. I am working now as though there is a ticking clock. I am working as though we only have three, three and a half years left inside this administration. And God knows what happens after that. We need to achieve everything. We've been here seven years. I've been here 10 years since we've started with Vaxed.

Right now, it is coming to the final battlegrounds, and we need all hands on deck. We need all the armament. We need all of the battles. We are going to fight it now like we've never fought before. So please, become a recurring donor. All you have to do is just go to the top of the page, hit Donate to ICAN, and we're asking to become a recurring donor, because that helps us know how committed we can be on how many different cases. and what we can do, $25 a month would be awesome.

And frankly, you pay way more than that. For so many of the other things that are happening on your television set, you're paying that for this week's movie that you want to see instead of going to the movie theater. So maybe skip that movie and try to make a difference in the world. For everyone that sponsors us and makes this possible, I want to thank you.

I know you get that warm feeling every time we announce another win. I'm looking forward to, I hope, somewhere in the very near future, we will be able to announce a complete total victory in West Virginia and that we have codified and made their religious exemption strong there once again been gone for years. But thank you for everyone that makes the show possible. Thank you for everyone that watches and shares it. And if you want to be a part of history and say you were, become a recurring donor today. We'll make it really easy for you. I mean, just text 72022 and type in the word donate. And we will send you that link. And it's just that easy. You sign up

and becoming a recurring donor. You can also give in so many different ways. If you've got crypto and you want to part with it, maybe part with some of that doge coin, if you were one of those people that bought into that, but buy mail, buy stock, international transfer, crypto, vehicles, gift cards, legacy giving, will make it work for you.

And if you want to give a large gift because you've maybe had some windfall of some kind, then just go to info at Icandecide.org. Tell us a little bit about yourself, how we can contact you and we'll keep it all private. Maybe you want to have your name on one of the things that we're doing. We do all sorts of things like that. All right, so let's get back to the second half of this mock trial.

Now you're going to get to watch a real lawyer, Catherine Bernard, Bring the Heat. She was fantastic. In fact, I was sitting there in awe. Like, wow, it's amazing to watch how eloquent she was, how she was prepared for that. You could tell she's done this before, but now it comes the heat, and she's going to bring an arsenal with her, including an FDA attorney that is really a fan of pharma.

And I found that out when I had to cross-examine him. So go grab some popcorn. Here comes the second half of the mock trial at Freedom Fest. Catherine Bernard. Yes, Your Honor. The defense is yours. I will call as my first witness, Dan Troy. Please come forward.

Dan Troy, please raise your right hand and place your left hand on a copy of this book, The World's Medicine Chest, How America Achieve Pharmaceutical Supremacy, and How to Keep It by Sally C. Pipes. Great book. Do you swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth? So help you FDA. Absolutely. Oh, the FDA. Okay.

Here we go. Five minutes. Thank you very much, Your Honor. And good afternoon, Mr. Troy. And could you please tell the jury? a little bit about your background in qualification and how you have come to have experience in the pharmaceutical industry,

as well as the regulatory framework, as well as those challenging the regulatory framework on constitutional grounds. I began, after I clerked for a judge named Robert Bork, who some of you may have heard of, and I worked in the Reagan Justice Department, I went to work doing constitutional administrative law, including a First Amendment practice,

challenging government regulation of speech, And that started defending communications companies, but gradually if you assess government entities that closely regulated speech, you get to FDA. I successfully sued the FDA number of times on FDA, on First Amendment and other issues. Then in 2001, after George W. Bush won, I had the opportunity to become the chief counsel at FDA. My pitch was, if I can beat them in court, I can defend them in court. That was successful.

And I was the chief counsel at FDA for three years. For a time I was the only political appointee there. And then I went to a law firm after that, 2004 after the election. And then I was recruited to become the general counsel of the worldwide general counsel of Glaxo Smith-Kline, one of the world's great pharmaceutical companies that has produced products such as ADVER and many important HIV drugs. And so I was in the boardroom with the CEO. part of the senior executive team of a very old, well-established, important big pharma company.

So you have truly had experience on all sides of this question, from challenging the problematic issues of the regulatory framework, to working directly with the FDA and with one of these big pharma entities that are supposedly on trial here. Yes, I have. So what can you tell us about the research and development process for the pharmaceutical industry? Does it match up with the picture that has been painted by the opposing side? Absolutely not. I mean, the people who go to work in the pharmaceutical sector, they're not going into finance, they're not going into video games.

They are motivated by trying to discover new medicines, make those medicines, and get them to patients. And yes, there's a profit motive involved. But the truth is, I've been in the room when the board and the senior executive team has had to decide what the R&D budget would be. If there isn't an adequate return, they won't be able to make that investment because their investors, who by and large, are many of the people in this room through the exchange traded funds and through mutual funds, would not allow them to make those investments. So if the company cannot make an adequate return, then they're just not going to make the investment. We won't have new medicines that have cured things like hep C, made HIV a chronic that's survivable and now preventable disease, or cause.

caused cancer death rates to fall over the last 30 years by 33%. And thank you for that perspective here on what's going on in America with these American drug companies. Can you tell us about the impact on the rest of the world and how pharmaceutical industry operates in other countries? First of all, 80% of the R&D pipeline is here in America because it's the only place where you can get paid for innovation. Are we, is the United States basically subsidizing the rest of the world? Are they free riding on American innovation and American investment? Yes, they are. And that's a very hard problem to deal with because unlike American patients who get information

and can demand therapies and have expectations of being treated in other countries in the world, they don't allow people to get information about medicines. And in many of the socialized medicine systems, if you talk to the patients, they're like, well, yeah, I get it, I'm 70 years old, so I'm not going to be able to get any replacement. I accept that. That's not how Americans think. And would you agree that it is our pharmaceutical industry that is sort of providing these benefits that, as you said, the rest of the world free rides on to an extent? Yes, but I would say America still benefits disproportionately. For example, 94% of all cancer drugs are available here. By contrast, in OECD countries, about there are 48% of them are available.

30 seconds. God forbid anybody should get it. cancer, but if you have cancer, you want to be here. Well, and we certainly don't want to kill the golden goose here in America, do we, Mr. Troy? That is correct, although the Biden administration by imprising price controls for the first time, is trying to do, is doing a pretty good job of that. And what can you tell us about the patent process that was referenced by one of the witnesses for the other side?

I think Mr. Potter's sort of experience is somewhat out of date. The problem of evergreening patents is one that when I was at FDA, we actually imposed a rule to deal with that. We said there are certain patents that can't be listed in the what's called the orange book, which is the process by which generic drugs find out what patents they need to address. We said certain patents couldn't be listed. We allowed only one automatic 30-month stay. So if you get a late patent, you get no automatic injunction, and a generic company can go to market at risk. And by the way, although patents run for 20 years, the R&D process can last at least 10. So you have 10 years time. Okay. Thank you very much. All right. Mr. Bigtree,

you get an extra 30 seconds. Mr. Roy, you work for the FDA during what years? Bush administration 2001 to 2004 right after I got there two weeks before 9-11. When a drug is being approved by the FDA is the FDA the one that performs the safety trials and the efficacy trials? No. The FDA gives a lot of feedback about what the company is proposing, but private companies spend the money to do the research. And if obviously FDA needs to approve ultimately the medicine, but it's private companies in the private sector that does most of the work. But essentially the FDA has to have some form of trust factor that the safety trials were done correctly, that nothing was hidden, that there were not trials that were done that were put aside that didn't get the right results, that you are seeing all of the evidence, all the proper evidence, and all the truth about the product safety and its efficacy. So I would say FDA's watchword is trust but verify and we trust in God from everyone else we want data. A new drug application is boxes and boxes of data. FDA gets every single patient record.

So there's no hiding the ball by the drug companies. They can't hide the ball. I'm not saying it's never happened. It has happened. FDA doesn't like it. It's normally not a very good outcome for the companies. But by and large, it is an incredibly intensive process with reams of data, again, boxes and boxes being submitted to FDA for FDA to review.

While you were at the FDA, one of the most famous cases in a drug that had misrepresented safety was Vioxx. Did you have anything to do with that case? I was at FDA when Merck came to us and said, yes, we think we want to withdraw Merck from the, we want to withdraw a biox. FDA actually said, you know, if you put a black box warning, you can keep that drug on the market, but Merck said, no, we're going to take this drug off the market. Isn't it true, though, that they were already receiving lawsuits because the heart attacks were being caused by their product was an arthritis drug, and it was having substantial risk for heart attacks for some say 20 to 60,000 people died,

but a large number of heart attacks occurred with that product. I don't know when Merck started to get sued. I don't know that. Again, I was at the FDA. We know what Merck did when they came to us and said we're withdrawing the product from the market. There's an article about a famous email that came when they finally had discovery in that Vioxx case. It says Merck made a hit list of doctors who criticized Vioxx, according to testimony, in a Vioxx class action case in Australia. The list emailed between Merck employees contained doctors' names with the labels neutralized, neutralized, and discredit next to them.

According, can you just read this part right here for me? According to the Australian Merck emails from 1999 showed company execs complaining about doctors, who disliked using biox. One email said, we may need to seek them out and destroy them where they live. We may need to seek these doctors out there to question the safety of biox

and destroy them where they live. That does not sound like the company that came to you and said, hey, we've discovered a problem. It sounds like a company that's hiding the fact that they know that they have a product that's causing heart attacks.

I can say, as the general counsel, the large pharmaceutical company, that the bane of our existence was rogue emails by anyone and everyone, and I'm not defending everything that every pharma company has ever done. That would be silly. The question is whether, on net, we are better off for having life-saving medicines made by the private sector, then who else?

What's the alternative? Yes, but the heart attacks has been brought up by the defense. Would you say that that case was really more the fault of the pharmaceutical industry not being on top of it, or was it the FDA covering something up? I don't know. I can tell you FDA does not cover up anything on behalf of pharmaceutical companies. One of the biggest issues we've been seeing is the Oxycontin epidemic, 60 to 70,000. Some say as money as 100,000 are dying from overdoses across America. It's an absolute epidemic in this country.

And it is well known now that the Sackler family knew that it was highly addictive. But FDA had ruled that it wasn't addictive. How did that happen? I wasn't there at the time and I think the opioid crisis is a it's a very complicated, very multifactorial and to try and lay the blame at any one entity when there were doctors involved, there were pill mills, there were lots of different entities that were involved in a very complicated and tragic epidemic. I think there's an attempt to try and oversimplify the narrative.

like the financial crisis, and I've spent some time reading about it, it's very complicated. Is it true that pharmaceutical industry is the most powerful lobby in Washington? If the pharmaceutical industry was such a powerful lobby, why were price controls just imposed on them by the Biden administration, and why have they not had a win in Congress in decades? Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Troy. You may sit down. Ladies and gentlemen, we're down to our last witness.

Is this better than Court TV or what? All right, Bernard, call your last witness. And we call Twyla Braves to the stand. Oh, oh, oh, oh, Sam Pick. All right, that's just in my head. Miss Twyla, please raise your right hand. Place your left hand on this book, A Shot to Save the World, the Inside Story,

of the Life or Death Race for a COVID-19 vaccine. Twyla, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? So help you, Anthony Fauci. I do so affirm. All right. Go. And thank you very much, Ms. Brase. You've been introduced to the jury, but can you tell them a little bit about your health care experience?

Well, I am by training an emergency room, pediatric emergency room nurse, and so I spent the beginning of my career doing that. And then I became a school nurse, so I learned government bureaucracy and was my worst job ever. summers were not long enough. And then I started Citizens Council for Health Freedom when I saw what the Clintons were trying to do to take over the health care system. And I said, if they take over health care, they'll take over the country.

And we saw that with COVID. So it is safe to say that you have some concerns about the role of government in the American health care system and whether or not it's actually making people healthier. Absolutely. And in fact, is this a book that you have written and published big brother in the exam room the dangerous truth about electronic health records. Yes, that is.

And did you also prepare and write a COVID-19 reference guide that actually told people what to do if they or a loved one fell sick with COVID-19? Our office had received call after call after call of people in a variety of situations. And so I decided rather than having to deal with a call after call, I would just create a guide. I planned on a four-page guide, but it turns out to be more like a 40-page guide. But people said it saved their lives, and so I'm glad to have done it. And so would you agree, then, that your priority is making people healthier and saving lives?

Well, I am a nurse, and so that is, and I'm an advocate, and so, you know, even in my history, in the ER, at one point I saw a doctor doing something wrong and made sure that he never came back to that. the year. So you're all about accountability, Nurse Braes, and we greatly appreciate that. So from this perspective, do you believe that the American pharmaceutical industry has engaged in public malfeasance? I think there's been an interesting cooperation between the government and the pharmaceuticals. And I blame, for the most part, the government, because it is the one who has allowed this to happen, who was put in the laws or put in the rules or, you know, had the royalty system that Fauci took advantage of, all of that sort of thing, which were really bad incentives for how the pharmaceutical company should operate.

Okay, so government has placed some problematic incentives in place that complying with those has created negative consequences. Is that fair to say? Yes, a public-private partnership, which I always find troubling. Well, so moving on to some of the specific items produced by the pharmaceutical industry, something like prednisone. Would there be any way that we could have organ transplants without prednisone? I think it would be very difficult. And how about Narcan or Epipens?

Are these products that you believe could have been produced by the government or without the corporate horsepower of the pharmaceutical industry? The problem with the government, of course, is that it has a, budget and every year comes up with different budgets and the last thing that we need is our drugs to be on a government budget that is part of the problem that we deal with now with medicare and medicaid is the idea of the government decides a budget and then you might have your health and your life rationed away and so in a world where we don't always have perfect choices do you believe that the choice of a free market competitive pharmaceutical industry is superior to a

coercive ration system of government health care and control over the drug creation process yes but we do need a real free market and if the government gets involved in a way that actually takes away the free market then we lose choices that we shouldn't have to lose and it's more expensive amen yes please clap for that for nurse Braes one minute and so the organization that you have co-founded and worked on for the past 30 years the Citizens Council for health freedom. Do you prioritize patient choice and patient doctor relationships in this organization? Yes. Our mission is to protect patient and doctor freedom, which is the freedom of the doctor and the

patient to work together for the benefit of the patient affordably, confidentially, and without outside interference. And now the subject of ivermectin has come up several times in this discussion so far. Do you have any observations about ivermectin as a product, produced by the pharmaceutical industry and the way the government has attempted to restrict its usage in cancer, COVID-19, and alternative methods. Last answer. Yes. So obviously, Ivermectin, it's a Nobel winning prize drug.

It's on the World Health, not that I like the World Health Organization, but nonetheless, it's on the essential medications. and so this is a drug that has helped for so many things. It's considered a wonder drug. And the unfortunate part was the FDA was saying, you know, things like its tweet where it said, you know, something about it's all for horses, right? And so not to use it, but really it's what would save people's lives

and would have saved a lot more people's lives. Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Bigtree, you get an extra 30 seconds. Go. All right, Ms. Braves, thank you for being here today. I'll ask you the same question. I asked the previous witness.

Are you aware that the pharmaceutical industry has more lobbyists in Washington, D.C. than any other industry there is and spends more money. In fact, twice as much money as the oil and gas industry does on lobbyists in Washington, D.C. I do not know those statistics, but I definitely know that they spend a lot of money in Washington, D.C. I don't know if it's more than the health plans,

but both of them spend a lot. Okay, because it seems that the argument that the defense is trying to make is that it's really the regulatory agency, agencies they're at fault, and I would agree that they are playing a large part of the issue with the complications we have with health here in the United States of America. But if the most powerful lobby and the richest lobby, spending more money than anyone else is affecting government, wouldn't it then stand a reason that the regulatory agencies are, you know, bowing to some of the pressures and financial interests that they're involved with?

Well, I agree that the regulatory agencies are bowing, particularly if you look at the royalties that Fauci and others received. But I have to say, this is a problem with the integrity of Congress. And so Congress is actually supposed to uphold its oath, and it's supposed to be representing the people and the freedom and federalism, and it really has done a very bad job. And so unless Congress says no to this kind of lobbying, then the regulatory agencies might not as well.

And after all, the regulatory agencies should not exist. You know, and that is what, you know, the Supreme Court said long time ago when FDR, you know, wanted to create all the bureaucracy. So this is a real problem with Congress, and I consider Congress to be the government as well. Okay, very good. I want to get into the fact that on day one of life, we give children a hepatitis B vaccine. I have printed out the insert that's wrapped around every recombavax, HB. I just want you to read the trial data. This is how they decided that the product was safe, just right inside of this box.

If you could read that, please. In three clinical studies, 434 doses of recombavac's HB, 5 micrograms, were administered to 147 healthy infants and children up to 10 years of age who were monitored for five days after each dose. Injection site reactions and systemic adverse reactions were reported following 0.2% and 10.4% of the injections, respectively. Thank you. That's all. Can I ask you just in your expert opinion is 147 children in a trial enough to determine safety and efficacy for an entire population for all the potential autoimmune diseases and issues that could come from an injection like that?

I don't know that I am qualified to answer the question. However, I do recall talking with a clinical trialist who talked about how they started with 36,000 people. and ended up with something like 300, you know, after they just took them out for this reason, that reason, this reason, and that reason. I don't feel qualified for the answer, but I do understand what you're saying. Is five days long enough without a placebo group to establish safety for a product that's going to be given to day one old babies? Again, I am not, I mean, I have my own suspicions, right? But I am not an expert in research or clinical trials. Would five days be enough for a cancer drug to establishes? safety? In my opinion, it would not because of course you have no idea. Are you aware of any

cancer drug that only had a five-day safety trial? Well, thankfully, I was a pediatric ER nurse. So when we look at things being approved like a vaccine in five days with no placebo group and given to a day one old baby, loads of aluminum in it, they say, well, they didn't really have enough time to analyze it. We give it to day one old babies, but could you just read the side effects in the post-marketing surveillance, since they didn't get any in the five days they were looking at it, these are just some of the nervous system disorders that they've discovered

with the vaccine. One minute. Guillain-Barré syndrome, multiple sclerosis, exacerbation of multiple sclerosis, myelitis, including transverse myelitis, seizure, febrile seizure, peripheral neuropathy, including Bell's palsy, radio, oak, no, I actually don't know that one,

Herpes, disaster, migraine, muscle weakness, hyperesthesia, and encephalitis. Very good. Swelling of the brain, paralysis, Guillambore syndrome. These were all things that we're taking risk with a day one old baby. Does it make sense that we're giving this to 99.5% of our babies when we know that there are no risk for hepatitis B? Objection, relevance. This is as to the pharmaceutical industry as a whole, not solely the issue of one specific vaccine, Your Honor. Sustain, I'll give you a chance to rephrase.

I just want to say that I think what we're pointing out is a, as a, as a, as a whole thing. is a way, a pattern that they go about approval inside of these. And I would also point out that not a single childhood vaccine has ever been through a long-term double-blind placebo trial prior to licensure, which is one of the problems that we see here. Okay, we're out of time. Hey, ladies and gentlemen, that's it. Thank our witnesses. Thank our attorneys.

What a show. Oh, boy. All right, ladies and gentlemen, of the jury, the entire future of Maha and America. American pharmaceutical industry is in your hands. I can't believe this Motley crew. No, sorry. Okay, you have heard expert witnesses and the statements about the prosecution and the defense.

It is now up to you to decide the guilt or innocence of Bernard and the defenders of the drug industry. It's your job to determine where the preponderance of evidence supports the prosecution that is on net balance, the major pharmaceutical companies have abused their influence and monopoly power on producing drugs of vaccines that are either grossly overpriced or ultimately harmful to human health, creating dependency among users and enhancing excess profits to big pharma, or did they not make their case?

All right, the foreman will now tally the vote, so you need to vote. I forget how we're doing this. Do they need pens? Do you need pens? We're just feelings. She has a pen, the lady with the hat. Oh, we have a verdict. All right.

Exciting. Oh, it's me. Okay. You're the foreman. This is it? Okay, so you want me to count them? No, he'll count it. Guilty?

Guilty, oh my. All right. I can't believe it. Guilty. All right, what's our punishment, guys? All right. Therefore, by the power is vested in me, I hereby consign you to the Las Vegas Drug Rehab Center be forced to wear a black M95 mask nonstop for the

next five months. And you have to receive seven booster shots during the same period. Marshall Kennedy, take them away. That's it, let's go. Shackles.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you, juries. Thank you witnesses. Thank you, Judge Shermer. Oh, yes, thank you. Thank you, Kennedy. And thanks for coming, everybody. We'll see you tomorrow.

Well, I mean, wow. I'll be honest. I was like sitting there like, you know, white knuckling a little bit because I was like, how's this going to look if like Del Bantry loses an argument against the pharmaceutical industry? Well, that type of thing to make news. Obviously there's a lot of tongue and cheek there. We were having some fun, but some really brilliant points were made. And I want to point one thing out that I, you know, hadn't thought about. It was one of the things that Mark Scousen, who was one of the founders of Freedom Fest, I said, look, I'm not sure I feel comfortable with this because my argument isn't necessarily.

against pharma when I'm talking about vaccines. It's really more against the regulatory agencies. I've sued the regulatory agencies. I haven't won that many cases that we've had a GlaxoSmith Klein case, but you're not hearing me say I've won against Pfizer, I've won against Sinopia, I've won against Merck. We've won against FDA, CDC, NIH, HHS. And I think Catherine tried to pull a fast one on me because that's the argument she came in with, which is, well, really sure that pharmaceutical has this issue, but isn't it actually the... regulatory agencies that are the problem. And so that was a smart move because she was really making my argument. It was one of the ones that made me nervous about doing this. But I think

she's right. And many of the points she's making are right in many ways. Yes, pharmaceutical industry should not be the most powerful lobby in Washington. We got to fix how all of this works. We got to fix how they do their own trials. And when they get caught lying or shuffling things under the bed like they did during the Pfizer trials. And, you know, of course, the Pfizer papers in the book by name, Wolf is out there. I mean, you see complete corruption. But that's why you're supposed to have regulatory agencies. So good on you, Catherine, for making that argument. It was a smart argument, but it didn't work. And after the case, I found out that not only did we win, we won by the largest margin that has happened, I think in the last four years that they've done this mock trial,

So we won 10 to 2, which was pretty amazing. And my understanding is Catherine Bernard is the one that has been, you know, the defense attorney, I guess, or one of the attorneys for the last three years. And this is the first time that she did not deliver a victory. So I'm sorry to have broken your incredible record there, Catherine, but it was a lot of fun. I want to thank all the people that were involved there. And I also want to say Michael Shermer was really actually a little. lot of fun to work with and backstage we had some interesting conversations and I feel like you know he's still kind of hung up on the vaccine autism thing but he does seem to really start you start

to appreciate what Bobby's doing in there and this idea that we should be looking at the vaccine program which is what freedom fest I have to say when we first went there nobody really knew who we were and we were like hey let's get into freedom fest that'd be a whole these people believe in freedom then they should believe in body autonomy and sovereignty so let's go get get that audience. You know, I was walking around and people were like, are you one of the owners of Freedom Fest? I mean, the Highwire has taken Freedom Fest by Storm in many ways. We do feel like partners with them and certainly partners on this conversation as it pertains to freedom. And you are starting to see the conversations changing. Michael Sherman and I had, and Robert Malone all backstage,

had a really beautiful conversation. So Michael, proving why I think you have a magazine like skeptic, Proving that we do need to keep having the conversations. That is the scientific method. So it was a great time. Everybody on stage, just big fans. And I thought, and the audience there in the room loved it, and I hope that you enjoyed it today. But it has to make us think.

We're up against really big, big entities, both the largest lobby and most powerful industry in the world that is overseeing WEF and World Health Organization, on top of our own regulatory agencies that may be moving somewhat in our direction, but they're bohemists and how long will that last? All of these things are things that we have to take in and recognize how important it is that we do not give up this fight right now. We're going to push harder than ever.

That is what we're focused on. So thank you for all that make the high wire possible. Thank you for sitting in on the mock trial. I hope you have as much fun as I did. This is the high wire, and I'll see you next week. Thank you.