The Highwire with Del Bigtree - Episode 437: SACRED SCIENCE

Episode Date: August 20, 2025

Del Bigtree sits down with Dr. Peter McCullough and John Leake to discuss their explosive new book Vaccines: Mythology, Ideology, and Reality, the reported Chinese Chikungunya outbreak, and RFK Jr.’s bold move to defund mRNA vaccine projects—and what it means for the future.Then, Jefferey Jaxen exposes the UK’s crackdown on free speech, Canada’s push for “climate lockdowns,” and the shocking push to genetically engineer humans in the name of the climate.Plus—join Phase 2 of the ICAN Legacy Project and leave your mark on history at The Terrace.Guests: Peter McCullough, MD, MPH, John LeakeBecome 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?

Yeah. Action. Good morning, good afternoon, good evening. Wherever you are out there in this world, it's time to step out into the high wire. You know, I am always going through my X feed and my Instagram feed, and every once while something just jumps out and punches you. I know you've had this experience like right in the face. And that's what happened to me, a chief nerd. I want to give a shout out.

It puts out a lot of great posts. But this one that was put out was of a video that apparently we've played on the show. I was so irate when I watched this video. I forgot we already played this a couple of months ago. But as I watched it, this is, you know, one of the heads of Pfizer being asked about the knowledge and the science around this vaccine that we're about to give to everyone on Earth. I just couldn't help but think about Steve Colbert last week in his rant and how I was. irate he was that, you know, you would stop MRNA and stop science and stop and it tracks and FU and all of that.

In the face of that, I want us all to watch this video and say, if this is science, then God help us. Take a look at this. Clearly, we're thinking in terms of micrograms, the way we would think of proteins as a way of inducing an immune response. And yet the purpose of MRI is to induce protein. production. So is your MRI just more efficient at making cells produce protein, or how should we think of micrograms in terms of the amount of spike protein that's produced by the cells? Can you

kind of clarify that? Yeah, I'll leave to Moderna to describe the nature of how they address their vaccine dosage. But I think, obviously, we don't have a complete understanding of the nature of the way that the vaccine works in terms of producing immune response. So you have go by the results. And the results are that in the setting of giving a three-microgram dose, we had low-reacted genesis compared to placebo, and after a third dose, just as in adults, at higher doses, we're getting an immune response that's comparable. It may well be that children we've seen certainly that we're able to go down to a lower dose in children, and the expectation is perhaps they have a more robust response. That seems to be the case

based on giving a 10-micogram goes to 5 to 11s and 3 micrograms to younger. But have you ever measured the amount of protein that's produced as a result of the MRNA and how many cells are producing it and how persistent that production is for a given microgram of MRA? That's a pretty broad question. I think that's obviously, you know, an interesting question to better understand the mechanism, and I would say it's somewhat academic in the setting of what we're trying to achieve here in terms of getting an immune response and a safety profile that's satisfactory. but worthwhile for people to pursue.

I hope that everyone that watches the high wire has now looked at enough science and had us talk about enough that you see how outrageous that is. I just want you to think about as we look back what we went through. This was a product that they decided should be forced on every single person in the world. You would lose a job here in America if you didn't take it. And the senior vice president of Pfizer's vaccine development department says, we don't really have an understanding of how this vaccine produces an immune response. We don't know how it works.

We just know when we give this much, it seems to get a reaction. We can do that much. It gets a different reaction. I mean, I have said this. This is like children. The science around this is so speculative and based on assumptions and just like kids pouring chlorox and ammonia into a glass of water going, look what happens. and people start dropping like flies.

Wow, it looks like it maybe kills people. I mean, this is what we're up to. So when you think back to all the discussions are 95% effective, we know it stays in the arm, it can't travel anywhere else. You didn't know anything. You didn't even know how it worked before you said, let's go ahead and take a gene therapy, turn it into a vaccine, not have any idea how it works,

but it seems to be creating some antibodies somehow. And then the next question, how much protein is being produced? Because we're not injecting the protein the way we used to that would create the response. Now our cells are just going to start manufacturing the spike protein. How much are we going to get? Wow. I mean, you're getting a little out of line there. That's a really broad question for a time like this and a meeting like this.

I mean, why should we have to answer that question? I don't know, like the future of our species. This is what happened. This is what has been called science, and this is why I'm so excited about this show. I want to talk to an expert, a scientist, a doctor that grew up in this space and now has been writing with his writing partner, John Leak, about what he's discovering as he looks into the psyche and the egos and the ideology around all of this. And just when you thought it was safe to go home, when you could finally just go out whenever

you want and not wear a mask, you know they need another crisis. needs another crisis. Is this it? Authorities are currently monitoring a sudden surge of a virus in China. The Chikungunya virus carried by mosquitoes and starting to raise global concern. About 240,000 Chikungunya cases and 90 related deaths have been reported globally. This painful mosquito spread virus causes severe joint aches, fever and fatigue. This can lead to bleeding. It can affect the nervous system, the heart, the kidney, and deliver, and in some cases, it can be fatal.

China is even bringing back COVID-like measures to try to contain the spread. Authorities are also threatening to find people up to $1,400 and even shut off their electricity if they don't follow the rules and empty any water from outdoor receptacles. The United States has even issued a travel warning, alerting Americans to stay away from the outbreak region. There is no known cure for the virus, but there are two approved vaccines in the U.S., which the CDC is emerging Americans traveling to China to get. Of course there's a vaccine.

I think they make these names up just to make, you know, news reporters have to say it. Chicken Gunya. Well, I'm joined by the authors of vaccines, mythology, ideology, and reality. Of course, I'm talking about John Leek and Dr. Peter McCullough, who joined me now. Peter, it's great to see you. John, it's a pleasure. Before I get into the book, I want to just get into the chicken gunya thing, really. quickly. Is this serious? Is this a serious threat? What type of diseases? What are we dealing with?

RNA virus carried by mosquitoes, aides mosquitoes, described in 1952. So it's been here a while. Paper by Ribeiro dos Santos, very important paper last year, 35 million annual cases. Really? So listen, a few hundred thousand in China is not a big deal. I'm enormously suspicious that there's all this messaging about, you know, severe restrictions in China just a few months after Bavarian Nordic launches the Vim Kunya vaccine. Wow. It's almost as if it's vaccine marketing. Right.

Which, you know, is actually a heart, you know, it's a big part of this incredible book. And so for people that, you know, maybe wondering what you have here, this is a book that I said to you earlier. I wish I'd written it. And in many ways, it's all those stories. As you start investigating, you know, where does this come from? How far back does this program go? Where did we start getting off track?

Of course, you jumped in really in COVID. That was the moment you were on our show. I think it was in May of 21, you know, saying, I'm seeing issues with this vaccine. I have some concerns. And at that point, you seemed still pretty stable with the childhood vaccine program. It seemed like COVID vaccine's a problem. You know, I think the other vaccines, though, I don't want to hurt their reputation. I think we had an off-the-record conversation there just saying, I think you need to look at it.

We've handed you some of our documents. You have come on an incredible journey, and in many ways this is the perfect book. But just, Peter, what was the moment that you transitioned from COVID vaccine? What was the moment where you really, really started to turn on the childhood vaccine program? See, wait a second. Something here isn't right. Two inflection points. One, if we could have this madness well up worldwide over the COVID-19 vaccine campaign.

And then if we saw, which became now, I think, a looming existential crisis with autism and neuropsychiatric disorders, I did embark on inquiry. I previously had no strong views on vaccines. Most doctors don't. Did you vaccinate yourself? For sure. Kids, your own kids? Yep.

For sure. But I didn't have strong opinions one way or the other. I didn't feel like I was subscribing to an ideology. But as we investigated, we realized, wait a minute, the strong beliefs in vaccines, they'll go back centuries. I love you guys teamed up. Of course, this isn't your first time. You've got courage to face COVID-19.

which is a spectacular book. Behind the scenes, we talked about maybe turning into a movie at some point. Maybe that's out in the future. I thought you did such a brilliant job of really showing the timeline of the COVID experience. But John, what I love that you bring to this is, you know, you are such a great team because, you know, we know we've got the science lockdown. This guy can recite every single author of every study he's ever seen, this photographic memory. but your ability to research, and I think see the human story and everything, which so often these books can be very dry. And instead, this is just a page turner, a historical journey through all of these milestone moments that are held up as the pinnacles of science. Yet you show this underbelly that also exists there. You know, where does that research, where did that research take you?

Like, where did you start? And what was like this journey for you? Well, I mean, I studied history all my life and medical history. And what I have discovered is that these are stories. I mean, this is in many ways a love story. It's a sort of a love story of humankind falling in love with something that has, I think, does seem to have a lot of promise. I mean, the concept of taking a small amount of infectious disease causing matter, just

a little bit of poison, it makes you just a little bit sick. And in the beginning, it was in the early 18th century with smallpox. And the idea is this seems to confer protection from severe illness. So I went back to the 18th century. There was this famous or infamous smallpox outbreak in Boston, Massachusetts.

And what I saw is straight away, there's this, you know, we have it. We have the solution. We have the thing that's going to protect. protect us and our children from this scourge and a quick enthusiasm that is then followed by a lack of unbiased evaluation. So we understand, look, we all fall in love. Love is blind. But the question is, you know, are you seeing clearly what you've fallen in love with? And what we've found for 300 years, mankind has pursued this love affair with vaccines without really any serious critical

evaluation. And I mean none. The other thing that was amazing to me to discover is it's never really been a scientific enterprise. It has been largely driven by faith and ideology. and if you go back to the early 19th century with the first smallpox vaccine, so remember, in the early 18th century it's smallpox inoculation. It's actually using disease matter from a smallpox blister.

It's when you get to the end of the 18th century that Edward Jenner has this idea that cowpox, which dairy made seemed to be contracting from the udders, of dairy cattle, if you get cowpox, it seems to protect you from the far more serious. Yeah. Smallpox. So I think this is very interesting, and I'll conclude this opener with this.

So the word vaccine comes from the word cow, vaca, which is the Latin word for cow. So vaccine literally means of the cow. And there's the tip of the hat to Jenner in this transition into. Correct. This new way of looking at inoculation. Correct.

So what we're seeing is a very apt word, because as we've discovered, vaccines are the ultimate sacred cow. They really are. They really are. And, you know, Brett Weinstein, who also was on this show very early on, I, you know, I've talked to them since. We've publicly come out, but, you know, we got an argument in England over. I said, you know, he was protecting the childhood vaccine program.

I said, you haven't looked at it. You really don't know what you're discussing. And a year and a half later, he came up to me. It was one of the most chilling moments. And he said to me, you know, I'm sorry. I didn't remember why. He said, you know, you said I hadn't looked at the child vaccine program. And he said, well, now I have.

And he said something that really stuck with me. He said, you know, I wasn't stupid. I know vaccines are injuring. something. There was no way there was a medical product that doesn't have some injury. So I knew we were overly glossing over that, but I had accepted that. What I was shocked to find is that there is no science. Something that you, too, have both, is that as you, and so you, this book travels through time in many ways. It's fairly linear in that way that bounces around a little bit, but you really just go through the different storylines in moments that this, you know, when it really became mandated.

when they decided everyone needed to take it and all these things. But would you say that that's a fair assessment because people really still are completely offended when you try to bring up this topic, writing a book about it? Forget about getting a publisher. They don't want to go near this, right? Because you're challenging the science. Is it accurate to say there is no science? Well, think about the underpinnings, the enormous fear.

So we start out with Cotton Mather, a well-known Puritan minister. You know, he watched several of his children die with measles. Now, he takes a variation for smallpox and Dr. Boylston and promulgates this. But think about Benjamin Franklin, losing little Frankie to smallpox. Think about the unbelievable parental grief of losing children to infectious diseases, and then the hope that's presented, in a vaccine. And now what you have is the ingredients.

You have fear, then enormous hubris brought forward by these individuals. And we bring out Pasteur and others that say, it works, take it, okay? And money and power. So once you put that in a cauldron, then things start to take off. You know, people were put in prison in the,

the end of the 19th century for not taking the smallpox vaccine. You think it was bad during COVID. Right. You want to be somebody who's questioning the smallpox vaccine. And there were plenty of people. We give great credit to Roman Bistionic and Suzanne Humphreys in dissolving illusions to point out the fact that there were scientists of the day who were saying, wait a minute. There were Peter McCullough's dead.

Hold on a second. I'm looking at the science. It is lacking. We're lacking evidence that the results we're seeing are either being caused by this vaccine or. And I was sort of shocked. I think was it in the book? I think you said that we'd had the smallpox vaccine for nearly 50 years and hadn't eradicated it, weren't even sure that was working.

And that's when they decided we need to mandate this. It's because everyone, because this is one of the things that I say when I speak in public. As I say, think about this product. Think as an entrepreneur. I said, I want to give credit to the greatest ad campaign. campaign that has ever been. This is a product that they've decided is unlike any other drug. I say, look at COVID. COVID, you know, ultimately has a, you know, a death rate of, you know, less than 0.5 percent, depending on how you look at it. So 99.5 percent of humanity is not going to

die from this thing. You could have had a drug for the 0.5 percent. How many are you going to sell there? Or a product that's slogan is it only. works if everyone takes it. And it can even be more extreme. Everybody but those that are so immune compromised, they'll be hurt by this disease. So all the healthy people in the world need to take it. That's the only way it works. Which product would you want to sell? The one that's for 0.5 percent or the one that 99.5 percent need to take. So what is it? Is it 1850 something there that that idea comes about? Parliament passed the Vaccine Act of 1853. There were successive iterations of that, strengthening the sanctions against people who didn't get their children vaccinated.

But it's very similar to what we saw, I mean, eerily similar to what we saw during COVID. So Jenner's idea really catches on around 1801 as he publishes the fourth edition, revised edition of his pamphlet in London. And then Thomas Jefferson, Napoleon, George the Fourth, I mean, some really eminent people in the world at the time embraced it and they really embraced it so by the time you get to 1853 the the practice of vaccinating english children is been very very widespread right but the kingdom keeps getting hit with successive waves as small so not really looking at his from the historic preserves it's not working so so so then you know you have people for 20 years put into

jail or fined if they don't get their children. So everybody's getting vaccinated. Then you come to the year 1871. We've been doing this for 71 years in this realm and the worst smallpox outbreak in history. So it was at that moment, it started in the industrial city of Leicester. They said enough is enough. I mean, there's this insistence in England that all of our children get this, but it's clearly not working. And we go into all of these quirks of smallpox. I mean, something that a lot of people, I think, probably even, I would say the majority of medical doctors, they don't know this.

Jenner, and nor did anyone else, in the entire 19th century, know the causative agent of smallpox. They had no idea. So it wasn't until the early 20th century with the advent. But it hasn't. I just played the video, right? What you're getting to is the video I just played. We scraped some pus. We don't know what the agent is.

We slap it in a cut. It looks like it's working. We haven't evolved. We just watched the Cedar Vice President of Pfizer say, we have no idea how this thing's working. We're injecting this amount and we eject a little bit more. It's no different. Right?

It is no different. And this is the thing that astonished me. But I think there's a couple of fine points that I would like to put on this. So, Jenner in his pamphlets, he uses the word virus, and that's confused a lot of people. He's using it in the old Latin meaning, like literally going back to ancient Rome, means poison. So the idea is take a little poison. We don't know what the poison is. It seems to cause a contagion, an infectious disease that is spreadable from one person.

to the another. Give them a little bit of poison and that will protect them. Okay, so that's, that's all, that's the only theory of a causative agent that anybody had until the very end of the 19th century with, with the early advent of virology, when people began to think, well, could this be something like a sub-microscopic particle? But it gets even weirder. Okay. So after the advent of virology, Wyeth develops what many consider to be, well, this is, you know, the final scientific narrowing down of the causative agent of smallpox. It's a virus, and we're going to call this smallpox vaccination, which, so just back up.

It was the discovery was smallpox is caused by a virus, and we'll go with the old Latin word for it, Variola. Okay. But what is the vaccine? What is the cowpox that Jenner and his colleagues and throughout the 19th century? What is it? Like literally what is it? Wyeth claimed, well, we've found the actual causative agent of cowpox. And Wyeth and I think other scientists agreed to this name.

They called it vaccinia. So the vaccinia virus. Okay. But guys started doing serological studies, studies of what exactly is vaccinate in the vaccine. And what they discovered is, we have no idea what it is. Wow. We don't know if this is the cowpox that Jenner and his colleagues in the 19th century claimed to be isolating and using as the original vaccine.

So to this day, the whole thing is a mystery. And I'm sorry that was perhaps a bit technical, but the point is this. Your point with the FDA deliberative committee, the whole story is this. There is so much these guys don't know. In the 19th century, we don't even know the causative agent. We don't even know what the vaccine is. But we're going to gamble anyway. And I think this is where Dr. McCull, that was his original intuition, was this is gambling.

Essentially, as I've looked at this, and the more, of course, I can, our nonprofit, we've sued for this information. If the government's sitting on it, we can't get it from the manufacturers. Where is the science? Where is the science that shows vaccines don't cause autism? You're making this statement all the time. Where is the science? How have you done this? And we just keep coming up with there's nothing there.

But, Del, there's a history we've uncovered. covered of fraudulent concealment. This is very important. You know, Louis Pasteur proclaims a vaccine for waterfowl. He proclaims a vaccine for, you know, anthrax vaccine for animals. People say, well, where's the data? Where's the evidence? Well, it's, you know, it's kept under seal. I'm not showing it to you. Right. And then we realized. I just tried to do that saying these are trade secrets. But this was Louis Pasteur. This went on for a very long time. And finally, in the 1960s, his family reveals the memoirs. His lab books. His lab books. I mean, this is astonishing. We even had a French scientist recently review our book. I said, were we

unkind to Pasteur? He goes, no, you weren't. They created an institute over this guy. They worshipped him. And sure, there were good things that he did, but there was a tremendous amount of fraud. Yeah, I mean, that amazed me. I mean, when I was a boy, Pastor was one of my heroes. I mean, he's such an interesting, charismatic 19th century figure. And so, you know, I was just astonished. You know, I read this book by a guy named Geeson. Remember, it was published in 1995. And the title of the book, is Princeton University Press,

was the private science of Louis Pasteur. And so he had gotten access to Pasteur's lab notebooks, which were not made available to the... They weren't even made... He didn't even make them available to the French Academy of Science. They were totally private. And what's revealed is Pasteur, first of all, he was a horrible thief. There was a French veterinarian named Toussaint who kept making these brilliant observations

about infectious diseases affecting animals, and that he would send samples of the bacterium and pure culture to Pasteur. And then Pasteur would then publish it as though or his discovery. I mean, he was a real larcenist. But the other thing that he would do is he would just proclaim, well, I've created a vaccine for foul cholera. It's like, all right, great. So where is it? Well, you know, we're still working on it.

I will communicate with the academy when I'm ready. But in the meantime, I have a very interesting vaccine against anthrax. It's a fascinating. Self-promotion becomes a huge. It's just amazing. And media, really. I mean, they're using media and fear with whatever techniques they have then. And over and over again, I mean, this book is so great.

And by the way, what I love is you travel through time in an enjoyable, you know, fairly quick manner so that anyone that wants to understand the entire historical journey of all of these entities that really end up sort of proclaiming that this House of Cards is the foundation of all science as we know it. In this journey, Peter, which has to have been somewhat shocking, because I think this is a, this is, in many ways, is the golden chalice of, you know, it's the monument of modern science. And I think where it's at, and I think that what I'd like to talk a little bit about is, is it all science? Do we distrust all science and all medicine as we see here? But this, to me, what makes vaccines different was everything else treats a problem. It treats we can put a bone back together.

We can do a surgery. We can cut a cancer out. We can always deal with something and we're getting better and better at it. Vaccines is truly the God complex. We can make you stronger. We can make you a Superman that will not be affected by viruses. We're going to beat nature now. We're going to beat God, which is, in some of the interviews you see of Stanley Blockin, of Paul Offit, they allude to this.

They allude to the accepted casualty that's happening when they finally admit there's injury from vaccine. Well, yeah, but that's an accepted casualty of our war against nature. And really what you see is this desire for medicine to be Godlike. And that's where it asserts itself. You're not allowed to challenge me. Is that true about all the science? God like and also warlike. A lot of what you just said is also humans going to war.

Yeah. And my last Senate testimony in May of 2025 in the U.S. Senate, I was a lead witness, there was no pushback about COVID-19 vaccines, injuries, and deaths. There was actually, I think, brought acceptance that the COVID vaccines have done great harm. But the contention was it saved. lives. It's saved lives. And so there's this thought among vaccinologists that there will be a collateral damage. There will be a cost for the betterment of society. And we just must accept that. So the question on the table, the ethical and moral dilemma that we find ourselves in, a perfectly

healthy person should they be sacrificed at the altar of the vaccines? Yes. Good question. You know, and what is that number? That was one of the questions that I, early on with VACS, as I was traveling, I ran into a person from the CDC up in, I think it was Washington, and she came to see me speak. I'm always impressed by that. You know, I'm glad you're here. It's like, well, I'm curious why you hate us so much.

I was like, what do you mean by that? She's like, well, you just say bad things about science. I'm like, no, I don't. What I say is I don't think you're being honest with the public. And I explained myself, I said, you have a month's outbreak here. You and I both know that it's happening in a vaccinated community. And yet I'll turn on my news tonight and it's going to say that it's the anti-vaxers that are causing this problem. And you as the CDC aren't stepping up to stop that.

And she was kind of like, she's like, wow, that's fairly astute and that is true. It is amongst the vaccinated. And I said, you know, ultimately here's my problem, you know. Do you believe that vaccines don't kill some people? And she's like, no, of course, there's no product that is perfectly. safe and effective. I said, yeah, but this one, you say that it is. And then I said, okay, but so you are aware then as a head of the CDC up here that, you know, vaccines will kill some people. She says, yes, I understand the science. I said, okay, how many? How many is it going to kill this year?

And she's like, well, I don't have that. I don't have those numbers. I don't know what those numbers are. I said, then how can you be involved in science? I said earlier in this conversation, you said it was an accepted casualty. You're telling me you're accepting a casualty, but you don't know what that casualty is. You know what that number is? Del, I would contend it's not quantity dependent. We're talking about a healthy person without disease.

One death, one death with any vaccine should be unacceptable. I agree. But gentlemen, I mean, the military metaphor is very apt, though, because it's like, well, why do we send, And, I mean, why did, so you take a mother in her relationship with her children. So my great-grandmother was widowed when my great-grandfather was killed in a train collision. She had three sons. That was all she had.

All three were sent to war in the Second World War. At one time, all three of them were in action, and all of them were wounded. It's an interesting story. When they finally got, she'd held up during the war, when they finally all three came home, still alive. a nervous breakdown. It's kind of interesting. But anyway, what we're told is those young men had to go. Good chance of them dying. A lot of their fellow soldiers did die, but to protect the broader public, the greater good in the United States. And so I think that military metaphor, and look, I mean, the vaccine makers themselves, I mean, they made a deal with the United States government

in 1986 saying it's a strategic asset. It's a strategic asset. It's a strategic. strategic public health asset. There's a certain percentage of children that will be injured or killed, but they're going to have to accept that. And of course the claim is it's a very, very small percentage. The question we're asking is, well, is it really so small? Right. And the bigger question here, I think some of this would be academic if it weren't for

the specter of autism. I mean, that's the thing, when we start talking about, okay, you look at the timeline, I'm an old crime investigator, that's what we look at is suspicious timelines. With the proliferation of the vaccine, of the childhood schedule after 1986, when the vaccine manufacturers get liability protection. We're at roughly 12 vaccines. Within years, we're at 54 vaccines. Right. So look at the timeline of CDC detection of autism and the proliferation of the shots on the schedule.

It tracks almost lockstep. So that is extremely suspicious. So what we argue in the book is this should be investigated. I agree. And the lack of concern by the CDC and schools of public health across the world is shocking. So we have a tsunami of autism, autism spectrum disorders, broadly neuropsychiatric disorders, including attention deficit hyperactivity disorders, seizures, ticks. Yes. Exploding.

No courses on this in schools of public health. No grand rounds at major medical centers on this. The CDC publications chronicling what is clearly a crisis. In the end, their conclusions are we should just prepare for more special needs services. It's unreal. It's really unreal. We talked about the military metaphor, the tribe binding together and sending its young, brave, valiant men to fight the bad guys. What do you see on the cover of the book?

So that coin is a 20-euro silver coin issued by the Vatican. Really? Commemorating the COVID-19 vaccine and the Holy Father's endorsement of the vaccine. Now observe that closely. So that tripartite figure is something that you see in Catholic iconography going back to, like the Renaissance Raphael painted a lot of paintings in that. So the Trinity, that could be the Virgin Mary, the Christ child in St. John the Baptist. And the description in the Numista catalog says, a boy prepares to receive the vaccine.

that grammar, that statement, and the number of words in that statement is identical to a communicant prepares to receive the Eucharist. It's broad. We highlight another image that we identified in the South Island of New Zealand. It's an old church, and a bright yellow banner is unfurled in front of the door. It says, not even the blood of Jesus Christ will save you from COVID-19. get vaccinated. And the word blood is in red and the word vaccine is in red.

So you see the equivalency, the blood of Christ. So this is a religious, this is tapping in to a religious archetype that's in the human mind. I mean, if you were to look at, you know, a philosopher, a psychologist like Carl Jung, he would say, this is an archetype, it's always there. So when Bill Gates in April of 2020 says, we're all locked down, the world has been turned on its head, the only thing that will enable us to go back to normal is when every man, woman, and child in the world gets the vaccine.

Now, consider how remarkable that statement is, the vaccine hadn't even been developed yet. It hadn't even gone into trials yet. So it's almost like in the Gospels, you know, the advent of Christ. You know, fear not, I bring you tidings of great joy. You know, a child is born. Fear not, we will be able to go back to normal. The vaccine is coming.

And it will say, it will liberate mankind. Is that conscious? I mean, do you think that someone sits around and thinks like this? or is it just how we're wired? Are we mythological beings that write myth as we go along and we just sort of naturally produce this type of rhetoric? I think that Carl Jung was really onto something when he talked about archetypes. We're a storytelling animal. I mean, that's how we make sense. There are these recurring images, a savior, a liberator.

And so I don't, I mean, Mr. Gates is. a very strange man so I would not hazard to guess what's going on in his mind but but that that basic archetypal narrative of you know the world we're in big trouble right but something is coming we're gonna save you and it's gonna save us and remember vaccines considered like a talisman and vaccine acceptance good vaccine hesitancy bad so these intellectual frameworks are set up. There's the Oxford vaccine hesitancy scale. So as if vaccine hesitancy itself is its own disease. Right. That's what they said. I mean, I say in my talk back in, you know, right there in

2019, vaccine hesitancy or the antivacters were a top 10 global health threat. The idea that you would be spreading the idea of not getting a vaccine or questioning a vaccine was a global health threat and then they had a meeting moments later in Geneva, Switzerland to discuss how to stop this new plague of vaccine hesitancy. We've watched us all along the way. As we wrap this, I want people to read this book. It's so beautifully documented. It's really a fun read. And it's great for everyone that wants to be able to tell these stories. Even I was like, oh, you've locked it down once again. You've reminded me, you know, the details of these stories because they really do help people understand that this didn't happen overnight. This didn't just happen during

COVID, this has been a process that is repeated over and over and over. You have a Peter, why? Why do this to your career? I mean, why get involved in something? If you're right, if this mythology is so strong, if medicine is still locked in, we still have no apology from anyone in COVID. I don't see any doctors being retrained. I don't see an apology for the ventilators or the remdesivir or the lack of, you know,

access to hydroxychloroquine or Ivermectin. studies now showing and we're showing then. Certainly it's safe. We shouldn't be worrying, you know, we should at least if doctor feels like it works, let's go with placebo effect, none of it was taken away from us. Just really horrific things, your license, you know, under review, jobs being pressured, yet you keep

marching deeper and deeper into this. Why? I recently lectured in Chautauqua. And, you know, so many dignitaries have lectured there, but I pointed out three important epics. One was the first great cocaine. epidemic 1860 to 1920 doctors hooked on cocaine nurses hooked on cocaine it's in

Coca-Cola the doctors didn't correct themselves the harm was just Woodrow Wilson had to pull the plug and in the UK they had to outlaw it then I said to smoking the big smoke fest doctors smoked RGR Reynolds you know promotional came made with doctors they promoted it to their patients this went on from 1920 all the way to 1964 the doctors didn't police themselves they didn't pull back on a giant safety concern when it was presented to them. And now we're into this great controversy with vaccines. And while we've uncovered, the harm from vaccines has gone back centuries. Sadly, I think we have a giant existential crisis of profound autism. We can just focus

on that. Profound disabling autism and the great harm of the continued COVID-19 vaccine campaign. Thankfully, what's made the COVID vaccine less harmful to the population is people aren't taking it. Despite every government in the world still having it on the market, no government has issued a safety report or an inspection. You can think about this mass global love affair, presumably with COVID-19 vaccines, and the nefarious, what we call biopharmacetical complex, which is now learned if there can be enough fear and enough promotion of a new disease, the population can be concerned enough to trigger their governments to purchase vaccines. The key is to governments purchasing vaccines.

They don't have to be used. The big vaccine companies make their money from the purchases of the vaccines not being used. We've seen this now with bird flu, with monkeypox, and probably chicken cune. Yeah. Dahl, if I could just make two final observations here. The first thing that I think is really important is that this love affair with vaccines began in the early 18th century when the conditions of life and our cities was completely different. I love the whole story, by the way, the Thames River, and this was the big stink. The great stink.

The great stink they called it, where all of your sewage is running. into the main waterway. Which is no one's paying attention until it gets to be 118 degrees, was it? In the sun. In London? Yeah. So, I mean, we could get into a global warming conversation that back in the 1800s, they had a 180 degree day.

But whatever, baked this and the smell was so bad, finally someone said, maybe we should separate our sewage from our waterways. So this, I think this is an important point that I think will, is a poignant point. So in the early 18th century embossy. I mean, there's no question that Cotton Mather was a very, very bright man. And I think a fascinating intellectual. He's probably the most important intellectual in the colonies at the time. Interestingly enough, he was a consulting theologian for the Salem Witch Trials.

But undeniably a fascinating guy. Now, nobody understood what caused measles or what caused smallpox. It's suddenly just upon us, okay? Measles was far more virulent in the early 18th century than it became at the end by the year 1963 with the introduction of the measles vaccine. It had become a far less virulent disease. Before the vaccine got here, you just watched it. Right, right.

So, you know, we understand why Mather and other guys like him. would be thinking, you know, he watched three of his children die of measles. And he kept a diary, and we quote the diary in the book. It's heartbreaking to read. So what smallpox inoculation seemed to offer was hope. And hope is a very important thing in human affairs. So we understand and, you know, where this love affair came from. In many ways, it was reasonable to fall in love with this.

What we point out as we move along is as the human mind becomes more and more mesmerized by this, it loses sight of the fact that there are many, many things going on towards the latter half of the 19th, beginning of the 20th century, that are causing this very dramatic decrease of infectious disease mortality. So that by the time you get to 1948, the beginning of the modern childhood vaccine schedule, the D.P.T. shot, infectious disease mortality had already plummeted in almost all of these diseases by over 90%. Okay. And a lot of this is just common sense. I mean, better nutrition, better hygiene. Nutrition alone. In our era of over again, calorie abundance, we forget that in the 19th century, the urban poor were oftentimes on the edge of starving. Yeah. So with better nutrition, hygiene, sanitation, clean drinking water, better housing, I mean, we take for

granted that we have heat in the winter. Right. You're some Irish immigrant living in Hell's Kitchen in the 19th century. You're freezing. Right. Your little children are huddled together, you know, trying to keep warm. Yeah. So all of these conditions change.

The standard of living is radically raised. And we're talking about tetanus, just farm boys wearing shoes. Right. Just shoes. Wow. So they're not stepping on sharp objects contaminated with cow manure. I mean, that's not high tech. Right.

But we've forgotten all of that. Because the story is just vaccines. The story is. All the credit is given to vaccines. All the credit is given to vaccines. It's an incredible book. Before I lose you here, Peter, there's something you're talking a lot about right now. Patrick Sunshung, the doctor also owns L.A. Times has been making some very terrifying

statements about the virus, the spike protein. He says he believes this cancer epidemic we're seeing is the new epidemic of COVID, which is this virus appears to be oncogenic. It's connecting to ACE2 receptors, enzymes through the body's talking about. You're talking a lot about this. Both of you, and he's more careful than you are to say, and let's be aware that the vaccine is also creating the same spike protein with these same oncogenic abilities. But what I think is scary is for those of us that did avoid this vaccine, that did say I'm not going anywhere near it. You have said, I have patients that never got the vaccine, that you just told me have a blood clot all the way down their leg or you're seeing some of these issues. Number one, what do you think, should we all go get tested? What should that test be?

What do we do about it? It's almost as if the entire world has been poisoned. Okay. Either with the infection, SARS-CoV-2 or with the vaccine or both. Estimates are 97% of us got this illness. Remember, the presupposition was, let's lock down, let's wear masks, because some of us could avoid getting it. Can you imagine if the proclamation was made,

early on, listen, we're all going to get it. Why bother locking down? Why bother wearing a mask? We're all going to get this illness. We need to get through it together. But the hitch was, and here's the virus here, the spike protein is the spine on the surface of the virus. The human coronavirus, you know, we could get infected with these.

The spike protein, we now know with very good investigation from the House Subcommittee investigations on the origins of this, it was engineered in the Wuhan Institute of It's not a naturally occurring protein. It has all kinds of features to it that we've never seen in medicine. Listen, I'm a cardiologist. I've been in practice for decades. I've never seen a protein that can cause heart damage, can erode blood vessels in the brain and directly cause brain hemorrhage,

can cause blood clots, can incite autoimmunity where the body's immune system fights itself, and that turns off cancer surveillance systems to allow cancers to begin to accelerate into turbo cancer, I've never seen such a toxic protein in my life. It turns out we have evidence that those who have the infection have been exposed to this. Some actually have this in their body. And clearly those who took of the vaccine have the entire length of the spike protein in large

quantities. And now... And keep dosing themselves with more and more and more. Very few people are. But now, but we have evidence, and with no funding, Remember, health and human services, even with the new team, has no request for applications to investigate what the spike protein is done to the human body. The Biden administration spent a billion dollars on long COVID. No spike protein projects.

Don't look over here. There's a mass oblivion to the problem of the spike protein, but I can tell you, I have patients in my practice, and we're working with the research lab in Germany. We have evidence of Pfizer-Moderna physically in the human body and spike protein being produced everywhere in the body, circulating in bloodstream 3.2 years after the shots. We can find it in biopsies and tissues. This is alarming. People should be alarmed that this messenger RNA has been synthetically altered through a process called pseudo-uridination. There's no known human enzymes that can break down the messenger RNA. The spike protein, no human enzymes known that can break it down. Fortunately, we have some natural products. We have convincing evidence, natokines,

bromine, probably others, serreptase, lumbokinase, papain, and others that can break it down. But let me tell you what, humanity could be in for an incredibly difficult time. If you look at mortality across the globe, clearly 2021 is going to be one of the worst years in history. Now, the American cancer statistics just came out. They're on focal point substack. And, you know, cancer overall is about the same slightly down. but the ones that are advancing are the most common cancer. So in women, it's breast cancer and in men it's prostate cancer.

Wow. What test do you recommend if someone wants to find out? Because a lot of people are having issues with fatigue or wondering, you know, there's just something's wrong. You know, do you recommend a test? Can you figure out if you've got circulating spike protein? Right now we have only indirect proxies. So the FDA is not allowed a single test on the market. And these are not hard tests to directly measure spike protein in the bloodstream.

That should be top of mind for the FDA and HHS, right? I mean, because we're trying to diagnostically figure out what's going on. However, we can measure antibodies against the spike protein offered by many companies, and the Common Labs Quest and Lab Corp offer it. I think the leading manufacturers, Roche making the Roche-Elexis assay. This test ranges from less than 0.8 means you've never been exposed to it. Greater than 25,000 units means you potentially had a massive exposure. In multiple studies, in my clinical practice, I've measured this in thousands of patients.

Again, it's the quantitative spike protein antibody. Levels less than a thousand. What am I asking for? When I go to Quest, would I say, I want a... I want a COVID antibody test, and it'll give it against the nucleo capsid. So antibodies against the ball, that means you've been exposed to the virus and against the spike protein. That's how much spike protein from the virus of the vaccine is stimulated during antibodies. But here's the point. Every paper so far, my clinical experience confirms this, quantitative

antibodies less than a thousand, you're in good shape. I have no concerns about blood clods, heart damage, sudden cardiac arrest. Greater than a thousand, progressively higher risk. In my experience, over 5,000 on this, we're finding spike protein circulating in the bloodstream. That's a bad thing. There's not a single doctor in the world can say that having circulating Wu-hand spike protein in the bloodstream is benign. It's not. It's dangerous and dilatious. I'm greatly concerned.

We've published now and have two years of experience using detoxification with natural products, natokinase, bromelin and curcumin, multiple studies, you know, clinics all over the world using this. Others, Japanese advancing even more enzymes. We need exogenous natural enzymes to be absorbed in the body, break down the spike protein, and let us clear it up. Incredible. I want you guys to stick around for off the record. and one of the questions I want to ask these guys, Bobby Kennedy, is under some heat.

Yes, it looks like he's rolling back the MRNA technology, but is getting behind this idea of a universal vaccine that somehow is going to be able to fight all illness. Is that just more of the same journey into the same hubris? I'm going to ask Peter and John if they think there's a decent vaccine that it could ever be made. You're not going to miss off the record. But the book is called Vaccines, Mythology, Ideology, and Reality. You Want This Book. It's a great book. Because a great book for your friends that are starting to ask about these questions, you know, having questions about the vaccine program.

This takes you on a ride. Fairly easy read to get through it with the personal stories and this dream that they had. I think maybe while asking off the record is just really, is there any way to create a vaccine? There's any way to make this dream a reality. Maybe we'll get into that. But first, and before I get to the Jackson Report, I just want to say so many of you have been, you know, supporting the work that we've done. here supporting incredible legal work. As we've told you, we are in the fight of our lives right now in West Virginia. It is clear now that it is known that if we win in West Virginia

and bring back the religious exemption, they realize there's a tidal wave now. Mississippi, two states go down. We're in the fight of our lives there. We need your help. But all along the way, when we started this journey, we tried to think of ways that you could, you know, be recognized as one of the sponsors. And one of the programs we had so many of you asked about, and that was, you know, our high road, putting a brick in our high road that leads from our offices over here to the studios. Many of you didn't get an opportunity to be a part of that. Well, we are embarking on a more powerful journey now. We are in more lawsuits than we've ever been. We're fighting all of this, you know, egos, these egos, these maniacs and the lies that are out there. We're on the front

lines and now you can actually, you know, donate by buying a brick into the next advancement of the high road. If you want to see what I'm talking about. Take a look at this. A couple of years ago, we asked you to help us build the high road. And you did. Brick by brick, message by message, you helped pave the road that led us to historic legal victories. Like the release of the Pfizer COVID vaccine data, the FDA tried to block for 75 years,

or the return of the religious exemption in Mississippi, where kids hadn't been allowed to go to school without vaccines since the 1970s. So now as we double down on our efforts to free the remaining five states from medical mandates, along with other exciting new projects designed to fulfill ICANN's mission to eradicate man-made disease and secure informed consent. We want you to be a part of each step on our journey. So for those of you that want another opportunity to buy a brick and support ICANN, let me introduce you to Phase 2, The Terrace, a peaceful, powerful space, nestled at the very

heart of the high road, a sanctuary where reflection meets purpose, and a place where your voice, your story, and your loved ones will inspire our path every day. Whether you already have a brick, or this is your first time, this is your moment, to renew your commitment, to honor someone dear, to stand for medical freedom, transparency, and the right to inform consent. Forever, Because this movement has always been about you, your faith, your family, your future. As the world shifts around us, the foundation we're building here remains stronger than ever. So go to Ican Decide.org and click Buy a Brick. Choose your message, leave your mark, and become part of the very heart of this campus at the center of the high road.

Each brick comes with an open invitation to visit your brick and see a live taping of the High Wire. this path together so let's fill the heart of it together many of you that have a brick on the high road have come to watch a show and and take a look at the brick out there and for those of you that haven't that's always an open invitation but this is something that so many of you've asked about many of you maybe want to get another brick or you want to get involved this is all a part of the work that we do it's also a way to give back and to turn this campus into really a historical reference point of what happened, who was here. As I've said it before, we're making history together. So you can click on this QR code, whether you just want to put, you know, your children's

name, your family, your business, or maybe just a statement or a mantra that gets you through the day. I'll tell you every day I walk that walkway, a new brick jumps out at me, a statement, or a thought or reflection on some of you that I've met out there. It really is a special thing. really just take the moment right now to thank Patrick Layton, who's done such a beautiful job designing much of what's happening on this campus, this beautiful walkway, and now this Terrius area, Rogan sit and be thoughtful. He's just done really a beautiful job there. So I hope you'll take this opportunity. It's a great thing to be a part of. You get to, you know, live on in history here as we continue to make history as we win these lawsuits, as we bring you this show and all the work that we're doing. So, For all of you that are donating or been sponsors all this time, we appreciate it. And for those of you that want to get involved, this is a really great way to do it. Now it's time for the Jackson Report.

You know, Jeffrey, it's interesting as I sit here in front of, you know, and by the way, this morning I was being interviewed by a major newspaper and I bring up Dr. Peter McCullough every time. They're like, well, what evidence of proof? I was like, you were talking about the world's leading heart doctor, the most published heart doctor in the world was censored during COVID. They said, don't you feel like, this is the question, don't you feel like the government was just doing the best that it could under the circumstances? It's like, no, I do not. The best a government, a government that considers itself

to be in a free nation does not go out of its way to censor world-renowned scientists, doctors, the number one heart doctor in the world in Dr. Peter McCullough, the most published ICU doctor in the world in Dr. Paul Merrick, the inventor of the technology itself, Dr. Robert Malone. Your government doesn't censor those people as a way to do the best that it can. I don't know what you're talking about. And as I sit here, Jeffrey, and you know, you read through this incredible book that lays out what you and I have covered over the years in much detail in the books that we've read, but it's just really well put together. And I just sit here and think every week, Jeffrey, we have to sit here and accept the fact that we know.

We know the truth. We know the truth. We know these vaccines injured. We know no science has been done. We can watch the greatest doctor in the world in Dr. Peter McCullough in his specialty, in hearts, get into this conversation and take it all the way. And when they do, they came to the same conclusion we've already come to. We've watched Brett Weinstein do it.

Everyone with a mind and a brain that decides to do the investigation we've been on comes to the same conclusion, yet we wait. Will this be the book that finally gets out there and changes enough minds? Will Robert Kennedy Jr. have enough power that we can get the narrative to stop at, you know, CNN and MSNBC and all the lies that are being told? We just, every week come up here, state more and more facts, bringing more and more geniuses to this cause. And you just wonder, what is it going to take? I wonder in 2025 what it's like to be a corporate journalist, knowing all the things you just said,

coming into an interview with a preconceived notion and artificial guardrails that they have to stay in between. It's got to be really interesting. And also watching your viewership or your readership just dwindle, watching your colleagues lose their jobs because no one reads what you write anymore. And just knowing that you're part of a dying paradigm. And this is the next paradigm. right now and it brought people like RFK Jr and really arguably trumped to to power. We've elected them in the spirit of that. And a lot of people in the United States think, well, we're good, you know, let freedom ring and as they should.

But freedom is ringing here, but throughout the rest of the world, it's closing in. It's getting dark. The Digital Service Act in the United Kingdom, I'm sorry, across all of the European Union was kind of the first shot across the bow. And that was basically to hold digital platforms accountable for user safety. Safety from what you ask? Disinformation, harm, these nebulous terms that no one really can define clearly, but there are, there's censorship by any other means. And now in the UK, that's coming to a finer point.

We have this test case. And we saw headlines like this just as just February. So just beginning of this year, hundreds charged with online. speech crimes under Orwellian crackdown. So we're seeing people now in the UK and actual police task forces that are that are tasked with going after people for what they post and the words they post or memes they post online. And people are getting arrested by the week for this in the UK. So when we sit here in the United States and we think, this is fine. Like on to the next thing. No, this is a pause. This is a brief pause. This is a window that we have. This is a gift that the

rest of the world is looking to and saying, we need to help here because our government. governments are not paying attention. It's still COVID. It's still 2021 here. We're being censored. It's going further. Luckily in the U.S., we have our top leaders

that are pushing back against the U.K. And what's going on. Take a look. All right. In Britain and across Europe, free speech, I fear, is in retreat. We're seeing with legislation like the Online Safety Act, the Digital Services Act in the EU,

is something very different. We are seeing a rising tide of censorship in the West. We've seen it in the U. We're seeing it in the UK. I know they don't have a First Amendment. but freedom of expression, right? And if that is eroded, if suddenly these become places where people are targeted because of what they said

or what their opinion is, then one of the pillars of our shared interest is under attack. We're concerned about free expression here in the United Kingdom and in Europe, but we're primarily concerned about the impacts your laws can have on American citizens under the First Amendment. And when the government infringes on that, like we're seeing with the Online Safety Act,

Act, that is a concern. We do have, of course, a special relationship with our friends in the UK and also with some of our European allies, but we also know that there have been infringements on free speech that actually affect not just the British, of course what the British do in their own country is up to them, but also affect American technology companies and by extension American citizens. Our number one priority is Americans. So we don't want to see an American who happens to be living in London or happens to be living

in Europe post something online about American people. politics or any politics and all of a sudden they're facing ramifications over there. What's the importance of free speech today? Well, free speech is very important. I don't know if you're referring to any place in particular, perhaps they are, but we've had free speech for a very, very long time here, so we're very proud about that. I've, you know, I've been watching these videos, I've been watching these statements, the bold statements about freedom of speech, Jady Vance, inside the Oval Office, you know,

calling Kirstarmer out. I've never been more proud, really, of America and more thankful that we avoided, you know, a furthering of the imprisonment that was taking place in this country and the authoritarian regime that believed and was selling this idea we're going to stop misinformation. We've dodged a bullet for a short time here. It's brilliant to watch it. And I just hope it lasts forever. I mean, it is what we represent in America.

great when America stands up and celebrates its fantastic commitment to freedom. And that, of course, was Kier Starrmer in that clip at the end of that clip there, and President Trump was saying, free speech, I don't know if you're talking about anybody in particular, this guy right here. So you see the headlines. U.S. greatly concerned about free speech in Britain, and we're seeing Rubio, we're seeing Jim Jordan, Trump, Vance, they're all kind of making really strong statements here. But also the State Department took to X and it said this statement, this is the actual State Department. All the DSA protects is European leaders from their own people.

That's a digital service act. That's across the European Union. So you're seeing a stronger push, even some social media marketing there from our State Department. So right now we have the Online Safety Act that's in phase two over in the UK. That started in July 25th. And what that does, if you look through that document and you search type the word harm, it shows up 315 times. And so harm is a subjective term. So they're trying to regulate harm and safety, which sounds great.

It's a great PR talking point. But when you get down to it, what are you doing? And it's an overlay of censorship because that's what it's actually doing in this. Why not they're casting to capture harms, you're actually censoring people. And people are complying because why? They have an actual 10% of annual revenue is the penalty. So if you're talking Google or X or meta, that's a lot of more. money if you're not complying. So the government now is in total control of your platform with this

purse strings. But also in the severe cases, executives or managers could be held liable. So this thing has massive teeth in it. And you have people, you have places like the telegraph, their entire op-ed team, their editorial team is now coming out. And, you know, in the background, they were a little shy to really stand up for outright censorship like this. Their whole op-ed team just wrote this, shut down Britain's Ministry of Truth. That's the Telegraph View and the byline. In an open and functioning society, the state does not use its powers to curb free speech on matters of national importance. Then you have other watchdog groups, new online safety laws, Savage by Watchdog Group. They're calling it the silencing of a generation. That's the open rights group. So as soon as this online safety act went

into effect, you had, according to the BBC article here, you had 1,800% increase in the downloads of VPNs. It was a virtual private networks. This is to hide your IP address. VPN's top downloaded charts as age verification law kicks in. And so we're talking about hiding criticism of European leaders from the public. Well, that's exactly what's happening in this censorship drag net, if we were just call it that. So we go to reclaim the net. They posted this article, UK Online Safety Act censorship hits lawmakers political posts, which one. Well, one of them is Zara Sultana. She's a member of parliament, an MP. And it's a pretty milk toast, pretty benign posts here talking about building a new political party. She says,

across the country, millions feel politically homeless to counselors everywhere. Are you really delivering the change Kirstarmer promise? Well, if you look at the bottom of that, just kind of challenging their prime minister a little bit. Look at the bottom. It says, due to local laws, we're temporary restricting access to this content until X estimates your age. So gone, sensor, throttle, shadow band. It's over because X is going to be fined and, you know, they could go after Elon Musk like they have in the past for crimes of harm, I guess you want to say. So the public is standing up against this. There is a petition that went online. It has well over 500,000 signatures at this point, this repealed the Online Safety Act. And again, it's not

just requiring mandatory age checks, ID checks. It's companies have to, adjust their algorithms. It also makes websites and social media companies because they have to do these age checks and these ID checks. It makes these companies become unwilling custodians of really sensitive information. So those become targets for hackers. It's a mess. And you can see already the problem, this is why the U.S. really stepped in hard on this. The internet is global and countries' borders don't really matter anymore when it comes to the internet and access to information. So companies within the United States, the UK is reaching over. over the pond, as they say, and telling the U.S. companies how to behave. Here's Spotify.

Spotify now scans face for age verification. So we're not talking about violence, videos, or pornography. Spotify is words, is music. So here we hear of kids face scanning. I think that's more dangerous having kids face scan into a digital biometric grid than listening to, I don't know, some music with some profanity in it. But we have, Ofcom. Offcom is actually the hammer. So when it comes to the enforcement arm of this online safeties act, offcom is the UK's regulator. And they sent another US company, a digital media platform, some warnings. This was Rumble. We're on there. We're streaming on there and we have all our clips on there. Offcom pressured Rumble and Reddit to enforce these censorship laws,

obviously beyond the borders. And there's emails now that have been released of what Offcom and Rumble I've been talking about. So Rumble said, we're not going to comply to this because our UK audience is not very large and we don't think there is risks involved in what we do. Well, Offcom says we will be monitoring Rumble's position carefully and we'll be in touch should we become aware of anything that contradicts the above position. It says we would strongly encourage Rumble to take steps required by the Act to Protect UK users of Internet Services.

So, you know, it's a veiled threat there. And then also it goes on to say this. This is Offcom's ultimate goal. They admit it in this email. They say, we view a supervisory relationship between Offcom and a service as the most effective way to review and assess compliance with its safety and government. So they're saying, Offcom is saying, we want to supervise. We want to be the supervisor of your company in America. We find that to be the best way for us to help you reduce harm.

So they want full control. So even when we think that we're avoiding it, and I keep saying, you know, watch, you know, we're the only island in the middle of this authoritarian takeover. it is starting to infect and get its fingers into our American businesses. And you have to imagine some businesses might just say, if I'm going to do facial recognition anyway, let's just go ahead and have one platform. Everyone's face is being recognized whether you're in America or abroad. You know, why, you know, separate these two.

And so it is what J.D. Vance and what Donald Trump and these people are saying publicly, Mark Rubio, we believe you are going to infect our right to freedom here in America. And that cannot be acceptable. So, and by the way, think about, you know, post-Donald Trump and Robert Kennedy Jr. And the people that are holding this line right now, where are we at? If we get, you know, if the Democratic Party continues to hold its agenda on this notion that it should be, you know, monitoring speech and ending, you know, misinformation. as it is stated public. Is it going to change on that? I doubt it. Then where are we at?

Then they have the whole world on their side. It's already switched. America just flips the switch. And then I think it's gone forever. Now you have a global agreement. And these are the things that loom on the horizon and why you and I are so outspoken and why the work that we do in courtrooms, I think, is so important. Absolutely. And I want to move in this next story with just bridging what we just presented with the crossroads of big data, censorship and climate change. So if you go to the UK government's website, there's a drought going on in several parts of the UK right now.

They're also experiencing what they're calling water shortfalls. So if you go to this, this is a document from their government. It says how to save water at home. And you can see here, well, you want to avoid watering your lawn, brown grass will grow back, so kill your lawn, that's fine. Use water from your kitchen to water your plants, turn off the tabs. This all makes somewhat sense.

Take shorter showers. But then the bottom one, It really got me thinking. Delete old emails and pictures as data centers require vast amounts of water to cool their systems. So again, we're seeing this narrative. You limit your life for this climate narrative. But data centers, artificial intelligence,

give it all up to them. Give them your energy, give them your water because they need them. Go in there. Amazing. Picture grandparents going in there trying to delete their old pictures and emails and their grandkids

because the data centers need them. How many data centers are in the UK? Well, it's a hub. There's about 477, according to this website right here. Here's a picture of them. So that's what needs the water, not the people, according to this. We're getting into this climate narrative.

And, you know, I just released a documentary High Wire Plus just a month ago, this rush to net zero and what it really costs for us. And so I want to move over to Canada now because there's a major story here. We've been conditioned to headlines like this in the past, unprecedented Canadian wildfires made worse by climate. change scientists find. So people have been watching any, any fires, any droughts, any floods. It's climate change. And of course, you know that's your fault. You're the reason that's happening. And so we think about, well, what are the links they would go? Would they restrict access to people

going into even the woods if there's too many fires? Well, take a look at this. All right. Some strict new wildfire restrictions due to the ongoing hot and dry weather. Extreme fire risk has pushed Nova Scotia leaders to take big steps. A leisurely walk in the woods is no longer allowed in Nova Scotia, and it may not be for the rest of the summer. We're telling Nova Scotians stay out of the woods. Hiking, camping, fishing, and the use of vehicles in the woods are not permitted. According to the province, the penalty for violators will be the same as it is for the burn ban put in last week.

I have a ticket here for, let me see if you can see that. 28,870.50 cents. Much like Nova Scotia, New Brunswick is taking further action on extreme wildfire risks. With Premier Susan Holt announcing Saturday that the province will be closing all crown land to the public. We're here on a Saturday afternoon to ask all New Brunswickers to get out of the woods and to stay out of the woods. As a society, we must do everything possible to protect each other, to protect our communities. to protect our communities, to protect property, and of course to protect lives. The notion that me going for a walk in the woods is going to cause a fire,

I can understand why people think that that's ridiculous. But the reality is it's not that you might cause a fire. It's that if you're out there walking in the woods and you break your leg, we're not going to come and get you because our first responders are focused on an immediate and serious threat to our province. This is, you know, I saw this happening in the news, And it is very, very disturbing. And so I think I've mentioned on the show before,

but when my wife and I, Lee, were in Geneva, Switzerland, and I did the whole report on the WHO Empire being built there. We ended up in a hotel in the hot tub area, and all around us were these beautiful photos of nature, but no windows. There's no windows in this spot. It was like down in the basement. And we both got to just pontificating about,

like the idea that are they going to take nature from us? Does environmentalism get to the point where they're separating human beings so far from nature as a part of their conversation that we will be banned from going to national parks? I have been very, very concerned that this is the future, that we are seeing our last days where you're allowed to go camping, hiking, or fishing in a national park. They're going to say that is precious zone. Nature can't be hurt by human beings. In this case, they're using, fire, but then they backtrack. No, it's not the fire you could break a leg. Well, then let me take a friend that can carry me out. Are we both going to get $28,000 tickets? I mean, you can tell

the whole thing is built on such a pile of baloney. But, you know, Canada, I think we have to keep looking at Canada now as the puppet for the WEF. Anything they want to try is happening right across the border from us. That is what they want for the whole world. You have to recognize this is not an anomaly. It is not going away. They are going to make it so that one day we are dipped down into a vat of jelly like the Matrix. We are vicariously experiencing the Grand Canaan. I just saw because Kim Kardashian is going to take a trip down there sponsored by CNN, and that's the only way you get to see this space.

I'm serious, folks. This is getting really scary, and it's really close to our border. And for those even Canada, I don't know what to say. How are you voting for these people? How are they getting there? Please. This should be career-ender for anyone that takes. takes your woods. One of the most beautiful nations, Canada. People go fly fishing. They fly from here

to go fish and now you can't. What are we talking about? We're all going to live in cities, 15-minute cities, no nature. This one gets me because I'm a nature lover. It really does. And I care about nature. I care about the environment because I got to be in nature. What do they think? Anyone's going to care about the environment if they never get to see it? This is insanity at an all new, new level. And you notice that man in that video who broke the climate lockdown, I just want to call it the beta test. He is a Canadian military war veteran, Jeff Evely, and he's making headlines here, but you think he's worried about breaking his leg when he goes into the forest. I think he can handle himself. Veteran ignites debate by challenging Nova Scotia's

25G. Fine for Woods Walk. So again, there's this aggressive net zero push. The hammer always comes down on the people. And we've traced that back to the club of Rome, Alexander King, book called the First Global Revolution. And in that book, he's talking about they were looking for something to unite people around. And they chose global warming and they chose the people as the enemy. They were the problem, ultimately. And so this is this narrative that it's just, just expanded from there, like an accordion. And so you see in the United States, once again, like with the First Amendment, you see kind of more of a rational conversation here. This is the Department of Energy. And they just put out a review of the impacts of greenhouse gas

emissions on the U.S. climate. And it says attribution of climate change or weather, extreme weather events to human CO2 emissions is challenged by natural climate variability, data limitations, and inherent model deficiencies. Moreover, solar activities contribution in the late 20th centuries warming might be underestimated. Both models and experience suggest that CO2-induced warming might be less damaging economically than commonly believed, and excessive aggressive mitigation policies can prove more detrimental than beneficial, like banning people going into the woods. It says, most extreme weather events in the U.S. do not show long-term trends. Claims of increased frequency or intensity of hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and droughts are not

supported by U.S. historical data. Additionally, forest management practices are often overlooked in assessing changes in wildfire activity, not cleaning up the deadfall, the debris, allowing these places to be tinder boxes. This is forest management that's gone back to the beginning of time. People have known to do that. It's been abandoned by and large. In the U.S. United States and in Canada and other countries as well and then these forest fires break out. So where is this stop? And I want to, this is a conversation I'd like to unpack here and present. Where does this stop? Is it just physical barriers? Because after COVID, physical barriers, people are really on the lookout for that because the lockdowns and the masking and social distancing,

people are not going to put up with don't go in the forest. But what about other barriers? What's science and medicine looking at? Well, you had last week, Dr. James Neu and Schwander on and you guys talked about tick-borne illnesses, Lyme disease, which, you know, it's only been a few decades since these have been discovered and accepted by medicine. They've been conspiracy theories. People didn't even think Lyme disease caused anything for quite some time. Well, in 2016, at a World Science Festival, there was a bioethicist. And remember those terms, bioethicists, because they seem to be leading the charge now and this narrative that's straddling climate change and what we should do about it, medically, this is what he had to say.

People eat too much meat, right? And if they were to cut down on their consumption on meat, then they would, it would actually really help the planet. But people are not willing to give up meat. Yeah, you know, some people will be willing to, but other people, they may be willing to, but they sort of, they have a weakness of will. They say, wow, this steak is just too juicy. I can't do it. I'm one of those, by the way. So, you know, but so here's the thought, right? So it turns out that we know a lot about, so we have the, we have the, intolerance to, so I, for example, I have milk intolerance, and there are some people are intolerant to crayfish. So possibly we can use human engineering to make it the case

that we're intolerant to certain kinds of meat, to certain kinds of bovine proteins. And there's actually analogs of this in light. There's this thing called the Long Star Tick, where if it bites you, you will become allergic to meat. I can sort of describe the mechanism. So that's something that we can do through human engineering. We can kind of address possibly address really big world problems through human engineering. Oh my God, it's like world's worst ideas being put out there, tick delivery systems for, you know, to stop meat consumption. You know, I, how do I get off, Jeffrey?

Where is the, where is the off? I want off this bus of insanity. The people on here are crazy. The only way out is through, Dowell. We just go straight through. keep reporting what we're reporting on, so people wake up. Yeah. So I want to talk about this.

Why are we showing a video from 2016? It's almost 10 years ago. Who cares what some bioethicists who spouten off at the mouth at a festival says? Well, there was a paper that was published last month and talking similarly to what he was talking about, almost like it's a trend in the bioethics community. It's called beneficial blood sucking. And it goes on to say this. Herein, we argue that if eating meat is morally impermissible, then efforts to prevent

the spread of tick-borne AGS, that's alpha-gal syndrome, are also morally impermissible. It is presently feasible to genetically edit the disease-carrying capacity of ticks. If this practice can be applied to ticks carrying AGS, then promoting the proliferation of tick-borne AGS is morally obligatory. You got to do it. You've got to genetically modify these ticks so they bite people and keep them from eating meat. It's our moral obligation. And you look at this paper and you think, what professor is writing this? What is he, who is this?

Well, here's a book he wrote in 2021, and this is an academic level book for college students. Moral enhancement in the public good. The abstract says, currently humans lack the cognitive and moral capacities to prevent the widespread suffering associated with collective risks, like pandemics, climate change, or even asteroids. In moral enhancement in the public good, Parker Crutchfield argues for a controversial and initially counterintuitive claim that everyone should be administered a substance that makes us, better people. Furthermore, he argues that it should be administered without our knowledge. One, okay, so I want to make it, said, this was in 2021. So you think about this. This is a clearly a person that believes that pandemics were caused by climate change and probably lockdowns helped everybody a masking with scientific and social distancing came from rigorous science.

And he probably wrote this book going, this is going to be the next thing. I'm going to write this, we're going to just give people a moral substance and we're going to give it to them without their knowledge and we're going to stop asteroids. this is this guy. Right. Amazing. And terrifying at the same time. It's really eugenics, right? It's another form of eugenics. Whether you kill people off or you alter them as beings so that they act in the way that you want them to. It's amazing people that's in a book. Like, oh, that was my outside voice. That was just your outside voice. You put it in print.

And we have to take these people very seriously because these are almost like preloaded narratives that they didn't at the signal that a lot of a lot of people are not following this anymore. Just like in Canada, they're not getting the signal that shutting down the woods for climate change is not really going to be that popular because we just came out of lockdowns. But they keep going and they keep pushing. So this is why we need to report on this. So for example, here's an example of this. 2020, we had headlines like this, which we were rolling our eyes about.

This is crazy. Gene editing cows could cut greenhouse gas emissions. There are farts and belches studies suggest. Well, it took only five. five years from that study to meet reality. Now the headlines, same article, meet Hilda the calf who is genetically modified to burp and fart less. So this goes on even into the medical piece of this, which is really interesting because you would think when it comes to climate change or reducing, racing towards a net zero world, that actual medical procedures wouldn't really be a big deal.

It kind of be the last thing you want to look at when it comes to, I don't know, cars or the sun. But we have anesthesia. This is stuff that when you go under, you get put this mask on and puts you out so you can do some big surgeries. Because in the past, you just have a bottle of Jack Daniels, and that didn't seem to work too well. So this is medicine actually improving itself. Well, the society that regulates that said, no, I think that actually causes too much global warming. So here is the new headline, a reduced carbon footprint from inhaled anesthesia with new guidance published. What's the guidance?

Here is what you need to do. the lowest possible fresh gas flow should be selected when using inhaled anesthetics. So the fresh gas flow is... Imagine someone in the middle of a surgery going, ow, ow, ow, ow, ow, what's going on? Hey, man, we're fighting global warming. Basically, whatever used to be safe, just back it off a little bit. Almost wake up. Oh, geez.

Outerages. So it's interesting you're finding these conversations, permeating the medical conversation, but they are. So here's another part of this, where it's just, it's kind of a head scratcher. Carbon emissions, this is a study, carbon emissions analysis of aortic valve replacement, the environmental footprint of trans catheter versus surgical procedures. So, you know, in the past, up until now, I guess surgical procedures were measured by successful surgeries, maybe the prolonging of somebody's life so they can spend more time with their family and experience a greater, longer life. Not anymore. This is all now under the fine,

microscope of, are you saving the climate enough? Here is the actual image from inside the study. This is what they measure. They're not measuring successful health outcomes. They're measuring what is the carbon emissions from your aortic valve replacement. And it's not just the replacement. They have three sections preoperative.

So they're measuring the lighting, the testing, linens, the laundry. And then when you go into the operation, lighting is still going to be measured, the medications, the surgical instruments, there's an anesthetic. And then here's the best, post-operative when you get out, they're going to to measure your diet, your nutrition, what they're feeding you, the, I guess the carbon output of that. The lighting again, there it is, the linens and laundry. So you can, you can picture, I don't know where surgery goes after this, but here's the conclusion, just like the cows, just like the anesthesia, conclusions, the carbon footprint of surgical aortic valve replacement is about twice as high as

those from the TAVR and catheter, T.AVR, transcathor aeric valve replacement. These findings should potentially be considered when making population level decisions. Della Swammer, I bring it back in the reporting we've been doing for a while now. This is the AI, artificial intelligence conversation. When artificial intelligence gets hold of this data preloaded with climate change narrative, you can see humanity leaving the room at this point. You can see it. It's not too far away in the near distant future that this could be a reality.

If we don't really put the spotlight on this and talk about this conversation and wake people up to this. I agree. I mean, you think, well, what does this have to do with health? or what does AI have to do with health? Or what does, you know, global warming have to do with health? They're the ones that are tying all of these things together. These are all the tools that are going to be used to oppress your choice, your body sovereignty, the decisions that you thought you were making on your own that are now being made for you.

How many of those decisions are made while you're under anesthesia or not? Or how much is being, I mean, these are things that I just keep asking myself, ticks, you know, being dropped out there that can turn me into a vegetarian. Is there a law that could stop that? What if the government gets behind it? What power do we have? These are the things that, you know, working on ICANN and the high wire, Jeffrey, and having the legal work that we do, that's really made me see the world in a different way. Like, what grounds do we have?

You know, who would be the plaintiff? How do you stop that? How do you stay ahead of it? We don't want to be Europe. You don't want to be undoing censorship that's now but in place. So how do you stop it and nip in the bud? part of it we do by reporting on which you're doing so brilliantly Jeffrey really really great I guess I'm laughing today because it's so the whole thing is just getting so insane you have to

imagine surely everyone's going to wake up here right but the tragedy is that there are people that believe in this stuff and they're moving it forward so great reporting Jeffrey I appreciate it I'll see you next week thank you all right well look you know if you didn't think it was bad enough that you know essentially they're going to turn you into a vegetarian maybe we won't even get that far what if you don't need to eat anything that comes from this earth as we know it did you know that there's a new butter product that never needed any sunshine to be created take a look at this it looks smells and tastes like the butter we're all familiar with but without the farmland fertilizers

or emissions tied to that typical process the company is called saver and you better believe it. Their pioneering tech uses carbon and hydrogen to make the stick of butter you see on this plate. Looks and taste and feels exactly like dairy butter, but with no agriculture whatsoever. It's really just our fat, some water, a little bit of less than is an emulsifier, and some natural flavor in color. Fats are made up of carbon and hydrogen chains. The goal here, replicate those chains without animals or plants. They take carbon dioxide from the air and hydrogen from water, heat them up and oxidize them. The final result? It looks like a wax, like a candle wax at first. But they're fat molecules, like the ones in beef, cheese, or vegetable oils.

It's all done releasing zero greenhouse gases, using no farmland to feed cows. Of the 51 billion tons of greenhouse gases emitted every year, 7% is from the production of fats and oils from animals and plants, and their home lab base in San Jose, California, backed by Bill Gates, who wrote in his blog, quote, the idea of switching to lab-made fats and oils may seem strange at first, but their potential to significantly reduce our carbon footprint is immense. It's a totally non-agricultural method for producing food. The fats that savor makes are made by a thermochemical process. They are the only foods in the world so far that are made entirely without photosynthesis. That's great. I wouldn't have been able to tell you that wasn't both.

The only foods made completely and totally without photosynthesis. I want to make a point here, folks. You've got to listen to or take a look at who we're listening to, who we're believing in. Photosynthesis, the idea, what they're against then, apparently, is the sun. This is a war now on the sun because up until right now, everything we eat is just some way to take that sun energy and, you know, envive it, to take it into your body. Whether you want to be a vegetarian and eat vegetables that are taking into photosynthesis and you're processing that, then you have carnivore diets where people believe actually going through three stomachs of an animal might better refine that energy and get it to you and more delivery. I'm not going to get into that argument, but at the center of that argument is the fact that what we're all living off of is sunshine. But there is a group of people that do not believe in sunshine.

They hate the sun. They started with petroleum products about 50 years ago that you slather all over every pore of your body to block the sun. The sun that gives you the vitamin D that runs your immune system that if you had the vitamin D, you could not die from COVID. That same sun, that same sun, that now that we're slathering ourselves in sunshine, We have higher rates of skin cancer than the world has ever seen. Now let's make sure that we start filling our bodies with products that have zero sunlight in them, zero energy. Folks, can we all come to the same conclusion together? I think the world is being taken over by vampires.

That's what I think Bill Gates is. That's what I think is happening here. I finally figured out he's not an alien, he's a vampire. And he hates the sun, he hates humanity, and he hates life. So let's put death inside of you. Let's go ahead and make a petroleum jelly into butter. I want to say this. Elon Musk, can you please get that missile, that rocket ready to go to Mars, and the first people on it are all the people that want to eat petroleum jelly butter. Everyone that doesn't want anything for the sun that can't go on the Earth, send them to Mars.

Will you please get them to Mars immediately? We've got to have a solution. I think that's it. Go live on a planet where nothing grows anyway. We will send 5 trillion tons of petroleum butter with you and every other fake food you want to eat, and you can live on Mars. The rest of us are going to walk in the woods. We're going to enjoy the nature, and if we die because of it, so be it.

We were natural beings in a natural experience, and I will go ahead and accept that way back when there was dinosaurs, when this place looked like a giant terranium, when it was filled with every plant you could imagine, It was lusher than we've ever seen it, that CO2 is running rampant, much higher than it is now. I want that world. I want to live in the garden world. I want to live in Eden.

I want it back. So get the vampires off this planet. I'm going to work on that this week. I hope you'll help me, and I'll see you next week on the high wire.