The Highwire with Del Bigtree - Episode 439: HARM’S WAY

Episode Date: August 29, 2025

This week on The HighWire, Del addresses the tragic shooting at Annunciation Catholic School. Then, major wins for medical freedom in Texas with Jackie Schlegel, founder of Texans for Medical Freedom, as she unveils a powerful new campaign to protect kids this Halloween. Investigative journalist Jefferey Jaxen exposes U.S. pushback against the UK’s alarming online censorship plans, while breaking down two new studies linking pesticides and EMFs to harm in childhood development. Finally, Dr. Robert Malone—mRNA pioneer and current ACIP voting member—joins Del with explosive revelations from inside the CDC and ACIP, shedding light on mass resignations and what they mean for MAHA and the American public.Guests: Jackie Schlegel, Dr. Robert MaloneBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

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

Good morning, good afternoon, good evening. Wherever you are out there in the world, it's time to step out onto the high wire. Every once in a while, we prepare a show all week, and we're just about ready to go. And then a story seems to overcome all of our thoughts and all of our feelings and demand all of our prayers. And of course, this is a story we're all thinking about right now and wondering, is there ever going to be a time where this stops happening? Down by school shooting in Minneapolis. This is a reported shooting at Annunciation Church.

It's just a heartbreaking day. At least two children, eight and ten years old, are dead. More than a dozen others hurt when the shooter opened fire into a Catholic church. The gunmen then turn the gun on themselves. The FBI says 23-year-old Robin Westman opened fire. through church windows where children and their teachers were praying during Wednesday morning Mass. During the mass, a gunman approached on the outside, on the side of the building and began firing a rifle through the church windows towards the children sitting in the pews at the mess. The FBI is investigating the shooting as an act of domestic terrorism at a hate crime targeting Catholics.

According to court docs at 17 years old, Robert Westman formerly had his legal name changed to Robin because, Doc's state, the minor child identifies as female. His social media pages have been taken down, but this video is believed to be from his page. There's also a four-page handwritten letter to his family and friends. He writes, I am not well, I am not right. I know this is wrong, but I can't seem to stop myself.

Just a horrible situation there and one that is just becoming all too common. And when I think about Highwire's perspective on this, I mean, really one of the things that we keep saying is we need transparency in science. We need transparency in news. And we've got to stop living in a world where there's parts of these conversations you're not allowed to have because there's some special interest group or even some corporate special interest. And in this case, there's many things that are being talked about that should be talked about. Number one, I think the fact that, you know, this isn't the first time we've seen a transgender person, you know, being involved in one of these shootings. And I'm not saying anything about, you know, people being transgender.

You know, I know we're all God's children, but it's what's happening physically there. You know, questions I think we need to ask is, was there any sort of puberty blocking drugs involved? Were the hormones being changed? I mean, we've all seen when our own kids are having, you know, hormonal. emotional moments, it's like, you know, they're a different person. What happens if you start manipulating the science and chemistry of a child's body? There's been such a push to say that's okay that we don't seem to be allowed to ask these questions. Does it affect the psychology of a human being and how does it? And of course, the question we keep asking is about SSRIs.

You know, was there SSRIs involved? Was there any sort of, you know, psychological drugs being taken by this child or, you know, even Ridlin or, you know, I think that this is what is got to happen now. We've got to say, look, put it all on table, all of it, right? People, everyone wants to, like, complain about the guns in our society, but let's go ahead and put on the drugs. Let's put on the parenting. Let's put on the education. Let's talk.

It's time to have a conversation about why are our kids so incredibly depressed and so incredibly violent in these situations. We're the only nation like this. We can't point out a single other country that is having this issue. And it's not that other countries don't have drugs, but what I know for sure is this country is the one that it funds 60% of the pharmaceutical industry gets its funding from here, from us in America, and we're only 4% of the population of the world. How is that not a part of this conversation? And that's something we've been talk about a lot and, you know, it's the third rail and you shouldn't be going near it and how could you blame drugs or want to talk about the psychology of children? Ridiculous, hogwash.

We're putting it all in the table. And I'm glad to see that our Health and Human Services Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr. is doing exactly that. He brought these issues up in an interview on Fox News. Is what that look like. We're still trying to get a lot of answers to a ton of questions. But the one thing is clear, you are dealing with a person who's trans, that was transitioning. Are you going to be examining it all, some of the drugs that are used in order to make that transition happening to see if it plays a role? Because we also know there was a trans shooter in the Tennessee situation. Yeah, we are doing those kind of studies now at NIH. We're launching studies on the potential.

contribution of some of the SSRI drugs and some of the other psychiatric drugs that might be contributing to violence. You know, many of them on there have black box warnings that weren't of suicidal ideation and homicidal ideation. So we can't exclude those as a culprit and those are the kind of studies that we're doing. So I've never seen that medicine, but you're saying that if you get it, some of the side effects could be homicide, suicide? Well, there are black box warnings on some of these psychiatric drugs that warn about in their clinical trials that they saw a suicidal ideation. So, you know, we are going into that with an open mind.

And we're looking, a lot of these studies have not been done in the FAP past because of HIPAA regulations, which protect the privacy of patients. But it's something right now that we are looking at. We need to look at it and we need to explain why all this violence is happening and we need to look at every possibility. It's amazing, isn't it, that, you know, and we've talked about this on the high wire, written right on the warning label of these products is the fact that you could be suicidal or homicidal. I mean, someone that is suicidal oftentimes doesn't care about taking out everyone else around them, which is what much of this manifesto seem to be about from this person.

But either way, our prayers go out to everyone involved in this shooting on all sides. Even the parents of the shooter, I'm sure this is a very dark time, and I'm sure they're questioning, maybe some of the choices that they've made, but we have got to start being allowed to have conversations as a free country where we have free speech. We cannot have opinions that are so strong that we are not allowed to share every opinion that's out there and look at everything. And when you look at the television and you look at the reporting on this, remember that that reporting is being funded by the pharmaceutical industry. Just watch the commercials between those news breaks and ask yourself,

Am I really getting a straight scoop on this when 60% 50% of the advertising for this network is being paid by the very industry that makes the drugs that very well could be one of the instigating factors of these horrific situations. So we're going to keep calling that out. I'm sure there's people probably right now in the comments going crazy, but this is a free country and I think we have to have open, free dialogue. All right, moving on to happier times. Let's talk about things that we're winning on. Let's talk about states that are really rocking it out. Last week, we talked to Amy Bond about the state of California, which is horrific. It's scary, but it does sound like there's a beating heart inside of that sort of dark world of child authoritarianism.

But here in Texas, we have a much brighter state that is really starting to celebrate freedom, and it's doing it because there are, you know, political action groups that are making a massive difference. It's one of the reasons I moved to Texas. In fact, this is one of the reasons specifically why I did. Jackie Schlegel. Jackie Schlegel. Jackie Schlegel from Texas for Medical Freedom. I'm just a mom.

And like you, I'm here to fight like hell for my children. Nobody has the right to mandate that you. take this liability free vaccine. As a medical freedom advocate in a parent, a baby child with special needs, this bill is incredibly important to me. Why do state legislators believe that they somehow know my children better than I do?

We've got to. You will not track me? They marks the first day of the Texas legislative session, a key opportunity to build on the incredible gains we made last session. I want to thank Jackie. Schlegel and everyone at Texans for medical freedom, I was honored to have each of you have beside me as I signed SB 7 into law to protect our fellow Texans for medical mandates.

This is like the actual bill. There it is with the signature on it. You have the governor say, I want you to have this. I have no words. I'm incredibly proud of that. It is time we take our power back. I love you guys. Thank you.

All right. Well, her name's Jackie Schlegel. She's an absolute powerhouse and she's the first person ever talked me into getting a pedicure. I admit it. Jackie, it's really so good to be here. It's good to see you. What is the state of the state here in Texas when it comes to medical freedom? How are we doing? It is almost surreal. I mean, Dale, let's go back 10 years ago when you first came to the state and I asked you, would you join me? Would you join me at this event? We're just trying to get the message out about what medical freedom is. I never could have imagined what would then, you know, unravel over the next 10 years throughout COVID. It's been 10 years now. I mean, find that time has flown by. It really has flown by. But, you know, I've taken this approach. We've talked about this many times of just slowly incremental steps and educating the legislators, right, and getting in there and telling our story.

And it hasn't always been easy. I mean, you came from California where it was a very contentious relationship with the legislature. And I remember one of the very first things you said to me is how different it was here in Texas because we had the ear of our legislators. We had their ear, but we didn't necessarily have their belief in what we did. Had to be very, very careful. Even 10 years ago, talk about what medical freedom really was. It was like, sure, we believe in the parental rights.

We believe fundamentally in your God-given right to make these medical decisions for your children. But you started talking about things like your child being, injured by a vaccine and nobody wanted to have that discussion. Fast forward to 10 years later, I'm standing with the governor yesterday and he looks at me and says, Jackie, the numbers are staggering. And I said, Governor Abbott, they are staggering. But this is why we are here today. This is why I've been working over the last 10 years on this agenda, you know, to make America healthy again, to give parental rights, to give, you know, informed consent. You testified in those hearings. six, eight years ago.

And I looked at him and said, I'm so proud of what we have done. We can't forget the generation who's been harmed. My daughter's 24 years old. Like many of the people watching this show, you know, I don't want to say it's too late, but the damage has been done. And this is why it's so important what you have done, where you are continuing to do to ensure that we reverse course, that we not only stop this epidemic dead in its tracks,

but we make sure every child born today has the chance of a healthy future. But it's been an incredible journey. I'm so proud, but we are not done yet. No, I mean, and that's the thing. Every time we celebrate, I'm afraid people go, oh, we're done. We can, you know, hang it up, hang up our boots and move on. Do you, you know, first of all, I just want to say, you know, I get a lot of people stopping airports.

Thank you for your sacrifice. And I just think I do this because I'm trying to protect my children. I'm trying to protect their bodies and their lives. I really do think the altruistic heart is in the hearts of the vaccine injured parents. I mean, what you just said, you know, it amazes me how many of you built this movement, this medical freedom movement. It doesn't exist without those injured parents. And you could have been raging, you could have been angry.

You know, obviously your day is taken up with a much more difficult. daily routine than I have with my children that are, you know, I don't know what the proper correct term is, but are healthy. Sure. You know. You know, and yet you go out and people like you and you start these groups and you started talking to legislators and developing these relationships and going to capitals and doing something that really scares most people.

And you did it and there was no relief for you. In the end, it doesn't, it's not going to change the experience. of your daughter, but it is going to save many, many people from having to go through what you're going through. And I just find that to be just so incredibly special and powerful, and I want to honor you for that. I appreciate that so much. And look, I looked at her 20 years ago and really my mentality was if I can just help one family, if I can just leave one family to make informed choices for their children so they don't end up here. And I, you know, it's very easy to get it's very easy to get angry. My daughter didn't sleep through the night until she was 17 years old.

I was tired. I was going to the Capitol and I was sleep deprived. But every single day and I wake up and I think about kids like her. I think about our moms out there who haven't slept. They're exhausted. Their kids are having seizures or failure to thrive. They're wonderers or elopers. And it's like, how can I complain? I am for the most part healthy. I'm able-bodied. I'm neurotypical. I can communicate what's on my heart and I can use my words to make an impact. I've got nothing to complain about. And so it was just this, you know what, God, you paved a way for me to go do this work. And as long as you paved that way, I will continue to show up every single day.

You're right, it's not easy. I'm a single parent. You know, I've got my three kids, Ashland, my oldest, will need care the rest of her life. But as I was standing at that bill signing yesterday, what was going through my head, was how grateful. What an honor and a privilege because I know there's moms at home wondering how they're going to get through another day of this. And again, I was able to bring that up to the governor of like, look, this is an incredible financial impact to our state. I think that's one of the big things. Let's talk about where you talked to the governor yesterday. What happened yesterday?

Oh, yesterday was the Maha bill signing, which was fantastic. Fantastic. So we're just coming off of our legislative session in Texas for medical freedom just widely you know just so successful was a hugely successful legislative session I think in total there were 10 different bills we have we have your report card here yeah we do it's pretty amazing look at this folks this is passed by the 2025 legislative priorities we entered this session with a bold agenda and we delivered here's what we accomplished tell me about SB 2769 really quick what was that was 69 vaccine adverse reactions I mean Do you think if you are injured in the state of Texas, your doctors should have to report that? This is one more step to accountability here in the state of Texas.

So it mandates that your doctors have to report. HB 4535. Informed consent. Do you think if you're taking a COVID vaccine, you ought to know the risk and the benefits and how to report an adverse reaction? Look, guys, these are simple common sense bills, but we're bringing it down to the state level. Very specific language in that saying there wasn't enough time. the testing was rushed. So they have to be read this riot act before they're allowed to take that vaccine.

Absolutely stunning for a nonprofit called informed consent. I'm all about informed consent. SB 12. What's this one about? Look, the moment your kids step in public school, your rights don't stop. They don't end there. So it is our belief that you have the right to know what your rights are, health clinics in public schools, your right to out of vaccines.

Which is amazing. So many people call me and say, you know, they're going to force me to get a vaccine. I got to go into school. I was like, what state are you in, you know? And, you know, it'll be like Arkansas. I was like, you don't have a problem. But you're not being told that you can exempt out. I love that.

What's the next one? Let's take a look at the next one. We've got HB 1586. What does that one do? This allows a parent to download the exemption form, making it just a little bit easier here in the state of Texas rather than having to ask the state. Will you send me in this form so I can opt out of my kids vaccines? Sign just immediately go to it, download it. Yep, and then turn it into your kids' school, and that's that.

Amazing. Next. This is such, this is amazing. H.B. 4076, what's that one about? I'm going to tell you, this is, this was like the heart of my legislative session. Over the last few years, traveling across the state, I cannot tell you how many families, not only inside Texas, but across the country and the world, have called me and say, Jackie, my baby needs a liver transplant, and she can't get on the list if she's not up to date with 50s. different vaccines. My husband, you know, needs a kidney and he can't get a transplant. I really thought this bill was going to take me several sessions, but one night I just got this streak in me and decided we're going to file this bill. And I went to a bill author. We drafted it up. We filed the bill.

And it was signed into law. And I literally have used your vaccine status as a reason to knock you they cannot. They cannot. And I have had people from all across the world. I am telling you, the hospital is going to be packed because of that reason alone. to leave states and nations. They are coming to Texas. And we're saving lives. This is so much just bigger than anything I think we ever dreamed of, like literally saving lives. So I'm so proud. Next, we get this, we got a long list to get through. This is fantastic. SB 25. What is this one about? Oh, this is where we'll go through the next story very quickly. There are Maha bills that are all 25, 314. Yep, regarding food in the SNAP program. Okay. Taxpayer dollars ought to be spent wisely to make your kids healthy.

agree not on sugars school lunches things like that they need to be healthy we don't need to be given to what's the school lunches because that's something that I was really working with for a while there with maha what what's yeah what we make some good steps we're taking out some additives and but you know there's a lot more to be done and to your point we can't let up this is the beginning of it this is not the time to sit back stop donating to i can stop do that is not the time you've got to get involved because we have a generation to save so yeah that's one of the things we're going to continue our work on. Okay, is there another one up there? Then we've got other victories we've probably supported. HB. 1151 and 3441 were those about it. Yeah, let's just go

head to the last one and talk about that because this was an incredible bill that basically states if you advertise in the state of Texas, if you hear a radio app for a vaccine in the state of Texas and you go out and you take that vaccine and you are injured, you can sue that manufacturer. So it's triggered by if you're advertising the vaccine. It was a brilliant bill. Then it sort of allows you the right to see. Yep, absolutely. And hopefully get around the 1986 Act.

This goes into effect, September 1. We will see how this plays out. But here's what I can promise you. The manufacturers did not take this bill seriously. They were not there early on in session. When they realized this bill was getting support and picking up, I think they hired 10, 15 different lobbyists to come in and to try to stop this bill. And one of the number one questions the legislators have, where have you been?

Well, it was they didn't take it seriously. These legislators are fed up. Remember, their parents, they have kids, they have grandkids. They want to know that the products they are giving to their families are safe, they're effective. You know, they are done playing these games of like, hey, you can't come mandate these vaccines or shove them down our throats and advertise and do what you did during COVID, which was basically telling you if you didn't get vaccines. You were a threat to your family, your grandmother.

I mean, that was the message. And the legislators, they are fed up with that. They want accountability. And they're saying, you know what? If the federal government isn't going to do this, which thankfully now, they're starting to catch up, but we're going to tackle it on the state level. And so this was an incredible bill that passed. You know, it's fantastic, Jackie.

It's something I've been saying. It's when I first started traveling with VACS. Everywhere I went, I started talking to state capitals, this one, you know, in Oklahoma, Mississippi. So many of these capitals, everyone was just playing defense. They were just fighting SB270, fighting SB 270, trying to like stop like, you know, all of this pressure that was coming at them. You were already starting to move in another direction. But I kept saying you've got to start running bills for us. We've got to put them in a defensive position. And what you just described is how well, you know, you've done here in Texas, but also how this game is changing. You're now in the

offensive position. They're asleep. at the wheel. They're going, wait a minute, what bill? Get 20 lawyers out there. What do you mean? It's too late. I love the fact that you find yourself in that position. That's how it has to be done. It really, I think, represents the state we're in. We have Robert Kennedy Jr. as HHS secretary now. They never saw that coming. You're passing like 10 amazing bills. In fact, I want to know, did you just like, I mean, Philip busted the entire, you know, assembly of Texas, because how did they get anything else done while they were passing all that? So it is funny that you say that because there was one day where the majority of my bills were scheduled.

And it ended up being like this eight-hour debate. And I'm outside the chamber because I make myself available to the members as they need to ask questions or, you know, amendments are coming. They need my help and my expertise. So when they were done for the day, it's like 11 at night. They're finally coming out. They're like, Jackie, we love you. But could you not take the whole day next time? Like, you know, could you have like one or two bills?

And I'm like, absolutely not. We have 10 years to make up for. Like, we're not stopping, and you think 10 was a lot? You just wait until next session when it's 20 bills. And I do think. I think next year you're going to see this across the country. This whole maha, the idea that health is, I mean, I think it's a huge win for all of these representatives. Parents are flocking.

You see this huge shift right now towards, you know, Republicans from Democrats, and I'm not like trying to be partisan. It's just they're much more open to these conversations and working for them, and it's going to work for more and more of them across the country. You have a big fundraiser coming up. I want to support that. Anyone in Texas, but they can fly in from around the country. They can fly in.

They can sponsor, put their name on the event. They only have to be there. Just put your name on the event because it does. This is what funds our efforts to be in that building. And we've talked about this throughout the years. You can't just show up when the bills and committee. You've got to be there the entire year educating members, making yourself available to them. That is what we do.

We've been incredibly, our members, you know, have made this happen. The grassroots have made this happen. You guys have amplified it. You have greatly amplified it. And we are incredibly grateful for what you do to get the message out. And it's a huge part. But yeah, we're having a gala on September 6th. September 6.

In Dallas. In Dallas, Texas. And they can go to Texans for Medical Freedom.org. Texas for Medicalfreedom.org. And I imagine if they go there, they can just donate right there while they're there. Also, all the great work that you're doing is setting precedents for other states around this great nation. But Jackie, you're doing amazing work. I wonder if you could join me on off the record after the show. I actually want to get into a very sensitive topic. You had unrest in inside of

your group. It broke apart. It's something that happens in our movement. And maybe we could just talk about how it happened, what the disagreements were and how you made it through. Yeah. The unrest still continues to this day. But I think anybody who has been in this position, you got to have thick skin. You've got to keep your head in the right place. For me, coming back to my daughter, think about her every single day. If she were able as a 24-year-old to live her life, what would she be doing? I owe it to her to step up and do the right thing for her. So absolutely, that's what keeps me centered and grounded. Well, it's one of the big things we deal with is the infighting. So I think it'd be cool to sort of talk about how that works and look at, you know, you're still successful,

rocking it out. So we're going to talk about that. You know, we are in the offensive. I'm just going to keep saying it. There's a lot of darkness around us and things going on, but you really have to celebrate the change in the climate and just great warriors like Jackie, and there's so many in every state that are out there, you have to find those groups around you and get involved.

Speaking involved though, it's time for getting involved with the news with the Jackson Report. All right, Jeffrey. Well, it's great to talk to Warriors, see the people like Jackie Schlegel are out there. It's definitely one of the reasons I moved to Texas, really strong, you know, strong, support happening in you know medical freedom here in Texas and other states I mean

really is a conversation that we see picking up steam all across the country yeah and freedom is the word whether it's in the United States or throughout the world and as we've brought on this show before the United Kingdom is facing really some dark times and the most basic rights of their citizens are being infringed upon by their government and what do I mean by that well there the online safety act is really looking and monitoring about what they talk about online and the memes they share. But a new kind of precipice was passed because they're actually trying to change the makeup of the actual devices we use in order to break into them. What I'm talking about? Check this out. All right.

Apple is taking the unprecedented step of removing its highest level data security tool. Apple says that it can no longer offer its most advanced security for users in the UK. The government has reportedly asked for the ability to get access to. to people's files through a back door. Apple have apparently said no and instead removed the padlock altogether. They wanted Apple to allow law enforcement special access to the files of suspected criminals like paedophiles stored in the cloud under the highest level of security. Apple refused.

This tool is called advanced data protection. It's an opting service for Apple customers. It applies end-to-end encryption on all their photos and documents if they wanted. So you're not going to get that full end-to-end encryption on your text message backups, on your notes, on your reminders. There's a corner of the Internet now which is less secure and less private, but only for UK users. So everybody else in the world can still take advantage of this. It's amazing. You know, Jeffrey, when I look at this stuff, we see all these stories of people not even being arrested for rape and issue on the streets.

But every time we see one of these, you know, online focuses the UK has, they're dragging people off for saying, like they don't like the protest down the street or they don't like the representative in their area. It's never like child pedophiles, which is how they market this stuff, but it doesn't seem to be who they're looking for. They're looking for people that are disagreeing with the government. Yeah, time and time again, it's people who are speaking against politics, especially certain type of politics. Obviously, we saw this during the COVID response as well. We saw that really ramp up there. But now this access, the anti-encryption, tell Apple to reach to a company. that's not even in the UK and say, you need to change your devices so we can access it.

This is what the Washington Post said about it. I mean, when the Washington Post starts raising the alarm, you know there's problems. And you can read in this article here that the security officials in the UK demanded Apple create the backdoor, allowing them to retrieve all the content. Any Apple user worldwide, it goes on to say they wanted Blake capability to view a fully encrypted material. This has no known precedent in major democracies, they said. And this is one story where we did run with the anonymous sources because why? Well, it says in this article, the law known as the critic's snoopers charter makes it a criminal offense to reveal that the government has even made such a demand. So you're not even supposed to know.

Well, and as you saw from that montage, we just showed, Apple just completely cut and run. They said, you know what? We're not offering any of these services in the UK anymore. You screwed it up, UK. You don't get those. Well, that has changed thanks to intervention by the United States. We see this time and time again now with this new administration. This is the update here.

This is Financial Times. UK has agreed to drop demand for access to Apple user data says U.S. We go to the Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, and she put this on X. Over the past few months, I've been working closely with our partners in the UK, alongside President of the United States and the Vice President to ensure Americans' private data remains private and our constitutional rights and civil liberties are protected. As a result, the UK has agreed to drop its mandate for Apple to provide a backdoor that would have enabled access

to the protected encrypted data of American citizens and encroached on our civil liberties. So you can see anything that has to do with the internet or even devices. It has sweeping implications worldwide when governments push this. We're no longer siloed in our own countries anymore. This is a global issue of speech and privacy.

You know, in a world where we always say there's no difference between Republicans and Democrats, and this isn't, you know, a show about politics necessarily. But I do question where we would be, of Kamala Harris or Joe Biden, who are both running on the fact that they believe in stopping misinformation, they believed in censoring online, you know, information, texting, you know, things you do on your cell phone. I wonder if anything like this would have happened under, you know, a different administration. And I think it also points out, no matter where you are

in this political issue, Donald Trump's only going to be in there so long. You're only going to have these people that really stand for our freedom like this for a certain amount of time. What happens in a world, as we say it over and over again, Jeffrey, where no one else in the world seems to care about your privacy. No one else in the world believes that you should, you know, have any privacy whatsoever, and that you should literally go up to the saying you're encrypted data and the things that you're trying to just have private conversations, whether it's about a health issue or talking about, you know, how did you heal your child? I'd like to know what those ingredients are, things like that, things that we're literally having to hide from public spaces in order to figure out how to do what's right. Imagine during COVID when those of us were trying to figure out where can I find Ivermectin?

How do I get hydroxy chloroquine? In my area, you know, the drugstores I'm going to won't deliver it. This is what social media was supposed to be for. And these authoritarian regimes are trying to take that communication away from us. Thank God right now, the United States of America, is standing for what it believes in, which is our First Amendment rights. Absolutely. And we're moving into a digitized world. That's just the way it is.

And information is free flowing. And the UK government is actually pulling their citizens back into the dark ages of pre-internet life. And it's actually going to hurt them on the global stage. So we have Apple now saying, okay, we're going to turn back on our services in the UK. But we still have the Online Safeties Act in the UK. And this is an op-ed in the Washington Post by Toby Young. He's the founder of the Free Speech Union. Britain's online safety law is running amok.

He says, under the labor government, which is more authoritarian than its conservative predecessors, free speech campaigners have given up on trying to. improve the online safety act and are focusing on stopping it from getting worse. Ironically, our best hope might be the Trump administration. So here's someone for the UK reaching into a United States-based paper and saying basically help, help us. We give up. We can't stop it. We're really trying to make sure it doesn't get worse. We need your help. And companies like Rumble have said, we're turning off our services. Gab, this is the kind of the competitor to Twitter and X. Gab, this is what you get if you're UK

visitor. When you go to Gab, the social media platform, it says, UK visitor detected, access restricted by providers. It says after receiving yet another demand from the UK speech police offcom, GAB has made the decision to block the entire United Kingdom from accessing our website. This latest email from offcom ordered us to disclose information about our users and operations. We know where this leads, compelled censorship and British citizens thrown in jail for hate speech. We refuse to comply with this tiering. Wow, great. This is happening. The United States for now is this beacon. And it's really leading the world.

And we hope this continues because people in the UK need that free speech. They need these platforms to talk about what's happening in their local communities. Yep, exactly. So what I want to move now to is we're going to move to health. We're going to move to Maha related issues, meaning the health of our children, chronic health disease. And I want to show a report. There is an insecticide called Cloprographos, and this is the report. Take a look.

Okay. The Biden administration is reversing a Trump-era policy and will ban a common pesticide from use on farms. The EPA says it will ban the use of chlorpyrifos is a popular pesticide used on food crops. The EPA suggests that there are several studies that would suggest that this product is potentially dangerous for farm workers and for children. Chloroporoporos has been used on numerous fruits and vegetables, but it has been linked to neurological damage in children. It's used on so many foods that we eat, broccoli, cauliflower, soybeans, tree nuts. Fruits and vegetables like corn, soybeans, apples, including alfalfa, cotton, grapes, and walnuts. Clarpiraphos is detectable on conventionally grown produce sold in grocery stores.

Washing fruit helps, but the only guaranteed way to avoid the chemical is to buy organic. So far, the EU, Canada, and several states here in the U.S., like New York and California, have taken steps to restrict its use on food. The EPA saying its latest move is an overdue step to protect public health. Overdue step to protect public health. Well, that was, this chemical basically has been banned in 39 countries, including the European Union. Its fight to ban it started in 2007 here in the United States with a citizen's petition that made it through the courts. The courts ruled the EPA acted. That was in 2021.

And thank God they acted because studies are continuing to come out. Showing this insecticide is damaging children, is harming children. This is just the latest one from New York's Columbia University. You go to their own website, the college's own website, brain or abnormality seen in children exposed prenatally to the pesticide, chlorophoes. And you go, it's in JAMA neurology. So this is in a major publication now. This is a major study.

And you go into this publication and you see just at the beginning, this is what it says about it just the intro of the study. It says CPF, that's this insecticide, enters the bloodstream through ingestion, skin contact, or inhalation and pregnant women across is the placenta to reach the fetal bloodstrand where concentrations are up to fourfold higher than in maternal tissues. Then it crosses the fetal blood brain barrier to enter the brain. Wow. So they did they do this study and they found this builds on that information.

Obviously not a good thing. This is a longitudinal study that has just been released by Columbia University. It followed mothers and their children from 1998 to 2015. And these are these are women in Manhattan, South Bronx, and they looked at maternal blood. So they took the maternal blood of the pre-tural blood. of the pregnant women and they looked for the levels of the chlorophygophos and then they measured the children after they from six years to 14 years old they put them in MRIs to check out their brain development and this is what they found this is what they concluded in the study

prenatal CPF exposure was associated with altered differentiation of neuronal tissue into cortical gray and white matter so just to break that down gray matter processes information white matter facilitates communication in the brain so when you start screwing with the development of that, that's a big problem. It goes on to say increase myelination of the internal capsule. The internal capsule for developing children is vitally important. It carries the major motor and sensory pathways from the brain to the spinal cord. So that development is increasingly important. Why? Well, because of this next line. Because they also found poor motor performance and profoundly impaired neuronal metabolism throughout the brain. Not good. And this is physical data.

This isn't a checklist where parents saying, you know, I think my child has a problem with the motor skills. This is, this is dead to rights. Thank God is banned, right? Yeah. Well, here's 2023. Court overturns EPA ban of toxic pesticide called pyrophos for food crops. And here is the Court of Appeals, U.S. Court of Appeals. And this is in 2023. It says the agency EPA remains free to exercise its discretion as long as it considers all, quote, important aspects of the problem and gives a reason explanation for whatever option it chooses. So it basically allowed back into our food supply or on our food supply. You can actually go to this chart at the EPA, this insecticide to be used

on these food crops, alfalfa, apple, asparagus, tart cherry. You can see this list right here. Only certain states allow this. Some of the states are actually moving to ban this. Oregon actually have banned it completely. California, New York. They ban it. So at the state level, they're moving. at the federal level, they have not. There is a registration for review in 2026, so they're going to look at this again, the EPA is. But right now, the EPA is kind of back to what it's been doing, asleep at the wheel a little bit. And this brings us to the next conversation because in the House Appropriations Bill right now, we have the Congress is in recess.

They're coming back in the beginning of September. We have House Appropriation Bill, specifically Section 453. This looks over all pesticides, all herbicides, all insecticides, and it says. says none of the funds, because this is a funding bill for the government, none of the funds made available by this or any other act may be used to issue or adopt any guidance or any policy or take regulatory action to approve any labeling change. And you can see there for insecticides, fungicides, ronicides, or carcinogenicity classification for a pesticide. We see a lot of, obviously, lawsuits with that with bear. So what does that do? It defunds the ability for government agencies

to make label updates. It freezes these labels. It freezes these warning labels in time. It doesn't update so they can't update safety science. It effectively neutralizes legal action moving forward. So what does this affect? About 57,000 formulations, chemical formulations will be immune from lawsuits. A lot of these chemical companies are foreign chemical companies.

So how can America become? How great can America become if we're prioritizing the bottom lines of these companies and denying American citizens due process and health, essentially. That's where we're up against. So if people feel passionate about this, you can call your congressperson and tell them oppose section 453, or if you really like it, don't do anything because it's already slipped in the bill there. And so we have, in Reuters, you have some of the Maha luminaries, I guess you'd say, activists. They've urged Trump in a private letter or public letter

to oppose limits on this pesticide regulation. And you go into this letter, it says this, perhaps the greatest era of President Reagan's historic presidency was signing into law the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. It's unconscionable that Republicans in the House are now attempting to repeat that mistake by supporting similar broad liability shields for pesticides and forever chemicals. Numerous pesticides that fall under Section 453 are chemicals that are already banned in multiple other developed nations. And that is really the fight that's the big fight that's happening right now.

Over this next month, I'm sure we'll be reporting on this more, but this is where the rubber meets the road. This is a big, big test for this administration when it comes to chronic health. I mean, this bill is essentially a blindfold bill. We are going to force everyone to be blindfolded. We will not evolve from here. The science is not allowed to change. We're not allowed to evolve. We're not allowed to learn any longer. I mean, it's amazing, Jeffrey, that, you know, some of the monocers you and I receive as being anti-science. And all we've been doing with the high wire and all of our work is fighting for science, for transparency in science, for science to continue instead of locking ourselves in the dark ages,

sticking with studies that were never done or assumptions that were made over decades. And then when we start seeing injuries and start seeing problems, they want to create liability protection so you can't sue, so you can't get to the bottom of it, so you can't get in a courtroom, you can't get in front of a jury. And now they want to do again with pesticides and herbicides. It's truly terrifying. And it's shocking that this product's even on the market. These are those moments when you sit here as an American thinking,

I thought we had American exceptionalism. I thought that we were the greatest nation in the world. I thought we took better care of our children, our people, our citizens than anyone else in the world. And then you find we're like in dead last place. And our own government that we are putting into power that we choose is voting against us and for the corporate interests, allowing them to poison us. And then we can't do anything about it. This is just one of so many stories like this.

And you wonder how is it we ever got to this point? And this is not to dismiss the activists that had been working for decades or the current administration, which is doing a lot of good. In fact, in May of this year, we had the Maha report come out. This was a landmark report that we've never heard our government speak like this, looking at the vulnerability of children with respect to pesticides, fluorides, microplastics, and electromagnetic radiation. This is a huge step. They added that in there to say, we need to look at all of this and the cumulative effect of all of these environmental. internal toxins, even if you can't see them, like EMFs. And it says in there, the exposure, the proliferation of cell phones,

Wi-Fi routers, cell phone towers, wearables. I mean, it goes all into this. And this is something that they're going to have to study. They're saying this is a touch point, a hot button topic of science that's understudied that could be affecting children. A lot of studies are pointing to that. We're going to show another one that just came out. But we have the National Toxicology Program.

This is a program from the NIH. It's directed by, it's run by HHS. It's headquartered at NIH, and it put out an update just last year on EMF radiation. It said this, NTP, National Toxicology Program, conducted toxicology studies in rats and mice to help clarify potential health hazards, including cancer risk from exposure of RFR's radio frequency radiation used in 2G and 3G cell phones. I don't know who's walking around with those, but I don't think a lot of people are. 2G and 3G networks were standard when studies were designed and are still used for cell phone

calls and texting. What did they find? In 2G and 3G, it said this. You can go through these bullet points, clear evidence of an association with tumors in the hearts of male rats, some evidence of association with tumors in the brains of male rats, and some evidence of association with tumors in the adrenal glands of male rats. Pretty big deal. So what did they do? It said this. This is their conclusion. What's the future of RFR research as far as the NTP is concerned? The NTEs, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences have no plans for additional RFR exposure research, but the completed studies have established a foundation for others to build upon. So we're just past the buck.

We're to punt this. Not a big deal. Don't worry, we're past 3G. We're past 4G. We're on 5 and 6G now coming out. We start looking at it back into 3G because we're expecting to finally be a build with blindfold us and not allow us to evolve whatsoever learn anything about the technologies as they're advancing. Unreal.

So NTP is saying, like, look, this is the knowledge base. We can build off this. Independent researchers can build off this. And it looks like the Maha government with that in sight is going to build off it as well. Here is a new study for ammunition in that direction. And this is radio frequency, electromagnetic field emissions and neurodevelopmental outcomes in infants. They followed 105 babies from birth to one year.

And what they also did was they measured level of radiation in the house of these children, The houses of these children evaluated their motor skills, communication, problem solving, social skills, and they found this. This was their results looking at this. Everything in the house, we're talking Bluetooth, Wi-Fi routers, everything. They found that the odds of children classified with something called monitor or refer was significantly higher in the high radiation group compared with low radiation group for the fine motor skill, fine motor skills was 2.74 times more. more of a problem and the problem solving domains, problem solving issues were 3.67 more times in the high radiation group. Monitor referring means to identifying the children at risk for

developmental delays and those who require monitoring or referral to services to help them because they're delayed. So you're finding two and three times higher. And so they concluded this. Even after adjusting for low birth weight, we found that higher levels of radiation were associated with poor outcomes for cognitive domains of development such as problem and personal social areas. Thus, there's a need to monitor the neurodevelopment of children in whom the RF EMF radiations are expected to be higher, such as very close to cell phone towers or too many gadgets in the house.

So for people, we've had shows on this before. We have experts on the show, ways to protect your home from EMF. I mean, at the very least, just put a kill switch on the wall, plug your router into it and make sure it shuts off at night so you can at least get a good night's sleep that cuts your Wi-Fi exposure in half. That's the bare minimum. These studies are just coming out. Sadly, we're still in our infancy of this, but it looks like the current administration is going to move this ball forward.

And by the way, when you look at studies like this, you and I have looked at studies, you know, on vaccines, every controversial issue. These are hard studies to get done. These are being fought by the industries themselves. They're always trying to, you know, pull your funding. So when you see a study like this, you kind of have to imagine there should be a thousand of these. This is one of the ones that actually got through. And I think deep down we all know it. I think deep down we all sense something is wrong.

You got that cell phone next to your head. It makes your ear all hot. That can't be good. And then you think about everything. Even our windows, our alarm systems have got Wi-Fi going all over the place. The Bluetooth playing our music, it's just becoming an absolute, you know, traffic jam of EMFs inside of our houses. I think we've got to, you know, think twice now, especially if you have a newborn baby. incredible reporting, Jeffrey.

And, you know, as always, when I think about the mission statement of informed consent action network, the nonprofit that funds this, you know, this educational program, at the heart of it is our mission statement, which is dedicated to eradicating manmade disease. Everything you just pointed out are all man-made problems that are affecting our lives that we could easily do something about if we did not have corporate capture of our government. Obviously, you've got Robert Kennedy Jr. in there. You have the Maha report. But it's almost, you know, when you tell me these stories and you see how hard Robert Kennedy

Jr. is trying to, you know, roll some of this back or get some regulations in there. It reminds me that Dr. Seuss where the guy is mowing the lawn and as he's mowing what looks like miles and miles of lawn, it's just growing behind him. So while Robert Kennedy Jr. is trying to get the Maha report done and do something about it, you've got legislators that are trying to, you know, give liability protection to the very chemicals Bobby's trying to deal with. So, I mean, it's just this is the type of tug of war that's going on and there. I hope that that letter does get read by President Trump and he sees, hey, we are your voting base. Those of us that voted for freedom, we voted to stop, you know,

censorship, you're doing great things there. You said you wanted to end the chronic disease epidemic. Well, one way you cannot do it, President Trump, is by giving liability protection to the very chemical companies that are poisoning us. That should be a no-brainer. All right, Jeff. I really appreciate the reporting. I look forward to seeing you next week. All right. Thanks, down. You know, here on the high wire, we do a work that you don't see anywhere. I mean, everywhere else, you'll see a little bit of a hit on a topic, but you do not see, you know, a group that reports on something and then starts bringing lawsuits or FOIA requests or getting to the bottom of it. This is activist television, folks. We are actively involved in doing

something, in changing the issues that are out there. We've got over 90 legal cases across America that are fighting for you, for the future of you, your children, your grandchildren, and in many cases, I would say, for our species. And, you know, so many of you donors have made this possible. This work is only here. The lawsuits we've won, whether it's winning the religious exemption back from Mississippi or the religious exemption for the university school system in California, and we're working on all the other states, but we need your help,

and we have a great opportunity to both celebrate every. everything that we've achieved on this road to victory, on so many of the victories that we've had. Of course, I'm talking about the high road. We have a road built with bricks with all of your love, with all of your ideas, and with all of your passion, and we're expanding that program so that not only can you help support the work that we're doing, you can lay a foundation that will stand through the test of time. Here's what I'm talking about. A couple of years ago, we asked you to help us build the high road, and you did. Brick by brick, 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 doubled down on our efforts to free the remaining five states from medical mandates, along with other exciting new projects designed to fulfill I can'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 I can, let me introduce you to phase two, 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. We walk this path together, so let's fill the heart of it together. All right, well, I want to tell you this program is going really well.

It's just the last two weeks. There are many bricks. They're basically coming off the shelves. or going like hotcakes. And I want to say, I'm going to be annoyed with you if I get a call or an email like we did the last time and say, wait a minute, can I still get a brick and say, I'm sorry, we filled that whole space up. So if you're sitting there, like, really overthinking what you want to put on that brick, why don't you do what I do? There's no teleprompter here.

All of it is just from the heart. Just get from the heart, throw it on that brick and get it while you still have the opportunity. I know, trust me, it'll be profound. It'll be moving. I will see it. It's going to be a part of our experience here for everybody that has a brick on the walkway. I think they know what we mean. And when you come and visit, it's really cool to just see how powerful that high road is. And then this space, the terrorist, is going to be amazing. And the work that we're being able to do because of those of you that have sponsored it is really huge. And it has tentacles and it has ways of transforming things that we can't imagine and involving other people. Right now, the big fight is in West Virginia. I think they know it. I think they know it. I think that's the way. the pharmaceutical industry, probably George Soros and others, are literally pouring millions of dollars into the lawsuit that we have there trying to beat us. Of course, we already won the injunction just a few weeks ago on July 25th. ICANN's legal team secures preliminary

injunction in West Virginia Board of Education Lawsuit. By the way, that's a really good sign. And if you're not like, I wasn't into law and lawyers and all of that before I started this work, but working with Aaron so much, if you decide to go for, for an injunction. You're basically putting an entire written case forward to the judge and the defendant, you know, is putting forward their case. And the judge is going to make a preliminary decision, basically saying, I think it looks like there's a really good chance that these students are going to win. Therefore, I'm going to give them an injunction right now. It's a little risky because you don't get to have all that time in court. You don't get to have Aaron spend days and days and

days it's truncated, but we feel so strong about this case. Aaron is one, by the way, is one of the best writers. You're ever going to see it. I keep trying to explain this to my son ever that's like, I want to be a lawyer. I was like, you better learn how to write, buddy, because it's a lot of writing, and Aaron's writing is profound. Maybe we can start publishing some of that on our website and getting out there now that I think about it. But this case is huge, and they know it because we already won Mississippi when we drop West Virginia. And I mean when we win this and we're going to win this, that is going to create a tidal wave of pressure on New York, Connecticut, California, and just continue to put this pressure on the other five

that are there. Also, I think the public demand is going to be there. So we're looking to see West Virginia fall, and then we just got some huge help from HHS themselves. Robert Kennedy juniors jumped in. This was HHS civil rights. Today, OCR reminded West Virginia of the laws respecting conscience and religious freedom and help and human services, including laws that require states to recognize their own religious exemptions to compulsory vaccination laws. That's huge. We've never seen our regulatory agencies weigh in on this. Of course, you know, we have a letter office for, oh, this is the letter that they sent office for civil rights. It's amazing. West Virginia is obligated to ensure that its VCP provides.

complies with applicable state laws like EPRA, which requires recognition of religious exemptions from West Virginia's compulsory vaccination law. Fantastic stuff there. Robert Kennedy Jr. himself weighed in. I stand with at West Virginia Governor Patrick Morrissey. Patrick, what a hero this guy is too. Fantastic. His executive order upholds West Virginia's religious freedom and parental rights while keeping

the state in full compliance with federal law. I urge state legislators to support the governor's leadership and protect these fundamental rights at HHSGov. We will enforce conscience protections and defend every family's rights to make informed health decisions. The world is changing, folks. That's your federal government getting involved, supporting state governments and Morrissey there, and of course, our lawsuit. And I don't know if any of this would be happy. You know that the governor was who we were involved. We were suing.

He was the Attorney General prior when we were bringing the lawsuit in West Virginia. That's how we met him. And in the conversation between him and Aaron and our team, he started saying, wait a minute, I think I believe in this thing. And I don't want to be on the other side of you. He ended up writing an Ambicus brief. So you just don't know this work that we're doing how it's going to work. Nobody knew that the Attorney General that we're basically suing in a lawsuit is going to end up being governor

and then passing, you know, his own executive order, bringing back the religious exemption. It's this work. It's that constantly, you know, what I keep saying, if you, you know, that idea of, you know, Jesus said, if you want to move a mountain, you have to have the faith of the grain of a mustard seed. I've been saying, I see that differently. If you want to move a mountain, it starts with just little grains of sand, the size of mustard seeds. Just do the next right thing. And suddenly one day you will look up and that mountain just isn't there. You've moved it.

That's what Highwire has been doing. That's what I can does on a constant basis. We do not lose sleep thinking about how long is. is this going to take? How long is this case going to be? How many millions of dollars are pouring in against us? Who's against us? Everyone that's saying you'll never win. We are winning. We are in the offensive position because we never stop. We are relentless. We are peddled to the medal all the time. And we need your help because we're burning a lot of gas, folks. We're burning a lot of gas. There's all the legal wins. That's not all. That's just a smattering of them. But we've won

against NIH, CDC, FDA, Health and Human Services, which is why I think you're seeing such changes in our government agencies too. So for everyone that wants to become a recurring donor, all you have to do is donate at the top of the page, donate to ICANN, become a recurring donor. That really helps us with our work to. $25 a month for 2025. It makes a huge difference because we know how many new lawsuits we can start or how many we have to avoid. I hate ever telling Aaron to hold back. And I think you should hate that too. So get involved right now. So speaking of all the different ways that you win a battle, there's Trojan horses that you try and get inside of castles. You know, there's attacks from the outside and you're throwing ladders up against it.

And I've said it before. I'm going to talk to Jackie in a little bit on off the record. You know, I don't mind the infighting. I just wish, I mean, all it means is we have a difference of opinion, but can we just focus those opinions on the task at hand? You know, I think it's only aluminum. I think it's the abortive B. cell lines. I think it's, you know, the mercury or it goes on, or it should be legislator, not legal, should be legal, not legislative. Everybody, whatever your strength is, pointed at the

target and go for it. And in this case, we have seen huge changes this year, but not just like Robert Kennedy Jr. at HHS Secretary, but how about the advisory committee on immunization practices? Did you ever think you'd have someone that comes onto our show here at the Highwire that's been on this show, make it onto that panel. And then did you think anyone on that panel might actually talk about what's happening behind the scenes there? Well, it's about to happen. Praise for it.

This is going to be a one-of-a-time moment. Who am I talking about? None other than Dr. Robert Malone. An internationally recognized physician. Scientists, an author, a speaker, a bioethicist, the global clinical research scholar at Harvard Medical School. holds 10 patents, his published works have over 7,000 clinical citations. One of the bravest voices in the medical community speaking out against censorship.

And the inventor of MRNA vaccine technology, Dr. Robert Malone. The apparently very dangerous Dr. Robert Malone. Welcome Dr. Robert Malone. I spent 30 years as a scientist and as a physician developing vaccines, including the core technology that gave rise to these mRNA vaccines. I spent my whole career in vaccines. I literally invented MRI vaccine technology when I was 28. I'm a scientist, I'm committed to this, and I'm committed to medical ethics. Unfortunately, we've politicized the

situation and we didn't need to and we really should have been focusing on the science and now the science is making it clear that these vaccines are no longer making sense. It has been a sharp shock for me to come to terms with with what modern propaganda and media manipulation really means. You cannot underestimate the absolute lack of any morality on the part of these people that are that are promoting these false narratives. There are no boundaries. Robert Kennedy Jr. is taking a lot of heat as you could see for firing the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices

So now Kennedy appointed his own panel. Among them is Dr. Robert Malone. The Secretary's interest is in reinvigorating a panel that is truly grounded in scientific approach, a rigorous data approach, a willingness to question the information that is being put before it. Well, to many, he's a hero, certainly in the medical freedom movement. And he was a surprise to all of us as he brought knowledge of the COVID vaccine in the middle of COVID that nobody had. He had been there at the forefront, was outspoken about it, did things that we just don't see very often in science, which is told the truth, was transparent. And now he finds himself in an incredible position inside of the advisory committee on immunization practice. It is my honor and absolute pleasure to be joined right now by Dr. Robert Malone.

I, Del. Thanks for having me on. It's great to have you. Interesting couple of weeks, hasn't it? It sure has. It really has. And, you know, I've had the privilege to talk to you several times in person since you were nominated to the advisory committee. But this is the first time on the highway we're going to get to talk to you.

And it's under, I think, very unique circumstances. But first of all, congratulations on that honor to be on that committee. if it's an honor. But yeah, as I often say, should it be congratulations or condolences for the opportunity to serve as an unpaid special government employee, we're given, you know, obviously I did this for the money. And because I'm controlled. We get $250 a day honorarium for the six days a year that we're at ACIP.

Of course, that's just a tiny fraction of the time required. And we work for free to take all of the outrageous attacks from Senator Blumenthal and so many others in the corporate media. Yesterday, I think I was called by five or six of the majors asking for comments and opinions about the breaking news that was occurring. Yeah. And I was very glad to be able to redirect all of them to. to the HHS comms specialist, Andrew Nixon, that is fielding all of that at the moment. Well, you know, it's what, you know, what breaking news are you talking about? If we're going to dare to dive in here, I just got that in my ear and I'm afraid to say,

which breaking news you're talking about? I'm talking about the issue associated with the CDC director. Is she gone or not gone? I guess this morning, there was communication from. the president's office that in fact she is no longer with the federal government. Her lawyers had disputed that, but I think it's no longer a topic. It's been clarified by the president. And then the cascade of resignations that occurred within the immunization, let's call it be gentle today, community. Yeah. Within CDC. And I should say that.

that I've been admonished by the overall HHS comms director that I really should not share my opinion about what's going on at the CDC. So I'm glad to talk about what's in the news, but I'm going to be circumspect and do my best to be very gentle about the internal dynamics of what's going on there. Yeah. And let's all keep in mind and be respectful of the fact that the CDC as a community experienced a major trauma a couple of weeks ago when a unhinged young man decided to unload a number of rounds and actually a security professional I think you might have been a formal police person father of some young children passed away after being shot yeah so this has just been a huge tragedy and, you know, it's not unheard of in Atlanta. I'm very glad to no

longer live in that part of the world. Murders are unfortunately quite common in Atlanta and shootings. And this occurred on the CDC campus, which is a highly secured campus. So I don't know quite how that happened, but it did. And it certainly was very traumatic for many of the staff at the CDC. Well, you know, we did. We've been watching the Susan Menares situation. It's been so in flux that I tend to, on the high wire, wait until I see the dust settled to figure out what really is going on so we make sure we get it right.

Other people will race out there and get it, and we're all watching that. But I think what you're seeing, which is interesting, and I don't want to get too far off track because I really want to talk about something that you're bringing up right now. But I do think what I'm seeing is, you know, I talked Robert Kennedy Jr. when he was thinking about that pick. He seemed to like her very much. But as all things, I think it's good to know that you have representatives that are willing to change course to say, I don't think this is working. I don't think we're getting what we want, which must be some part of what's going on here. I do not have an inside scoop. But I do know that I know Bobby's heart, as you do. I know what he's trying to do. I know it's difficult. I know it's hard to know who's your friend and who's your foe. And you and I have had many private conversations about that. You know, are the right people around Bobby? Is he going to be able to do this?

But interestingly enough, it's really kind of what you found yourself in the middle of. Is how do you know what's the truth and what is not? What is, you know, who are your friends? Who is doing good science? Who is not? So before we get launched this conversation, let me go ahead and play the vote that is the part of your substack right now and a lot that you've been talking about. This, of course, is the vote around the RSV monoclonal antibody.

Malone wrote an article, which is why we reached out what the ASIP wasn't shown. Let's take a look at this vote, though, really quick, and then we'll talk about it. I think we're going to proceed to the voting. So the draft vote is ACRP recommends, and there's actually two of them. The first one is ACIP recommends infants ages, age less than eight months. born during or entering their first RSV season, who are not protected by maternal vaccination, receive one dose of glasrovimab. What are we started with Dr. Malone?

Vote yes. Dr. Hi, I vote yes. Dr. Pagano? Yes. Dr. Leve? I vote. No, I just want to clarify that my objection is based on the fact that I don't feel this is ready to ready to be administered to all healthy babies. I think we should take a more precautionary approach to this.

But I respect the discussion and the opinions of my colleagues. I vote no. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Meister? Yes. Dr. Pesworth? I vote no. And I'm article, I vote yes.

So we have five votes for yes and two votes for no. So to begin with, I'm sure you caught some heat, you know, from people that think you're part of this medical freedom movement. And you voted yes for a pharmaceutical product. I want to make a couple things clear. This isn't a vaccine, which I think makes this an interesting conversation. But it is going on to the childhood schedule, which is also unique and something to be talked about. But before I get into anything, what I'd be really curious to understand is, as you sat into that chair, we make a lot of assumptions.

People make assumptions about the perspective I'm coming from. Sometimes I surprise people when I say I'm not trying to eradicate vaccines from the planet. I'm here to make sure you have a choice. I believe in the freedom of choice. If people want to inject vaccine their kids, that's their decision. There are people much more hardlined than me. They think that they're killing children. They shouldn't be allowed.

They want to stop parents. And that's their position. But just, you know, if you could enlighten us on where, do you sit? You've gone through, I think, a big, you know, probably not a huge shift. You've seen, as you've stated for years now, the corruption in science and medicine. You were aware of it, but you're a little bit more of aware of how vaccines and things have been rushed under the market. But as you sat at ASIP, obviously, I would guess you're not going there to vote no against all of pharma. So what, you know, what did you sit down thinking, here's how I'm going to approach this?

So, of course, if you're writing for the New York Times or Atlantic Monthly, I am the devil incarnate, and I will vote against everything, and my goal is to kill children. That is one stereotype that's been actively promoted, but I'm a scientist as well as a physician, and one that is deeply committed to medical ethics. One of the attack lines used against me is that I had put out a tweet historically in which I said that if the accusation is that I'm an anti-vaxxer, I'm proud to take that and consider myself an anti-vaxxer because the definition in Webster's is that if you are against vaccine mandates, then you're defined as an anti-vaxxer. Corporate media kind of misses that nuance that my position is that people should not be subjected to medical mandates. I'm in favor of freedom of choice, which I believe is one of the fundamental positions for the ICANN network. Yes. As I sat down in this particular case, remember a little bit of context, this meeting was convened on extremely short notice. We had literally a couple of days to schedule our air flights. We received the slide

deck the night before the meeting. So we had very little time to process the information provided. And the secretary was adamant that we would have this meeting, just like he's adamant that we'll have the upcoming meeting that I can confirm now is scheduled for, September 18th and 19th. Okay. That one will also be rather controversial because it will address the MRNA vaccine products. The many asserted that we had approved

MRNA vaccines in the prior meeting, that's false. Okay. In the case of, but this, we do have to make a determination by statute on our advice to the director of the CDC, which by the way no longer exists. And so as happened in the prior meeting, our advice will flow up to the secretary. So unless I can't imagine that Congress is going to confirm a new director of CDC in a timely fashion. So really what we will be doing is submitting advisories to the secretary with our upcoming meetings.

So in this case, the controversial topics were the elimination of thimerosol in influenza vaccines, particularly multi-dose files. The gnashing of teeth over that topic heard from corporate media and pharma was amazing, an amazing position that they took that they were objecting to removing mercury from vaccines. But there, they did it. I think frankly that this was a little bit strategic on the part of the secretary and the chair of the committee, Dr. Colworth. The other controversial one was the influenza vaccine schedule and the selection of serotypes to be incorporated into influenza vaccines. And there, once again, this was presented as a fait accompli.

and on very short notice, the committee was not empowered to ask questions about it, and we all pretty much voted to concur with the selection of strains for the upcoming influenza season. However, I noted in that dialogue, by the way, I'm now the chairperson of the influenza subcommittee, influenza vaccine subcommittee. I noted that I was going to insist that we take on issues like original antigenic sin, vaccine efficacy, the problems with multiple boosting, etc. But that vote went in favor of, let's say, the established order. And then the one that was really quite contentious was the one you're highlighting here about the RSV monoclonal antibody.

There is a very similar product already on the market. And by the way, this isn't your father's RSV monoclonal antibody. monoclonal, you know, this RSV monoclonals have been on the market for a very long time from Metamune. This is kind of what created metamune with first generation monoclonal. Second generation monoclonals that are long lasting is what's at hand here. And this is the second version of those to come onto the market. Yeah. They basically modify the antibody so that it has a very long circulating half-life.

So one jab, he used the slang, will protect. potentially or have its effect, let's say, not to make an assessment about whether it's effective or not effective. It will have its pharmaceutical effect or up to six months after administration. And the RSV season is about six months long. So that's the logic there. And what was presented to us was the assessment of the outgoing, no longer present, RSV subcommittee of which Cody Meisner was one of the participants. You saw him participating via Zoom. And so this one generated a very robust discussion, including for myself.

My bias was to either defer the decision or to vote no. Coming into the meeting, I'll just say that frankly. Okay. And I spoke at length about. my concerns you know this is another case of something that the CDC is endorsing basically universal administration to all newborns whose mothers have not been previously vaccinated with the RSV vaccine right now is the RTSV vaccine safe and effective well let's postpone that for a future meeting it absolutely

will be will be taken up by ASIP, and we'll just park that. I'm not supposed to talk about future plans, but that issue of whether the RSV vaccine is truly safe and effective, I think the jury's out on that one, at least in some communities. This is about the monoclonal, as you said. Just very quickly, just for a layperson, what's the difference between a monoclonal antibody and a vaccine?

Are they're both injectable products? Is that correct? True. In the vaccine case in general, what you're doing is administering some form of an antigen, a protein and nucleic acid, something that looks like the virus. Yep. And causing the immune system of the recipient to mount what's called an adaptive immune response. And that gets a little complicated, what is an adaptive immune response. I think we get it. That's enough. So it does that, an adaptive immune response, and a monoclonal antibody does what?

The monoclonal antibody, in a sense, is a substitute for that adaptive immune response. So the monoclonal antibody is something that is known to bind to a key part of the virus and hopefully inactivate it so that it won't ever infect baby. or if it does, it won't be able to spread very well. So one of the parts of your adaptive immune response is your antibodies. And antibodies typically are very complicated. There's a lot of different antibodies that your body produces. It's diversified.

In a monoclonal, by definition, it's only one of what would otherwise be many antibodies in your body. And it's produced at a high level, typically, Typically in cultured cells, so that opens the issue of whether those cultured cells have any component of human embryonic source, etc. Right. We'll part that. But that's what this is, is a product produced in cell culture, in fermentation tanks. It is purified, and it has something like the activity that, you. you might generate it or your baby might generate if they received a vaccine product,

but it's very specific. It's only one type of antibody, and it's been engineered so that it circulates in your body or your baby's body for up to six months. So essentially, instead of making your immune system have to go through the process of fighting a disease, people are mounting a defense and creating antibodies. These are already pre-created antibodies. You're just injecting into your body that are ready to do the job. Is that the simple, what is it? With a vaccine product, typically you use something that provokes a inflammatory response.

Right. And the word for that is an adjuvant. And part of the issue with vaccines in general is that those inflammatory responses can go out, side of what they're intended to. So you can end up having inflammation against neurons or other tissues, autoimmune disease, et cetera. So that bypasses all of that. There's no adjuvant.

It's just the antibody that's administered. But that doesn't mean that we should assume that it's perfectly safe and completely effective. And so then the question, like with all medicines, I like to say, and I was trained, remember, Water is toxic at the wrong dose. Right. Everything has toxicity.

It's a question of dose response of the therapeutic window that describes the range by which something is safe. Yeah. And remember that varies from person to person a little bit. So you have to be well inside of that therapeutic window so that you're producing a proper intended therapeutic response without a toxicity. and in the case of something like a monoclonal antibody that's administered prophylactically to baby Sarah, that monoclonal antibody is going into a child who is currently healthy, hopefully.

Yep. And so it darn well better be really, really safe. Just like a vaccine must be super, super safe. Now, the- And let's just to jump, let me just fast-bow it a little bit. bit just because. So you looked at the data. They presented it very quickly to you and they were able to convince you that though you went in ready to vote, know, that there actually had been decent safety profile established. You felt good about the safety. It didn't have an adjuvant,

didn't have some of the things that might have made a vaccine. Dangerous just seems like a little bit safer approach towards some form of immunity, even though it's only for about six months. your big question that you had while on the panel to Cody Meiser is, but aren't you just delaying this child catching RSV later? It's only going to last six months. And he said, well, at that point, I think he said something like the first 90 days are really the part we're worried about. That's where the child's the most vulnerable. And this is just to protect then and then, you know, let the chips fall where they may. Is that the gist of it? The key to understanding this is that RSV kills little ones, particularly preemines. Yeah. Because their terminal parts of their airway branching are

super small. And if they get an inflammatory response, or back to that problem. Yeah. Because they've been infected with RSV, it can block off those terminal bronchials, the last parts of their airways. And then they can't breathe. They can move air in and out all day long. But if it doesn't get down to the little air sacks, the lvili, you're just whistling Dixie, so to speak. So the little tiny ones, their airways, their terminal airways can get easily closed off by a little bit of swelling, essentially. Yeah. And when they get a little bit older, those airways, those terminal airways get larger,

and it becomes much more difficult to shut them down with an inflammatory response, with a infection response. And so if you can get baby through that first window, then every single child, by the way, eventually gets RSAV. Right. And we get through our lives, we get it multiple times. The question is, can you keep preemies and newborns from dying if they do get infected?

And here's the other nuance here, Del. is that they've identified some high-risk babies with certain types of pre-existing conditions. And for those, it's really straightforward. Oh, yeah, this makes sense. We should give this to them because they have a high risk of developing RSV disease. The problem is that numerically, the bulk of the severe hospitalizations in, by the way, extremely rare deaths are in healthy normal children randomly distributed. And there is no known risk factor that would allow you to say baby Joe is at risk and baby

Sarah is not. And so we know to give it to baby Joe and not to baby Sarah. We don't have such a marker. And that was Cody's teaching that I found finally compelling is that the incidents of significant disease, which is rare. Let's be clear. It's rare in newborns. I looked up the numbers and since we're there, I was going to wait a little bit later. And just in the end, some people know what we're going with this. You're not happy with the vote that you made, but here's the actual numbers. The CDC estimates that every year RSV causes approximately 58,000 to 80,000

hospitalizations and 100 to 300 deaths in children ages up to five years old. So, under five years old, one to 300. There's three million, over three million births every year in the United States of America. So that means we're talking about a death rate of 0.01%, you know, which is... Of which the majority, the vast majority, have identifiable preexisting conditions. Exactly right. So my question to you, because you did vote yes. So let me just beat on you a little here, is there a problem so small that's worth just saying leave pharma out of it? I mean, I just, these are the things that I always find shocking when I don't know someone at ASIP, you know? I agree with you. I agree with you. And the way that we, if this is one of the sore points

about the presentations that historically have been provided by the ACE to the ACIP from a variety sources. Yeah. And in this case, by the way, the presentation was made by a consultant. It was not made by CDC personnel. Okay. By a hired gun who works for one of the big hospital chains. Yep. So in any case, the way that that question you just asked is normally addressed is through number needed to treat and something called quality adjusted life year calculations. Right. So there are accepted structural ways to express what you just said in a formal fashion. And neither of those calculations were provided to the committee.

Really? We were just told that the subcommittee had met. They had processed this and discussed it extensively. This was their logic. And we needed to make a vote based on the present. and the real rub comes in that there's the appearance as in credit or credits do, Marianne DeMossi, who's a PhD, as well as being a journalist, did, and she's not just any PhD.

She's not a PhD in women's studies or literature or anything else. She's a PhD in essentially inflammatory disease, rheumatology. So she knows what she's talking about. together with a colleague, they looked at the data that were not presented to us accurately. And they raised essentially in a formal structured way the same concern that Retzif Levyi expressed, which was that there are trends in the data having to do with both death and seizures, as I recall. that were concerning that the pharmaceutical sponsors had said, they had determined that those deaths were completely unrelated to the product.

There was an imbalance in deaths rare between the treatment group and the control group, the control groups being less than the treatment group. And that trend was consistent in both this product and the other product that's analogous that's on the market. Yeah. But we were told, you know, these are not the drones you're looking for. The pharmaceutical sponsors have already evaluated this, and the subcommittee looked at it, and they determined that those deaths were unrelated.

You know, they were a car accident or whatever. It was just a random chance. But there's some anomalies here. There is a very odd time frame that was selected for the announcement. There's no justification provided for that cutoff time. And so when you see that, it should be a red flag, particularly if you're somebody like Retzif Levy, who lives and reads. You know, we have his statement. Let's go ahead and watch what he said, because it was interesting to watch it in real time, which we were.

But now given the new information, which you are clearly being very transparent about now and writing about, but this is what he had to say during the hearing. hearing. I'm a scientist, but I'm also a father of six kids, six children. And I think it's also important to put yourself in the shoes of a parent. So I'm trying, one of the things that makes me kind of beyond the science, the data, I was asking myself, what if I would be just a young parent for a baby? And I had the amazing opportunity to be in that situation six times. And I know all the information, how would I think about this dilemma? And I think if I had a baby that was born early or had, God forbid, some underlying conditions,

knowing the threat that RSV can pose to a baby like that, I would probably use these products to protect my child from this disease, because it could actually cause deaths to the baby. On the other hand, if I was the father, and luckily I was the father of a healthy child that was born on time, knowing all of this, I would be concerned to use that. And I think that I understand that we're trying to reduce the burden of hospitalizations, and these are all very important metrics. But I think we also need to ask ourselves

what a parent would say given this data. And I think that most parents that have a healthy baby would be concerned to use a new product against the disease that has turned out in the past to be quite tricky against immunization and vaccination. I think they would be concerned. And as a father, I can feel that I would be concerned. I just wanted to share that.

Thank you. It's very interesting because what he's saying as a scientist, I know that he's saying the same thing you are, which is for an at-risk child, if I had an at-risk premature child that I know is in severe risk, it would be worth taking on some of the risk because he's talking about that there are these deaths in the trials that, though they explain them away,

are higher than the controls, they are standing out. And I'll be honest, I don't think we have the numbers. Some of them were pretty shocking. They're pretty shocking. Out of 500, there's like four deaths in one of the arms of this, which is a very high death rate, certainly higher than the 0.01% of the disease that we're trying, that the rate of death and the disease itself.

So here's where we're expecting the advisory community to be looking at exactly that. The death rate of the disease is this, and the death rate inside of the trial and the risk we're taking with this product is this, but you're not being presented with that, right? So, so, and so I think we're finally have someone like you that's giving us, I was in the chair, this is how it's coming to me.

You know, how does it have to be done differently? Who are you hearing from? How should this meeting have been handled? Okay, number one. And as I said, I have to be a little bit circumspect because I'm not to be. not to talk about future plans of the ACIP. Yeah. Obviously, this topic, this specific topic is one that has alarmed many within the committee.

And I'm privy to internal communication. Retsiv has posted things about this on X. I've posted Mary Ann DeMosses and, Dr. Dr. Shiraz's two editorials about this or analyses. And I've expressed my concerns about what, there she is. My concerns about another PhD working in her sweet spot, in her core competency. Yeah.

And I've expressed my dissatisfaction with the fact that we were presented data without character of key parameters such as the choice of the cutoff time for the analysis. We don't know what happened beyond that cutoff time. There may have been other deaths. Right. They have been other seizures. So it has the, let's say, potential appearance of a form of data manipulation that is really rather insidious and does occur.

we saw that type of data manipulation occurring with COVID, where there was a very short time window that was considered by the CDC for analysis of adverse events. And if they occurred beyond that time window, then they were considered to be unrelated to the vaccine. In this case, you're talking about, I don't remember the exact numbers, but they were looking at deaths. They were supposed to be looking somewhere around 521 days, but they cut a lot of numbers off at about 350. And there appears to be a couple of anomalies where I think Dave 440 there was a death that didn't seem to be included. And I think you're still trying to get to the bottom of it. We don't know exactly are these deaths included or not, but there's some anomalies there. I want to get to the one that seems the most egregious to me.

And it's how this siegers data was handled. And it's really how I've watched this autism conversation handled by science. The way they divide these age groups up is always suspicious as hell. but this one is outrageous. Let me lay this out very quickly for people. What they basically said to the ASIP group is they looked at zero to 37 weeks, and they found a 3.5 times increased risk of seizures, but it wasn't statistically significant,

meaning there weren't enough numbers there to really make that complete evaluation. Therefore, we can't use that as science. But then it went on and took another group 38 months, 38 weeks to eight months. And in that group, they had a 4.38 times risk of having seizures. But again, they said it wasn't statistically significant because I'm guessing they didn't have enough actual cases to really say that it was profound. But what these authors that you keep, you know, talking about did is they said, well, let's just combine the two groups. Let's not do some random division after 38 weeks. Let's just look at zero weeks to eight months. And what they found is when

you combine these two groups, now you're statistically significant. Now you have plenty of seizures. And the number is 3.93, literally four, almost four times the rate of seizures. And it's statistically significant. And Robert, I know you have to be more careful than I do. That looks like it's on purpose. You divided a group in half. They did this in the famous movie that I made Vax with the CDC with Dr. William Thompson's data, they cut these groups, they cut kids out so that they could reduce down the problem to be statistically insignificant or not, you know, strong enough or powered enough. That looks like it's on purpose. For what reason in the world are you suddenly cutting a group in half at 37 weeks? Well, and this to your point, we were not

given, maybe they have, let's give them the benefit of the doubt for the sake of argument. Let's imagine that they had the benefit of the doubt. Let's imagine they had a rationale that made sense. Why didn't they share that with us? Right. When they presented the data, why weren't we given an explanation for why that particular cutoff? And you might infer that in some future meeting, that topic will absolutely need to be addressed. this this what as you correctly observe del and and this is my one of my hot buttons right now

is there appears to be a consistent pattern of parsing data into conveniently small groups so that it no longer meets this arbitrary criteria of statistical significance and That there's the appearance that that may be a tactic that is repeatedly employed and used to justify, for instance, the statements that were made in the same meeting concerning the safety and adverse events associated with the MRNA-based products and the adno-based products for COVID, in which it was, asserted with a straight face that the only adverse event that was associated with those products is myocarditis. And yet spoken very quietly was, I think there was 16 or 18 others that were close to statistical significance, but not quite. And when I asked directly about my own symptoms that I had developed with my second dose of Moderna, where I was vaccine injured, the pot syndrome, the hypertension, the atrial fibrillation, the restless leg syndrome, and other things that I

and many others have experienced. What I was told was with a straight face, those are not known adverse events. And this gets to the underlying issue here of what whether these epidemiologic tools are being used in ways to advance the interests of those. Let's imagine there's no revolving door. There's no financial interests here. Let's just imagine that you have a culture that absolutely believes in a shot in every arm that they are saving lives, that They have a mission to save lives, and they save lives by getting a shot in every arm. And that is the primary mission and a little bit of modification here, modification there. Well, if it's in the interest of avoiding vaccine hesitancy, the great bugaboo,

and causing people to question whether or not they should accept these products. And so by avoiding through various methods, conclusions about risk that might cause vaccine hesitancy, they are advancing the saving of lives because all vaccines are safe and effective. That seems to be the core culture, frankly. And that's not science. That's scientism. That's the cult. And I think personally, I'm going out on a limb here and probably exceeding what I've been told not to say, but that's not good science. It's not good medicine.

And if, in fact, that is the culture of a federal agency, it has to be changed because these federal agencies should be fully objective and committed to an open-minded assessment. of risk benefit on behalf of the public. And if they're not doing that, because they have some cultural bias that, let's, again, just trying to be kind, let's imagine they want to save lives just as much as you as I do. And they have come to believe through group think

or mass formation or fill in the blank, whatever psychological phenomena you want to evoke here, that the way for them to best save lives is to get a shot in every arm full stop. Yeah. And that I think is the core issue here that has to be shifted. I think that is the one that Bobby is up against. Yeah. And his recent posts on X once again reemphasize that his commitment, and I speak of his

posts in relationship to the recent decisions at FDA to provide limited authorization for some of these MRI based products to those that have, make them available to those children that have known risk factors that makes it so that these are available by choice in consultation, his words in consultation with their physician, he emphasized that his commitment has always been

to not take vaccines away from people, but to ensure that they have basically freedom of choice, medical freedom and personal sovereignty to elect to accept or reject these products. And that is 100% aligned with where I am. And I suspect it's pretty aligned with where ICAN is. It is where we're at, of course, though. I'm always going to point out as a part of informing people the issues that aren't being shared in meetings like this. We're sort of famous for

that. I've called out many ASIP meetings. I'm going to, because I know they're going to watch this down, Robert, I'll ask you a question a second, if, you know, how much you consider the risk you're taking. And I appreciate your transparency right now. But I know that people in government are going to have to watch this interview now and see if you step, see if you step out of your bounds. So I want to take this opportunity while they're watching to say, I think A-SIP should work a different way. I believe I would like to see two groups that are presenting there. I would like to see the pro group that is obviously pharmaceutical funded, usually, as you said, a lot of times consultants that work for the very industry or some sort

of working group that tends to be a bunch of people that, as you said, really believe in this orthodoxy. I want another working group. I want a working group of scientists and doctors that comb through this information and come and present to you, here's what we think is a problem. When you put these two groups of seizures together, we actually do have statistical significance, and we do see a seizure rate that's at 4%. I want science presenting to the ASIP meeting a different. I want a red team. I believe that at this, we're talking about the lives of our children.

We're talking about a product that is now on the market that very well could be killing more children than is predicting, definitely causing more seizures than is necessary. as far as I'm concerned, and that should have been stopped. And how's it going to be stopped when the only thing you really hear for from is one perspective, which is the farmer perspective. We need a red team. If the scientific method is the heart of all science, ASIP should represent in that room the scientific method is, which is where is the challenging position?

Every court system, every court has a defense and a prosecution, both sides. Both sides are not being presented there. I think ASIP will only work going in the future. if both sides are presented, I think you should have a team that is designed to poke holes in all the science that they're looking at and the reasons that they think you shouldn't vote yes. And then you get to decide, did the prosecution win or the defense win? And that's truly adjudicating for humanity, our species, and our children. What do you think?

Can we make that? Would that be a decent change? So I support the concept. What you don't, not to be in disagreement, but the place where that is supposed to happen, remember that the ACIP is a federal advisory committee. It is paneled by the BACA Act. And there are rules, congressional rules,

authorization rules, about how we have to operate. and you know how hard it is to get Congress to do anything. Yeah. The way the structure is for these FACA committees is that that activity that you just described is supposed to happen at the subcommittee level. Okay. And by statute, unfortunately, those subcommittee meetings are confidential. And so it's up to the subcommittee chair to ensure that you have a best,

balanced assessment. And unfortunately, historically, those subcommittees, they have to be headed up by a full member of the main committee, the ACIP. And historically, those members have been drawn from the professional societies, as have the subcommittee members. And as we see with documented now with the American Academy of Pediatrics, which has as major sponsors, all four of the major vaccine companies. These professional societies are compromised by financial conflicts of interest. This is the justification for why the secretary decided to retire the prior ACIP committee is because the financial COI and organizational COI was rampant. So then it's up to the committee chairs to ensure that they have the full breadth of review.

And frankly, historically, the ACIP and MMWR, their publication, the CDC, I'm sorry, the CDC presentations to the ACIP as well as the MMWR have not been peer reviewed. So what you're describing is that there should be a rigorous, something akin to a peer review system. You're structuring it more like a legal case. But that does not happen, and it has never happened historically. That is one of the things that we, you know, if I, let's say this. I'm just going to give the disclaimer. I'm not representing the ACIP, the CDC, or the US government. My comments here are personal.

They're my personal opinion that this type of information must be, as you say, subjected to much more rigorous third-party assessment and challenge. Just like if I tried to publish a paper in peer-reviewed journal, it would be subjected to rigorous criticism by three to six different people that were frankly a little bit hostile to whatever it was that I was saying, particularly if it's anything different from what they know. So that, in my opinion, is that the core here is that the information that has been flowing down to the main committee has not been rigorously vetted historically. In this particular case, it was quite egregious that not only was the information not well vetted, but we were fed it on about 24 hours notice before we had to vote.

That has to stop. That cannot happen. And if we're presented with questions in the future, in my opinion, we need to, that we don't have rigorously vetted data for. we need to vote no decision and defer it until we have those data. Yeah. And that is right at the core of a number of upcoming issues for the September meeting. You know, I'll just say it. What were the data that Venei Prasad reliance?

upon in making these decisions about authorization for high-risk children. And by the way, how does he define- You talk about the MRNA, you talk about the MRN technology conversation right now? Correct. Yeah, yeah. Correct. Well, look, how does he define high-risk children? We, as a committee, in my opinion, we can't make decisions about recommendations for usage

and standard of care unless we see the data that were the basis for the authorization decisions. And unfortunately, historically, the FDA has held those data considered them to be proprietary and not made them available to the ASIP. So essentially the ASIP has been having to make decisions in a significant vacuum in the absence of the data which the FDA had available. Now, Another point that this particular case study of the RSV product raises is that ASIP has had to, and frankly, FDA has had to rely on the word of the pharmaceutical industry and their employees or their subcontractors. These are the clinicians that are overseeing the clinical trials that, for instance, when a death occurs, that, death is unrelated to the product, if that's their determination. And then this is taken forward

as a accepted fact. I think that we, particularly in these cases, we're only talking about a half a dozen deaths or whatever, we ought to see the clinical records and make our own assessment. I can cite chapter and verse of multiple cases where historically physicians have said that those deaths were unrelated to the drug. And then 10 years down the road, as more data accumulated and those types of deaths, like for instance, depression and suicide with some of the cardiac cholesterol lowering drugs,

they turned out to be related because when you drain cholesterol out of the brain, then you have problems with mental status, suicide, et cetera. And in fact, they were related, Well, and I would even the big one they always say is car accidents. Well, look at the side effect of the product that ends up being syncope, which is passing out. Then I think we have to be looking at car accidents. I mean, you know, yeah.

So we could do, you know, I just want to, first of all, thank you, Robert. I know, you know, my guess my final question to you is this. Because I know you talked about, you know, what attitude you had when you sat in that seat. People should go to your substack. It's one of the most popular substacks in the world right now. now these articles about this issue at ASIP are powerful, but I know you're taking a big risk. What, you know, what did you, did you decide? I mean, do you have to make a decision? I'm willing to lose this job just to call this out? Or does that not enter your mind? I mean, why, you know,

what made you decide? I'm literally going to say, I regret the vote. As, as I pointed out, I'm not financially dependent on retaining this unpaid, um, paid, special government employee position. So that there's a certain amount of freedom in that. Also a certain amount of freedom in the support we get from our substack. Yeah. Which is what pays the bills and buys the hay for the horses. And I don't need this job.

I'm serving my country at the request of the secretary. And I have a height and I've expressed to the ASIP. I'm privileged as you are to have the opportunity to consult with the secretary from time to time. Some people call him up weekly. I find that abusive. I don't master him. I do not do that either. I really feel like I need to.

But I have the privilege of his occasionally consulting and sharing things with me. And I know personally that the secretary and the president have our backs. They are strongly supporting what we're trying to do with this new ASIP committee, despite Senator Cassidy and Senator Blumenthal and the New York Times and the Atlantic Monthly. You know, the good news about our president is he kind of kind of doesn't give a damn. He's been there, done that, and Bobby, too. They have lived with this kind of media attack,

and it doesn't bother them. This stuff just bounces off of Bobby, and he supports us. He wants us to take on these big issues. There's a subcommittee that's been imported to, I'm sorry, impaneled, to specifically look at the entire childhood vaccine, schedule. That's news for you probably. These we have four, you know, three and a half years remaining.

Yeah. Unless the midterms flip and Senator Cassidy and Blumenthal come for my scalp. But even then, it's the secretary that has appointed us. And it's the secretary that will decide when and if we need to leave. And I'm okay with that. If, if Bobby finds that I am no longer useful in this position and he asked me to leave. I will gladly, you know, salute, say thank you for the opportunity. I'll use one of my phone calls at that moment. I'll use one of my phone calls, say, Bobby, what are you doing? Dr. Malone, I want to thank you for taking the time.

I want to thank you for your continued courage. You may not vote all the time the way that I would, but I'll be honest. If I got on that committee, it'd be like, today we're going to hear up. No, no, no, I want to go. I want to gog, gong, no. So I'm probably not the best person to have on the committee. But this has been a spectacular moment. I can't tell you, this is a bucket list moment from the time I first went to an ACIP meeting.

And I said, this is a disaster. This is horrible. Something needs to be done here. But it's hard to understand what was happening on the inside. And to have this conversation to start getting a firsthand look, a driver's eye view of what's happening in their robbery. It's priceless, it's special, it's important, and it really gives me hope. Not that anything's fixed yet, but there are people that are now being moved into a place that are talking about it, that are raising concerns, and just maybe we can make the world a better

place. So, Del, the rumor is that there's another tranche of individuals that will be joining us. Okay. And from what I'm hearing, you may be very pleased with many of those appointments. Okay. We have not a lot of work. I mean, this is a big ship. It is an embedded culture that somehow we have to turn around.

Yeah. And we've been trying to do so playing nice in the sandbox. And with the recent events, it looks like the secretary is ready to not be so concerned about playing nice about playing nice, nice. And just hold on to your chair and have a little bit of patience. We've got three and a half years. And we're taking on one of the biggest industries in the world. And trying to shake this culture up and get it more aligned with the interests of,

particularly the American public, fathers, mothers, and children. And I, I. With the secretary's backing and the president's backing, I'm confident we'll get there, but please give us a little bit of oxygen. Okay. You can't. You know, Rome wasn't built in the day. All right.

Well, I appreciate that. I do see the work going on. I love that you're writing about it. I love your transparency. I do believe Bobby has your back and President Trump. So keep up the good work. We look forward to checking with you. And just know we're always here.

And everyone should know that you go check out your substack. Spectacular. So good luck with everything. Here is the steptack for all that you want to know, www.malone. Dot news. And he's got a book, of course, a fantastic book on SciW. War.

You know, a lot of what, you could follow him on X at R.W. Malone, MD. Just spectacular writing. I know your wife's in there helping a lot. Jill, she's amazing. You guys are a great team, and I'm just really, really happy that you are involved in a part of this process right now. So take care, and I look forward to speak with you again soon. Thank you, Del. Thanks for having me on. All right. Awesome. Well, I'll be honest with you. I keep saying the team, we've got to tighten up the show. I want to make it sure some people want to share it. But then I get into an interview like this.

You can't, I mean, I suppose this is in the weeds for some of you. Like, I don't really care. I'm telling you this is the life of your children is being handled right here. ASIP is where it's all going on and they see someone on the inside that even thinks that are getting right information votes yes and then starts right as subsection. I shouldn't have made that vote and now is speaking out against the data that wasn't shown all this. These are incredible moments. You go to movie theaters to watch stories about things like this that are unfolding right now.

So for those of you that, you know, sort of geek out on this as much as I do, I'm not going to walk away from a bucket list interview like that. That's amazing. This is history in the making. These are amazing times. And it's amazing times to do everything that you can to make the world a better place. And in many cases, a lot of the shows a bit about our children. And there's a whole new initiative that's going to affect our children.

And it's something that affects our children every single Halloween. and I know that seems like it's a little ways off, but you better get on top of it because it's time to stop being tricked by the treat. Take a look at this. Dear neighbors, it's the mom down the street. I've got a confession to make. Every Halloween, my kids race home with bags full of candy.

And every year, I force a smile while secretly plotting to throw it all in the trash. Why? Because the scariest thing on Halloween isn't the ghosts and goblins roaming our neighborhood. It's the candy. The toxic candy you're passing out,

lurking inside their bags. It's not just about the insane amounts of high fructose corn syrup. It's the artificial dyes, chemicals, preservatives, and hydrogenated oils in every piece. And if I let them eat it, they get a tummy ache and turn into hyperactive monsters. So I pry the junk candy from their sweet little hands with promises of the Switch Witch.

And I'm left feeling like the real villain for stealing all their fun. This year, I've had enough. It's a waste of money and our kids' health. It's time for a Halloween candy revolution. I look how long because we get to go trick-or-treating and also the candy, and we throw most of it away, because it's bad for you.

I wish there's candy that my mom approved, and it was good and it had good ingredients in it. I wish candy could make me strong like bat mood. What if there's Halloween candy that was healthy for me? Introducing tricked by the treat, a healthy Halloween treat initiative, bringing delicious, non-toxic treats to our kids this holiday season. The truth is, most people don't even know how toxic Halloween candy has become, which is why this is a two-part initiative.

First, educate neighbors and friends by fliring your neighborhood or posting on community pages, exposing toxic conventional candy and letting them know a candy revolution has begun. The second part is providing a fun, healthier alternative. Our healthy Halloween variety pack is filled with kid-approved candy made with clean ingredients, natural sugars, and believe it or not, options that promote healthy teeth. From rich chocolate to chewy gummies, fruity lollipops, and bubble gum. This isn't a compromise.

It's a Halloween win for everyone. This is so fast. Conventional candy is filled with GMO corn syrup, synthetic stabilizers, and even plastic. But we've partnered with incredible brands that use plant-based coloring, real juice concentrates, and natural sugars that kids love. Purchase your 30-pack of candy now during our limited pre-sale and enter the code I can at checkout to get 10% off every pack. You'll also receive coupons for every brand inside, perfect for a switch-witch swap or be a rock star neighbor and pass them out to Trick-or-Treaters Halloween night. Buy in bulk and get free shipping. It's time to stop this toxic candy spiral.

Join me and the thousands of parents that want the best for our kids and keep the magic of Halloween alive. Order now at tricked by the treat.com. I know for a fact you're one of those parents that every Halloween you have this duality inside of you. I don't want to rob my child of this experience, but they want to go out and get all this crap and then they bring it home

and eventually you've got to let them have some of it and then you're like, why am I allowing them to poison themselves as though that's some sort of gift? Well, this got so intense for a mother that I know that she finally went out and did something about it. I'm talking about none other than the executive producer of the Highwire, Jen Sherry, and she joins me now. Hello, Dole.

Jane, you've been complaining about this for a long time. I have, and it's very funny to be on this side of the camera right now, because I'm usually in the control room right now. Right. But, you know. Is the angle okay? Did we get it okay? I hope so.

I'll just be directing shots from the desk. All right, let it go. All right. So, look. Trick by the treat. Yeah, Trick by the treat is something that is, really dear to my heart. I don't know if you remember this. We were at the doctor's TV show for many years. Yep, we worked together side by side, cubicles. And I was always dressed to the nines on Halloween.

Yeah. See here as Carilla DeVille. Yeah. Like, I would really just go all out. I love. You still do, actually. I do. You rock Halloween out. I love Halloween. And then I started having kids and I have a four, six and nine year old. And that just really made Halloween so much more magical. And really, I just love the kickoff of the holiday season. So as we see, start trick-or-treating, you know, I have my little ones, and I try to feed them normally, like, very clean, you know, just everything that goes into their body is just, it's so important that it's non-toxic, and then Halloween comes around. And it is like, I just start to dread it. And every year, it just gets worse and worse. It's like this billion-dollar industry with this

candy that has gotten more and more toxic over the years. I'm fighting them as we're trick-or-treating. Oh, you can only have one piece. Then we get home. Okay, only three pieces. And then I have to slowly, like, sneak it away. They get upset. They don't really understand what's going on. Two of my kids have like thrown up by eating too much Halloween candy on Halloween. I feel terrible. And I just the madness had to stop. So I, and I'm sure. It's gotten so bad, by the way, that my daughter's school last year gave all the kids the day off the next day after Halloween because there's such a wreck.

They're like, we don't want to deal with your kids. Like that's how much we know this just destroys the psyche and energy of our children. Yes, they are canceling school the day after Halloween for this. And so I was talking to a good mom friend of mine, Camille. and she has this amazing brand that's really popular in our little area, our little medical freedom community called Orion's Crunch, and it's freeze-dried chia seed pudding. And I just was sitting around day,

and I was complaining about Halloween and this whole thing. And I said, what if Orion's Crunch was these bite-sized little pieces that I could pass out, that my kids could get? I mean, that's the type of candy I would love to have. And then we just started building up this idea of, what if we disrupt this billion-dollar industry? And first try to educate people, and then try to offer an alternative.

I mean, and then just a month ago, the U.K. ban Jolly Ranchers, right? Because it literally said there's an ingredient, this mineral oil in there, that is unsafe to eat. Something that like a product that we even ate as kids. Oh, my gosh. And of course, you've got Vonnie Hary. And you've got Robert Kennedy Jr. saying they're going to take the chemical dyes out of all of these things. But they keep saying, by 2027 or like years down the road. So are we going to just poison our kids this Halloween, even though we know what's actually happening?

Totally. M&M is a good one. They have to put a warning label by 2027 in Texas because we have a new rule. We're trying to get rid of all these red number 40 and yellow 5. I'm like, they're banning it in every other country around us, but we are still feeding. You know that kids eat over three cups of sugar on Halloween night from all this toxic candy, but it doesn't just stop there because then they've got five pounds of it because, you know, your kids come back with this pillowcase full and they're eating it like for the whole month. And we always say, oh, it's flu season, right, after that? No, it's just a complete arsenal attack on their immune system. Right. I mean, it's pretty gross. Yeah. So we devise this two-part initiative where, you know, you really want to educate your neighbors.

I think all of my sweet neighbors, they just want to give our kids, you know, candy. It's not, nobody knows how bad it's gotten. So I think I'm going to flyer in my neighborhood, just put flyers on every mailbox and then and then community like Facebook pages and just really let people know that there is a candy revolution happening. There's so many good products out there. We've partnered with 10 products that are, they're all about clean ingredients, non-toxic, kid-approved. We had a very cute little kid tasting committee, and they loved every single one. And I just sat there and watched them eat it.

Normally, I would totally freak out. I gave them a big pile of candy. And I had total solace. I was just like, go to town. Everything. I mean, the amount of toxins, and we hear about it all the time, but it creates inflammation, hyperactivity. There's cancers linked to all these.

There's carcinogenic materials. We just have to stop the madness. So what are the two parts? What do we do? Yeah, you go to Trick by the Treat.com and you get the flyer that you can print out. So then you can just educate. And that's like a really important one. And then the alternative that we're providing is a healthy Halloween variety pack.

And it's got 30 pieces, 10 different brands. And it's really important that you order now during the presale. So some of the smaller candy companies have time to manufacture all the pieces. You don't want to wait until right before Halloween to order because we could be sold out. What I'm gonna do is I'm going to, I promise my kids, they're gonna each get one as like the switch witch. Yeah. You know, so give me all your candy,

and then you get this whole array, and it's gonna come with coupons for all the different products and the ingredients. So the parents are happy, the kids are happy. And then if you're a real baller, a rock star, you can just get this candy and pass it out in your neighborhood and you get free shipping. So you've got 10 companies that have all put in their natural,

you know, whole food, candies, and products. They're in a bag, I can buy that bag, and buy a bunch of bags. and make that what I hand out. Now, on this flyer, does it have a QR code or somewhere where my neighbors can buy this stuff to you? Because I don't want to be the only one taking care of the health of the neighborhood.

You want everyone involved with it. I would love the entire neighborhood to fall online. So yes, there's a QR code. You go to trick by the treat.com, buy your bags. And then the best part is that half of our proceeds are going to two of my favorite nonprofits in the whole world. The first one is moms across America. Love it.

Right, Zen Honeycutt does such a great job, fighting for organic food, all of those great things that she's working on. She's amazing and I love their work. They're just fighting for the health of our kids. And then the other one is, can you guess? I don't know, who? The informed consent, action.

Yay, we could use all the help we can get right now. We've got a lot going on. And all you have to do is type in I can when you go to the checkout and you'll get 10% off. I think what we do is like we're the most important nonprofit, in my opinion. I might be a little biased, but I love this idea of the proceeds going back to two organizations that are so near and dear to me,

I've always been in the control room and I don't know how many times you've said if you feel called do something Yeah, and I just had had enough and I want to make Halloween healthier for our kids and I hope that everybody joins joins us in this because this isn't just about this Halloween. It's about Valentine's Day and Easter and the next Halloween like we are all consciously changing And we need to remember that the kids like we don't want to take the magic away from from these holidays but we should be giving them healthy your treats. I love this trick by the treat. Jan, I don't know how you found the time to do this. I don't either.

You're like one of the busiest humans I know. We're running you ragged over here, not you're producing every single show we put out, whether it's, you know, Jeffrey Jackson investigates, or even off the record, the high wire, all of the special commercials that we're doing, and somehow in there taking care of your three kids every single day, and still you went out and did this.

That's the type of drive I like. That's why I love having you on the team. And I think this is brilliant. Thank you. And I think we all have to work really hard to do it. So there you go. Tricked by the treat.com. You can buy all the healthy canes you want.

You can inspire neighbors to make a difference. This is all about. Great, Jen. Thank you, Doe. Good luck with everything. All right. Have a good rest of the show. Okay, we'll do.

I'll get back in the course. All right. Well, I've talked about it. We have a new initiative, the terrace with these beautiful bricks. But I really have to say that every single day that I walk this, a new brick pops out at me. So let me show you my favorite brick of the week. You know, one of my favorite bricks today is, is this one right here. Vaccine injured lives matter.

XO. Kara, Jack, and Abby. You know, it's just simple messages like that that really remind me why I'm here. I left the doctor's television show because I saw that children being injured by vaccines. And I don't understand why we've had so much difficulty just getting the medical establishment in our government to admit that vaccine is. injury is happening. It's real. It's written in the warning label that arrives with every single vaccine. It's why I named our nonprofit the informed consent action network because everyone deserves to be informed and told vaccines can kill you. Vaccines can injure you on top of whatever

benefits they may have. You must know there's a risk and where there's a risk there absolutely must be choice. That is the bedrock of the work that we do here. It's why I'm psyched to go do the show today. Well, go ahead and make sure you get one of your bricks before we run out of them. The terrorist is only going to be so big. And I look forward to seeing all of you that come out and visit, watch the show, check out a brick. I just want to say, you know, we're going into the Labor Day weekend here. And there's just so much for us all to be thankful for. I know we lay out all the pesticides and herbicides are getting passed and they're trying to, you know, give liability protection, all of these things. But I do.

I do want to point out that that part of the world, that dark side of things, is always going to be here. It's always going to be here. I don't think there's some moment where we just suddenly, everything is perfect and everything is all right. There's an equal and opposite reaction to everything. And right now, the reaction is to us, the winners. We're winning, folks.

There's a lot of light to be had right now. We've got really brilliant people doing the best they can in very difficult circumstances. You got Robert Malone swimming with the sharks over at A-Sip, and you've got Bobby, you know, picking and choosing, hiring and firing, trying to get a team around him that can really make a difference for our children. We can't wait for them. We've got, you know, Aaron Siri is out there fighting for I can. But ultimately, I hope you take this weekend. I hope you hug your kids. You love your kids.

And I want you to really think about what you've achieved. How hard you've worked for those kids. And they're watching you. Your children are watching you right now. They're watching that you care about the future. They're watching you get inspired. They're watching what you donate to. They're watching what you believe in.

They're watching how you're living your life. And they're watching how much fun you have with them this weekend. This is about family. This is about the future of our species, which is here because we love each other. We're loving people. We've got to try and spread love as much as we can. We've got to stand for what's right. and when we win on those fights, we got to celebrate.

So celebrate this weekend. There's so much great things that are happening right now. You are making that possible. Pat yourself on the back. Have an amazing week. And I'll see you next week on the High Wire.