The Highwire with Del Bigtree - Episode 441: A TURNING POINT

Episode Date: September 12, 2025

Today, The HighWire joins the nation in mourning the tragic loss of Charlie Kirk—an immensely popular voice for faith and freedom, an ally to medical freedom, a devoted husband, and a loving father. We bring the latest updates as America searches for answers, including new developments from Utah law enforcement in the hunt for his assassin. Then, Jefferey Jaxen breaks down the groundbreaking MAHA Commission Report, igniting bold initiatives to restore the health of our nation. Finally, fresh off his historic Senate testimony, ICAN lead attorney Aaron Siri, Esq. sits down with Del to unpack the shocking Henry Ford vax vs. unvax study that has captured worldwide attention, and to share what it meant to present the hidden truth about vaccine safety before Senator Ron Johnson and the American people. This horrifying study is the subject of the documentary ‘An Inconvenient Study,’ set for release in October, 2025.Guest: Aaron Siri, Esq.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

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

Yeah. Let's do this. Action. Good morning, good afternoon, good evening. Wherever you are out there in the world, it's time, first of all, to step out onto the high wire. This episode really should have been about an incredible week in Washington, D.C., both the dropping of a study inside of the Ron Johnson hearings that I think may change this conversation about the safety of vaccines forever.

Almost that exact same time, a Maha report that is looking at how to make children healthier and an executive order that could really change everything as we know it in television and advertising. But of course all of that right now is being overshadowed by this incredible tragedy yesterday and the assassination of Charlie Kirk. So to start there, I was honored to know Charlie Kirk. I consider him a friend, so this hits very close to home. Charlie was instrumental in giving a voice to the medical freedom movement that I'd been working at for so many years. The first day that I remember meeting him was actually the moment where Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Donald Trump came together. That incredible, incredible event. Backstage, I got to meet Charlie.

None of us really knew the spectacle he was about to make out of that moment. I never saw fireworks in any other of his events that I went to after that. But he knew how important this connection was. He was critical in not only bringing these two gentlemen together, but knowing how to help all of us voice this team and bring, these two together under the idea of healing the divide, which was the core value of the Kennedy campaign that I was honored to be the directive communications on. And so then Charlie put Robert Kennedy Jr. front and foremost at many of these events I got to speak at the turning point events and bring this message of medical freedom and uniting everyone for change to bring that together and reach millions of people we never would have of reach before. Just really a spectacular individual who smiled and had joyed what he had done.

I went and got to walk through his operations. Incredible what Turning Point has done. This thing that he built starting at the age of 18 and bringing people together into dialogue. This is just a short clip of the podcast I did with him just shortly after having the opportunity to meet him. Let's take a look at this. Hey, everybody. Really excited for our guest this hour. He loves Liberty. He's been a fighter and a effective organizer for Liberty.

And he loves this country and God bless him. Del, welcome to the program. Charlie, first of all, it's just an honor to be here. I've been watching you for years. You have inspired millions of people. and getting to work with you as we are right now, you're just doing God's work at this moment. We're probably not going to agree on everything,

but we know that we can communicate, we can talk, we can get out in public, we can talk to an audience, we can get on news shows, we can speak our time, and have debates. The fact that we can even have a disagreement is something we agree on. We want to be able to have disagreement. There is no disagreement allowed on the American left. I think disagreements are fun and exciting and strengthen my argument

and hopefully challenge yours, and we find out if there's a disagreement. there's any commonality and it makes us have to defend our position and then through that maybe we can get closer to the best public policy decision. That is what a free society is all about. There's something really profound happening right now and it is a realignment that will last a generation. Thank you, Del. Turning Point put out this statement about his passing. It is with a heavy heart that we confirm that Charles James Kirk has been murdered by a gunshot that took place during Turning Point USA is the American Comeback Tour,

campus event at Utah Valley University on September 10th, 2025. May he be received into the merciful arms of our loving Savior who suffered and died for Charlie. We ask that everyone keep his family and loved ones in your prayers. We ask that you please respect their privacy and dignity at this time.

You know, we're all going through different stages of emotions right now, and I think that it's important to have grace for wherever we're at. But I do want to share this message that we can drop into rage and anger. And I see some of it. And I see posting people that are celebrating his passing. And I don't know why we give any voice to that. I don't know why we expand that message at all.

I know in some ways it's to try and create anger and frustration. But I want to be clear, I don't believe that that's what Charlie Kirk represented. This was not a guy that would storm capitals with crowds. He didn't run in front of marches and riots. No one ever threw bricks, through windows on behalf of a message that Charlie Kirk was sharing. Instead, this was a loving, you know, religious, beautiful family man that instead of creating drama and creating rage, He opened up a platform. He would walk into universities, sit down with students, you know, open it up for everyone to speak,

didn't censor his critics, but in fact gave them a microphone, put them on microphones and said, I want, I'm going to give you your 15 minutes. I want to hear your perspective. Let's have a debate. Let's see if you can prove me wrong. He literally is the epitome of free speech. In fact, you know, I do consider him one of those great leaders of this nation, of our time. because he stood for our First Amendment rights, black, white, yellow, red, race, creed, religion, it didn't matter.

He believed you had a voice, and he stood up for that voice at a critical time when we almost lost it, an election that was critical. He went to universities and told university students, you have a voice here. You're not voting. You're not a part of the system. You should get involved. Created public discourse saying, be a... a part of the society. Don't allow yourself to be disenfranchised. Don't stand out there as a victim. Come in. Let's have a conversation. Let's sit down together. And he did it smiling. I never saw him lose it. I didn't see him yell at people. Even when they would try to pick a fight on a microphone or drag him out. He smiled. He was gracious. He said, okay, can we all just calm down here?

Let me just give you my perspective. So if we're to represent, remember Charlie Kirk at this time, I think that it's important that we represent him and stand with him and carry what he wanted in this world was a world where we could communicate, where we could have differences without rage and without anger. And so for those of us that are feeling that rage and anger, it's natural. But I don't believe it was, you know, Charlie Kirk's message, was one of peace, one of communication. And I hope that that is the legacy that we all stand in and carry on from this moment forward. We could point out those that are not handling the situation correctly. But what I think Charlie Kirk would do would be to reach across the aisle, to reach out to your loved ones. And instead of having an argument about this, find a place of agreement, find a place of discussion you can have.

Find a place of love because love is the only thing that's going to transcend these dark moments that we live in right now. And this clearly is one of those moments. And so Charlie, I just want to say, I love you, my brother. I know you're in a great place. And I also know that Charlie would be happy about a few things. One, that he was the only victim in that shooting. For people like him, your greatest concern even goes beyond your own life, but to those around you, he never wanted anyone hurt. And I know the thing that probably pains him the most is his family and the sacrifice that they're now going to make without having him in their lives.

So our prayers, God, to Erica and the children, you have made the greatest sacrifice of all. Thank you for allowing Charlie Kirk to be that brilliant light that shined on this earth. Okay, so to what did happen this week, we had an incredible hearing with Senator Ron Johnson. There are millions of children's lives that have been destroyed by the lack of science. and we've been demanding scientific transparency for nearly a decade. We have brought lawsuits against government agencies. We have this show the high wire.

Everything we do is to bring justice, clarity, reality, and make a change, make a change, so that if there are products that are ruining children's lives, killing children, killing adults, that we can get to the bottom of it, say, can we put all of our religious ideologies aside and just take a look at this fresh, There's a study I talked about last week and that really was handled was the center point of this Ron Johnson hearing on Tuesday.

And we got to present on it. We got to have a debate. Aaron Siri represented Toby Rogers, PhD, and then Dr. Scott handled the imposing perspective. But at that hearing, something I never imagined, I would say, as a filmmaker, our trailer premiered at that hearing. And this is what that looked like just a couple of days ago. In preparation of this hearing, I became aware of the fact that a full-length documentary is being prepared, basically talking about how this study was proposed, how was conducted. And I asked the producers of that. It's produced by the informed consent action network. Mr. Sirius represents that organization.

And I asked ICAN to put together a five-minute video representative of what they're going to be discussing as they tell the story of this this withheld study. So can we run that video now? Children struggling every day with ADHD. Scott's allergies made it hard to keep up with his friends. Allergic reactions from accidental food exposure. Moderate to severe x-ma. Plaxoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, food allergies. The health of American children is in crisis.

More than 40% of American children now have at least one chronic health condition. Automene disease, like rheumatoid arthritis, human alibitis, lupus, Crohn's disease, all this is IBS. Just a few decades ago, one in 10,000 children had autism. Today it's one in 31. ADD, ADHD, speech, a light language, like ticks, her ed syndrome, narcolepsy, sleep disorders. There's no way in the world these kind of rapid increases in the incidence of disease could be genetic. Genetic change takes generation centuries to play out. What the heck is happening? What is happening?

Chronic disease has gone from 12.8% in our children in the 1980s to over 54% of our kids now. That's the greatest decline in human health that's ever been recorded. And people will say, how do you know it's not the pesticides sprayed all over our crops or the hormones in our beef or plastics or forever chemicals? But when we're talking about an autoimmune disease, Christy which is what's happening in America, shouldn't we look closest at the one product that's designed to alter our immune system for life? And we don't just inject it one time or two times or 10 times or 15 times or 20 times or 50 times. Seventy two times we are altering the immune

system of our children with our vaccine program. There'd be one easy study to rule it out compare vaccinated children to completely unvaccinated children. But we don't know because they've never done the study. The CDC's responsibility to do those studies, and they've been ordered again and again and again to do them, and they have refused. This is information that vaccine safety advocates want, and I'm not sure why it hasn't been done.

What we would need is a scientist that the CDC could trust. They would have to be a passionately pro-vaccine, highly accredited group of scientists, willing to do a super robust retrospective, vaccinated versus unvaccinated comparative study. As fate would have it, Del met the head of infectious disease at Henry Ford Health System, Marcus Servos. Dr. Zervos is the perfect epidemiologist for the study.

He's incredibly pro-vaccine, and he's also used to being in high-profile cases because he was at the center of the Flint, Michigan water investigation. Dr. Zervis only agreed to do this study to prove us wrong. Della and I thought that was an excellent opportunity. We only had one request. Whatever the outcome, you publish it. He said, whatever the results, they get published. Would he stick to that promise if the results show that unvaccinated kids are healthier?

Did it know? Impact of childhood vaccination on short and long-term chronic health outcomes in children, a birth cohort study. I've never seen this study before. 18,468 subjects. Henry Ford, like other institutions, has a bias towards the goodness of vaccines. If the results came back demonstrating that the battery of vaccines was associated with chronic diseases, such a result would be particularly convincing.

This could be essentially one of the most valuable studies in the field. The vaccinated subjects were over four times more likely to have an asthma diagnosis. 600% more acute and chronic ear infections. 4.47 times the amount of speech disorders in the vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated. 5.5 times risk. 616% increase. Learning issues, developmental delays, speech delays, language delays. Amongst the unvaccinated group, there were zero. There was zero brain dysfunction, zero diabetes,

zero behavioral problems, zero learning disabilities, zero intellectual disabilities, zero ticks, and zero other psychological disabilities. None. It's a big difference. It's very important to this study sees a light of day. This is devastating. This paper should have been rushed to publication on an emergency basis. We are systematically making kids sick and not just a little bit sick.

Very sick. This may be the most important study that has ever been done and it needs to be published. He knows if he puts his name on this, his career is over. I mean, I'm obviously, like, really emotional. Zerva was probably going to lose this job over this. This is an inconvenient study for the entire vaccine agenda. Well, for the hundreds of thousands of people that tuned in into hearing and saw that not just that trailer, but also a fairly robust debate about this, you can watch that debate at the highwire.com.

We still have that posted. A lot of people are saying it was one of the most interesting, perhaps fiery, debates we've seen in a Senate hearing. It definitely sparks flu, let's just put it that way. And I'm going to get into that later with Aaron Siri, who is at the center of that debate and that discussion. But Senator Johnson made something clear, and I'm going to talk more and more. As we get closer and closer to the Premier, there's a lot to how this study came about. There's a lot to things that we aren't sharing yet that we know about this study, then we know about Dr. Marcus Servos and Ford Medical Center. But Senator Johnson, really,

said something that was important and it was true Blumenthal said why did you wait for five years he eventually when he could speak Senator Johnson said I forced them to put this study I forced them to you know be a part of this that's true we didn't know how to get the study published they have been afraid of publishing the study since the moment the numbers came through this was meant to be a rebuke of the anti-vaccions this study was done by pro-vaccine scientists in a pro-vaccine establishment And this study does the exact opposite of what they set out to do. In fact, I think it may be one of the most damning rebukes of the vaccine program that has ever seen the light of day.

But Senator Johnson did get to see the study, and he said, I can't sit on this. I can't let this be here. I guess he has legally can put it on the Senate website, which we're, I think he's in the process of doing right now, which is going to make this study public for the entire world. So all of this has been happening in real time. We're putting together the documentary to tell all of the details of the story that are going to unfold over the next few weeks. We did get a response, though, from that hearing. And Henry Ford Medical Center, this is what they had to say.

This report was not published because it did not meet the rigorous scientific standards we demand as a premier medical research institution. Data has consistently shown. Vaccineings are a safe and effective way to protect. against potentially life-altering diseases. And they said, hello, you may attribute, I just want to make sure that we see the full legal release. Hello, you may attribute the following statement to Henry Ford Health or a Henry Ford Health spokesperson.

So I guess what they're saying is though our head of infectious disease, who has run some of our most important studies from the Flint, Michigan water crisis that he was in the center of and stood up against the health department on that, He even ran the Ford study, was involved in the hydroxychloroquine study, but also, you know, looking at several different things that they've cared about. He also was the Moderna head of the Moderna trials. He is so pro-vaccine that somehow when he went out and did this study with all of his best top scientists, now what they want to say is this didn't meet the rigors of science that were used to. It was just done by literally our most talented scientist who had one agenda to prove anti-vaxers wrong.

We know why this isn't getting published. It's why we're making a documentary about it and why I think this is so important that the world see it now. So much more. So much is going to be enfolded. We're going to keep giving you little pieces. There'll be a breaking story next week on the show with more details. And I'm going to talk to Aaron about this debate that went on. But first, it's time for the Jackson.

report. Hey, Jeffrey. You know, we've all been on an emotional roller coasters last couple days. But, you know, there's a lot to celebrate in a human being, in a brilliant man like Charlie Kirk. May we all come anywhere near have a fraction of an effect on the world that he's had. Right. What an incredible man, human being. And, you know, I have a huge segment prepared here we'll get into but I don't know how we move on and just jump into that without going into some more details here and you know as you laid out at the top of the show husband father he basically wanted to talk to people that disagreed with them and leveraged this beautiful right we have here in this country of the First

Amendment the freedom of speech and he gave his life for that dream and those convictions and in the wake of his death a mirror has been held up to this country to examine our political divide and really to have a gut check for the morals of where we're at as a country right now. And so we're kind of, you know, this is breaking. This is breaking as we're talking right now, just this investigation. And we're kind of in a fog of war with the information. A lot of people don't know what's true, what's not. And I think it's important to avoid some speculation here.

There's a lot of information floating around. And we'll just stick with the facts as we know them as we're talking right now. So the Utah law enforcement did give a press conference hours before we went to air today. So I want to share just some key moments of that. So take a look. Okay. Through all that work last night, we were able to make a few breakthroughs. We were able to track the movements of the shooter.

Starting at 11.52 a.m., the subject arrived on campus shortly away from campus. We have tracked his movements onto the campus through the state. stairwells up to the roof, across the roof, to a shooting location. After the shooting, we were able to track his movements as he moved to the other side of the building, jumped off of the building, and fled off of the campus and into a neighborhood. Our investigators have worked through those neighborhoods, contacting anybody they can with doorbell cameras, witnesses, and have thoroughly worked through those communities. trying to identify any leads. We do have good video footage of this individual. We are not going

to release that at this time. We're working through some technologies and some ways to identify this individual. If we are unsuccessful, we will reach out to you as the media and we will push that publicly to help us identify them. But we are confident in our abilities right now and we would like to move forward in a manner that keeps everyone safe and moves this process appropriately. This morning, I can tell you that we have recovered what we believe is the weapon that was used in yesterday's shooting. It is a high-powered bolt-action rifle. That rifle was recovered in a wooded area where the shooter had fled. The FBI laboratory will be analyzing this weapon.

Investigators have also collected footwear impression, a palm print, and forearm imprints for analysis. Take a look at your screen. These are two of the photos that the FBI Salt Lake City just released, they say, are asking for the public's help identifying this person of interest in connection with the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University. Now earlier, we were also hearing additional information. Messages were found written on the gun and ammunition used in the assassination of Charlie Kirk. I want to make it crystal clear right now to whoever did this, we will find you. We will try you. And we will hold you accountable to the furthest extent of the law. And I just want to remind people that we still have the death penalty here in the state of Utah.

So this is being categorized as a political assassination. And you can see there that they did release the photos, not the videos, as. the investigator said there, so we do have the photos that were released. And there's a $100,000 reward by the FBI for any information that leads to the apprehension of this individual. And as you can hear from that clip, they have extensive video footage of the individual moving into location. I would assume also getting off the shots and then fleeing on foot.

And then they also have an image. This was this morning, they released an image of the rifle. You can see it's a bolt action rifle. of a substantial scope on that rifle. So making that shot, obviously this isn't, this isn't something that's a basic situation. This is someone that looks like they knew what they were doing with that type of equipment. So this is what we know right now. I guess there is a manhunt clearly, and hopefully they'll apprehend this person. Law enforcement is saying they have technologies that they're using. So these are technologies we probably don't know much about as the public

forensic technologies, perhaps DNA, drone footage, maybe even satellite footage. So we're kind of all, as a country, holding our breath to get this individual apprehended. President Trump did come out, and he did say that he will award the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Charlie Kirk. Well, that's well deserved. Yeah. So, you know, again, it's hard to transition here, but at the beginning of the week, there was some massive positive news, and this was the headline that came out of there.

We have the Maha Commission. Remember, this was Trump's executive order that he put out and he wanted to end the chronic health disease in children in America. Kennedy was tasked to do that. The Maha Commission was put forth and set up. This is the second report they've released, and now this Maha Commission report has a 28, 128 recommendations to do this. And what's really positive about this is now they're getting into some. some things that touch our audience, which are the vaccines, the SSRIs, antidepressants, fluoride. I want to go into this report now and look at that. But first, from that presser, the MAHA Commission had a roundtable, and they had the heads of every health agency who

are part of this MAHA commission. And they all were talking about how much, how many strides they've made to this, to this point already. But a question came up. This was from the press, and oftentimes the press catches people off guard to get the most candid moments. And Kennedy had this to say about vaccine injury. Take a listen. One of the things we've learned in our investigation is that about 80% of the people who contact the vaccine adverse event reporting system, they've made it so difficult to report a vaccine injury that they give up before reporting it. The doctors are discouraged from reporting it.

They're not compensated. It takes them about 30 minutes on average to report an injury. And they also have disincentives from reporting it. We're changing the system. None of the people who reported injuries are ever followed up with. We're going to start following up and find out what kind of genetic vulnerabilities, what kind of other vulnerabilities they have. We are recasting the entire program so that vaccine injuries will be reported.

They will be studied. And many individuals who suffer them will not be denied or marginalized or vilified or gaslighted. They will be welcome. And we will learn everything that we can about them so that we can improve the safety of these products. So that's new information there, Dell. 80% give up trying to report an injury. They give up and the injuries when they are reported, they're not followed up on. I mean, 80% of these small fraction of people that even know there's a VAERS system, it blows my mind how many doctors I run into, even pediatricians, they never even heard of VAERS. And so, you know,

when you think about those people that go out of their way, they know the system exists, and 80% of just give up trying and you see numbers like we saw from COVID 38 over 38,000 I think reported deaths at this time from the COVID vaccine and of course they'll scream and yell oh those that's not that those numbers aren't vetted which is true anytime those numbers have ever been vetted by a professional body the studies show that they're underreporting to the tune of they may be capturing less than 1% as several studies have said or as high as 10% but The only thing that we know about those numbers is, if anything, they're lower than the reality, at least has been in every study ever done.

So, I mean, that's where we're at. And I just want to just really, because it should be weak, celebrating an HHS secretary that is finally doing what should have been done for decades. From the moment we had a vaccine program, this should have been the approach. We're going to take your injuries seriously. We're going to listen to your report. We're going to call you back, ask you more details, your genetics, get to the bottom of this. Not gaslight you, shut you down, make sure that you have to pay for all of your own damages, that you end up being broke and catastrophically, you know, have to handle the rest of your life,

lose your house and everything while no one listens to you and none of us get to the bottom of what's going on. Are the genetic susceptibilities? What's happening? How big are those susceptibilities? Is there a way to test for it? All of the things a modern society should have been doing before. we were modern. So thank God for Robert Kennedy Jr. I mean, he just continues to really put his foot on the gas now. It's been a very exciting few weeks. Right. And it's many reasons it's why

this show was started because of the critical mass of people that have been left, excuse me, without representation with vaccine injury. So we go into this report here. I want to just take a couple segments of it because, again, there's 128 recommendations. A lot of them are already in the works. We've been hearing about them, cleaning up the ultra-processed food, taking out the dyes and the toxins out of the food. But for our audience, we go into this part right here. It says this. Vaccine injury. There's a whole segment of this and is right at the beginning. HHS in collaboration with NIH will investigate vaccine injuries with improved data collection and analysis. So they're going to finally improve on VERS, including through a new vaccine injury

research program at NIH clinical center and may expand to centers around the country. Then it goes into vaccine framework. It says the White House Domestic Policy Council on HHS will develop a framework focused on ensuring America has the best childhood. vaccine schedule, addressing vaccine injuries, and modernizing American vaccine with transparent gold standard science. Now, Della, you and I both know when gold standard science starts to really get their hands into vaccine safety, I think we know what direction this is going to go. And I think, I think at best, informed consent for everybody and the right to choose what goes in their bodies is the best way forward here. And let's go back into this report. Now, we talk

about fluoride a lot. EPA has fluoride sitting on their desk to do an assessment on to get this out of the water. EPA will review new scientific information on the potential health risks of fluoride and drinking water to inform centers for disease control and prevention recommendations. So that is now on the docket. They must do this. HHS will inform a mental health will form a mental health diagnosis and prescription working group to evaluate prescription patterns for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. Those are SSRIs, antipsychotics, mood stabilizer, stimulants, and other relevant drugs for children. And then it also goes on to say HHS will also evaluate therapeutic harms and benefits of current diagnostic thresholds over

prescription trends and evidence-based solutions that can be scaled up to improve mental health. So this is massive because they're looking at a lot of these prime movers that are just devastating the health of children and young adults here. We have the vaccines. We have the SSRIs fluoride looking at the food. This is this is kind of the magnum opus here of Mahan. This is their move forward, 128 recommendations, movements. They can be checked off now.

This is being worked on. And the second Kennedy was done with that press conference. He moved to the White House. He went over to the White House with President Trump to sign an executive order. He was grabbed by Fox News directly after that signature of that executive order. And this is what you had to say. Okay. The president just signed an executive order that's an historic change.

in the way that pharmaceutical advertising is done on television. And the order basically reinstates, or gives us now the opportunity to reinstate the 1997 rules. Prior to 1997, pharmaceutical advertisers were required to put all the side effects on their ads. Many of them didn't advertise because it lengthened because of what it did to the length of the advertising.

And that, the removal of that, requirement in 1997 FDA changed the rule to allow them to report the side effects on a website or on a telephone and they know they only had to report a few of them on television and that triggered a proliferation of these ads we have there's only two countries in the world that allowed to direct to consumer advertising by pharmaceutical companies on television or one of those countries New Zealand is the other it's had a disastrous impact fact on human health, on people's relationships with their doctors, and really on the entire

Gestalt where Americans are led to believe that there's a pill for every ill, and that you don't have to exercise, you don't have to pay attention to your diet, whatever goes wrong with you, you can fix with a drug. So how much does this change the dynamic? For pharmaceutical companies that have been advertising on all kinds of channels and even online, they're going to have to do a lot more specifically? They're going to have to report all their side effects. In some cases, that might create an advertisement that's four minutes long.

Back prior to 1997, advertising in magazines had page after page after side effects reported. And so we don't know exactly what it will do, what it will do, but we know it's going to be better for the health of America. So drug companies spent almost $11 billion in 2024 on direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising. And these are going to hit the bottom lines of Big Pharma, but it's also going to hit the media advertising companies that rely on this money, the corporate media, for their funding. So you're going to see, like Kennedy, Secretary Kennedy said there, he doesn't know exactly what it's going to do, but you can imagine it's going to make it a lot more difficult for news

agencies to operate that have been breaking in this money. and there's a lot of people that say, why not ban them altogether? But this seems like a middle move that makes the most sense. Well, I want to jump in there because I have had the privilege to being in several conversations with the people that were involved in making this decision. I wasn't there recently. But, of course, working on the campaign and then as we were coming closer and closer to the election, one of the things that I learned as we all started sitting down and discussing this,

As we've talked about, Bobby has said on stages for years, and as have I, get rid of direct-to-consumer advertising, and we can clean up this problem. The sort of mantra that hypnotizes America is being driven by mainstream news and even cable news that are all taking massive funding from the pharmaceutical industry. Between 50 and 70 percent of your advertising is coming from pharma, which means, as we've said it, so. many times, Jeffrey, that news anchor you think you trust can't do a story against a drug or vaccine even if they wanted to. And forget it if you're a reporter and you're way down the food chain, no one is allowed to cover these stories, which is why we created the high wires, which is why we're all alone when we first started on this.

I mean, even bloggers and vloggers wouldn't do it because YouTube, you know, would cut the feed. but we've been wanting to get rid of direct-to-consumer advertising because if you could get that, as you said, $11 billion out of the hands of these networks and say you're going to have to raise money the old-fashioned way, you're going to have to have an audience that cares about what you're doing and go back to selling diapers and things like that. That will create, I believe, and I want to say this as a reporter,

as I came from CBS. I worked on the daytime talks for the doctors. There are other Dell Big Trees in there. There are other Jeffrey Jackson's that are reporters that care about these issues. We'd love to get into a dynamic investigation, but they can't because of this pharma funding that has got a white-knuckled grip. It literally is controlling a television set. And I want to also make it clear because this is the center point of the work that we do.

Everyone needs to know that television, though you see it as entertainment, it is simply seen as a billboard. That's what it is. when you work in television, as I did at CBS, that is a billboard and your job, whether it's a sitcom, a drama, a cop, you know, show, or the doctor's television show, or the news. It is only there to hold eyeballs on it so that when it shifts over those commercials and that billboard starts doing what it's designed to do, that those eyeballs stay there. And so they will do whatever it takes to keep your eyeballs on that billboard. That's what it's when you walk, when you look at that thing in your house, know that it's

is designed to brainwash you. It is designed to sell things to you. And if you think you're strong enough to overcome it, you're not. But back to this decision. You know, a lot of people will say, well, why don't you just cut direct to consumer marketing? What I want to say about those conversations is we got deep into them into the legalities. Number one, if you're just going to say to the pharmaceutical industry, you're not allowed to advertise at all. You know, pamper's can. You know, diapers can and football can and, you know, Budweiser can. But you can't. It really, is a violation of the First Amendment right of that industry, which Donald Trump would never want to be a part of.

One of the center points of his entire candidacy right now is around First Amendment rights. It's what we're all talking about in these tragic events around Charlie Kirk. So how could we be hypocrites and then say, well, we're going to break your freedom of speech, the First Amendment right, for the pharmaceutical industry to advertise like everyone else? No, instead, this one.

was the compromise. And by the way, when you really look at it, nobody believed that this would win in the Supreme Court. If you took away the First Amendment rights, by the time Farmer, who can easily afford all the lawyers needed to run that case, it's hard to imagine that you would win this First Amendment argument if you took their rights away. But I will say that by simply say, no, you're going to just deliver informed consent. You're going to have to put every known side effect to that product into that commercial. Really, I think it's going to be a poison pill for a lot of ads. And frankly, I don't think any of us want to sit through a five-minute rash commercial. I mean, just look at this is what you would, this is the dependent list of adverse events of special

interests on one of them. I mean, just imagine you have to read all of those out loud in a commercial. I'm not even to attempt it, but I mean, but a voiceover actor, how long is it taking to say deletion syndrome two, hydroxygluteric aciduria, nucleotidase, increased, acoustic neuritis, acquire. I mean, you get the idea. There'll be a lot of money in voiceovers, I'm sure, but no one's going to sit through that. So really, this may be, I mean, it is one of the center points of the request that we've had for President Trump. I think this is right up there with remove liability protection. Get rid of the strangle hold the media has over the conversation that they're being funded to push now I mean what's left on the table it's the 86 act it's can we get rid of liability protection and sue the

manufacturer so now you don't own the television and now and you we get rid of mandates and your ability to you know to force this product on us and then we take away liability Jeffrey this is one this is one of three things that absolutely are would allow us to say I think mission accomplished so a huge huge strike across the plate this week by Robert Kennedy Jr. and President Trump. And thank you President Trump for making this move. It was bold, it's brave, and it's huge. And this is at a time when corporate media organizations are experiencing historic layoffs. You're seeing newsroom shutter. You're seeing large groups of editors being laid off. A lot of people are moving into independent

media. Independent media, this new paradigm is essentially extinct in corporate media. So this is the last thing they need right now. I really expect to see some changes immediately from this within the next month or two. We're going to see, you know, they may not say because of the pharmaceutical ad that Trump just signed that this was the reason, but you're going to see, I think, some more mysterious layoffs or some more cancellation of shows. And so the FDA said they're going to act swift about this. They're actually sending out, they've sent out 100 plus cease and desist letters to farmer companies. This is the crackdown. They've launched on deceptive drug advertising. So this is the letter they've been sending out. You can see there in bold, you are hereby directed to remove any

non-compliant advertising and bring all promotional communication into compliance. So that's how this works. The handoff, we have a compliant FDA that's going to push this, which is what's needed. That's where the rubber meets the road. Now, the other part of this conversation, the autism conversation, now it's been said that Kennedy is going to release a report. He mentioned it during conversations with Trump during the roundtable meetings saying that in September, which is this month, he'll have a report, the beginning of an investigation on the causes of autism. We see the Wall Street Journal, they jumped a gun with this, and I want to talk about, we'll talk about media literacy here and how to look at this. So RFK Jr., HHS, to link autism to Tylenol use in pregnancy

and folate deficiencies. So you go into this article and it talks about Tylenol. It says this upcoming report is expected to suggest other potential causes of autism and suggest, their study people familiar with the matter said so there's no names it's anonymous sources and it's interesting here because i don't know how the genesis of this article started but if there's if this was a plan to leak some of the information by h s or the the circle around kennedy then good on them but if there are leaks within this organization wall street journal appears to be jumping onto this because by putting this out and saying you know what it's just hylinole that's all people are are going to remember because when they see the first headlines anything under that is going to be

well no no it was just Tylenol that's what was reported so they're getting ahead of this and by saying it's just Tylenol it upsets both camps mainstream doctors will say Tylenol is the safest drug we've ever had this guy is really dangerous and our or our group the people that have been fighting for transparency and justice around this conversation or trying to find out what the epidemic of autism was caused by they're going to say Tylenol how dare he do this so it upsets both camps. But I digress on that because after this report comes out, it's interesting because no one says anything about anything else. It's Tylenol, it's maybe folic acid, but you have, again, Scott Gottlieb comes out, Pfizer Board of Directors, and he makes the media tour once again,

this is the second time he's done this. Here's the headline, RFK Jr. May link VAC's aluminum adjuvant and autism, former FDA chief says. So he's very concerned about this aluminum adjuvant. He's very concerned about it disrupting the vaccine industry. Very interesting how he keeps coming out of the wordwork, even though no one's talking about aluminum at this point. He seems to have a really, really big focus on this one ingredient in the vaccine. No doubt. He still has friends inside of the agency where Robert Kennedy Jr. is trying to get everybody focused and to do real transparent work in science. I'm sure if he's stating it, I would take his word for it. There must be serious conversations going on. As we know in the work that we do, aluminum is going to be one of the

major topics. And to the same point that came up in the debates at the hearing of the Ron Johnson, you can look at vaccines and see no, you know, placebo-based trials. By the way, same thing for aluminum. You can't find a study on the safety of aluminum. Why? Because actually, ironically, it would be unethical to inject just aluminum into somebody and then have a group where you're injecting saline to see, does the aluminum have an effect? It's illegal to do that because they, they know aluminum has no beneficial effect. It's not a vitamin. You are not deficient in aluminum.

So it's only going to cause harm, which is why it's illegal for them to ever have tested it, but no problem to make it a core ingredient. And he's saying in almost every vaccine so much so that it is, quote, if you take out aluminum, you'll destroy the whole vaccine program. That's a problem, Scott, since you've never, ever done a safety test on aluminum. So here we are, right? were in this circle that kept coming up during the hearings. You know, we did it. Do the trial

and establish safety, can't do it now because it'd be unethical. Yes. And so let's talk about, so they're feeding us Tylenol. Let's talk about Tylenol. And so the Wall Street Journal puts out the headline that is just Tylenol, and that makes a certain group of people unhappy. This is just one example of a lot of the posts I saw after this headline came out. This was Dr. Nisha Patel. This was on X, a doctor. She says this. There is no proven link between Tylenol use and pregnancy and autism. Tylenol is one of the very few safe medications available for pain and discomfort during pregnancy, and now it's being demonized without evidence. This isn't public health. It's reckless fear-mongering. Okay, well, since we're talking about

Tylenol, and since this is now the topic, let's talk about this evidence that she's talking about. Apparently, there's no evidence of harm. Well, this is Mount Sinai, a very respected institution. They have come out just last month with a meta-analysis looking at over 50 studies on acetaminifibin. says the evaluation of the evidence on acetaminophen use in the neurodevelopmental disorders. And it says this, their conclusion, our analysis, using the navigation guide, thus support evidence consistent with an association between acetaminophen, exposure during pregnancy, and increased incidence of neurodevelopmental disorders. Appropriate and immediate steps should be taken to advise pregnant women to limit

acetaminin consumption to protect their offspring's neurodevelopment. That doesn't sound like safe and effective to me. That sounds like this is something we've been giving to mothers and children. for a very long time that should have been looked at a very long time ago. But let's keep going. I just want to jump in just to interrupt. Let's take autism out of the equation. Her statement's moronic because Tylenol is known to be, at least when I was running on

the doctor, I did a show on this, the number one cause of liver failure in children in America's Tylenol. The overprescription of Tylenol, people don't realize they gave them a Tylenol. I gave them some sleeping medication. Didn't know that at Tylenol too. And also that dose that they give you is like just under lethal, that maximum dose. is more than maximum, it's dangerous. So I just want to put out there safe. No, everyone knows that has a brain. Tilelo happens to be one of the most dangerous products for children,

causes more deaths than almost any other prescription drug. I think it does cause more death than any prescription drug that children take. So I don't know what she, what planet she lives on. But go ahead. These are the honest questions that we have as a discussion as the public when we are facing now this new Maha Commission. We're going to be looking at things and having uncomfortable conversations as a country. This is what it's going to look like. Let's go into the studies even further. The role of oxidative stress, inflammation, and acetaminopin exposure from birth to early childhood in the induction of autism. And it says here, the wide range of factors associated with the induction of autism is invariably linked with either inflammation or oxidative stress

or sometimes both. Thus, one explanation for the increased prevalence of autism is that increased exposure to acetaminopin exacerbated by inflammation and oxidative stress is neurotoxic in babies and small children. Now we go into another. So we have this neurotoxicity, this inflammation for children, also for pregnant mothers. Not a good thing if we're revving up this inflammation. So Tylenol can do that, but what else can do that? We know what else can do that. We're going to go into these studies right now. Here's evidence, another study, evidence that increased acetaminopin use in genetically vulnerable children. So now we have another aspect that enters the fray here appears to be a major cause of the autism epidemic. And it says this,

the characteristic loss of Purgensi cells in the brains of people with autism is consistent with depletion of brain glutathione due to excessive acetaminophen usage, which leads to the premature brain Percinji cell death. Perkinji cells are critical for motor coordination, motor learning, cognition, emotion. And it goes on to say this, the toxicity of acetaminicine may cause autism by overloading the defective salvation pathway catalyzed it catalyzed by phenosulfotransface, which is deficient in autism, leading to overproduction of toxic metabolite, NAPQI. But it goes on to say increased levels of NAPQI, reduce the ability to detoxify a host of toxic chemicals in the environment, increasing this oxidative stress.

So now you have the genetically vulnerable kids who can't detoxify and are getting fed this acetaminophen, whether it's through the pregnant mother or through themselves as a baby or an an infant. They can't detoxify it. And it's really, it's causing this inflammation in their brain. But the maternal dose even has an issue too. We're talking about inflammation. It's not good. We talked about this in previous shows, but I want to bring this study in once again, maternal immune activation. We know this is not a good thing. And they have normal brain development across central nervous system disorders. So in this study, they used a viral mimic. And it said it made it possible to demonstrate that the maternal immune reaction driven by the pleiotrophic factor,

You're IL-6 and not the virus itself is responsible for observed changes in the offspring. That's the neurodevelopmental changes, the negative development, autism, these neurodevelopmental issues. And so what else does that? It's not just Tylenol. And this is why a lot of people are up in arms about this because they know it's not just Tylenol. There's genetically vulnerable children and you give them a vaccine as well.

Or you give the mother a vaccine. Here's one study showing exactly that. inflammatory response to trivalent influenza virus vaccine among pregnant women. It says trivalent influenza virus vaccine elicence a measurable inflammatory response among pregnant women. It goes on to say there was considerable variability in the magnitude of the response. Coefficiency of variation for change at least at two days post-vaccination range from 122 percent to 728% with the greatest variability in IL6 response at this time point.

So we don't even know what kind of immune response we're eliciting when the vaccine seen manufacturers say it's great. Listening immune response shows it's working. Okay, but how much of immune response? Can you turn it off? What about the people that are vulnerable for this that are getting 728% immune response and they're carrying a child? This is obviously an issue. You're throwing acetaminophen in the mix. We're just getting to the start of this conversation, Dell, is my point. There's a lot of science. Tylenol is one factor. I know there's going to be other factors that we're going to have this national conversation on. And I think it's time. I think you're right and I'm glad we're digging into it and look, we are simply bringing this out.

This may not end up being in some future Maha report. I don't know what Robert Kennedy Jr. I don't know if he's focused on Tylenol, but since I got called, I said to you, I'm getting called by all these reporters that want to know what our perspective was on this potential Tylenol being targeted with autism. And I said, we've already done many shows on that. I've said this to a couple of reporters. you just showed some of the science, there's still new science, but at the very heart of it, my understanding, from all the interviews that I've done, from doing this show, all the people that I've worked with around autism, autism does appear to be an issue of children that

are having difficulty detoxifying. Maybe the pathways, the glutathione, all these issues, the things that a healthy child maybe is able to get these heavy metals, the aluminum they were just injected with in a vaccine out of their body. But in autistic children, there really is a question, maybe they just can't detoxify. So this toxic load, the 264 chemicals found in the umbilical cord of mothers now when they're studied. You know, all of that is just pushing the envelope. And then all it takes is that one more shot, that thing that pushes them over the edge. And then, you know, I think the crime of all crimes, and I have seen this in anecdotal stories and interviews I've done,

how many parents say their pediatricians said to them, If your baby gets fussy after vaccination, give them a little bit of Tylenol. Well, what we see here is that may have been the absolute death blow, especially if your child that's already having difficulty detoxifying. Now you give them a drug that wipes out their glutathione, all those other big words that essentially are saying, you now disrupt the ability for that baby to get that aluminum, all the toxins in that vaccine out, to overcome this inflammatory event. that's what Tylenol appears to be doing, which could be catastrophic at the wrong time. These numbers are scary coming from pregnant women that were taking Tylenol, but I would assume those pregnant women, if they're taking Tylenol, also gave Tylenol their babies.

There's a huge investigation here needed, but I would just caution anyway. I doubt Robert Kenny June is going to come out and say, I found the only culprit it's Tylenol. But Tylenol also leads us one step closer to a path to vaccinations, because those things are happening, you know, sort of coterminously. They're being prescribed by the same doctors. Give the vaccine, tell them to take Tylenol. I think it's going to make us look at what would you have to be detoxifying? Probably that load of vaccines you got.

So I just, I think we all should keep a cool head. There's science behind this discovery, this issue. We've been talking about it. And I'm glad it's now really getting attention. I do hope Robert Kennedy Jr. does put some focus on Tylenol because I think it could make a difference. It's not the, I don't believe it's going to be. be the smoking gun, but it's one of them. Absolutely.

And you know, at the Ron Johnson hearing, there was a lot of conversation, not only of the childhood vaccine schedule, but of COVID, it's origins. And so I want to finish up today with talking about Rand Paul, Senator Rand Paul, he just released this letter on X. This was a direct letter to Anthony Fauci. Anthony Fauci, as you know, during testimony, during the Senate testimony, told Ram Paul that he never told anybody to destroy documents, to destroy government documents related. to the origins of COVID. Well, they have now new emails, unredacted emails that have

countered that conversation. Wow. I'm going to read directly from this. This is Ram Paul's letter to Anthony Fauci. He says emails obtained by the committee appear to contradict your testimony. For example, in an email dated February 2nd, 2020, you directed then NIH director for Dr. Francis Collins to, quote, please delete this email after you read it, end quote. In another email dated dated dated July 20th, 2020 to an NIH employee used to edit, quote, I do not want to engage any more with this nonsense. And so please delete this email after you read it. Senator Ram Paul has given Dr. Fauci four dates to appear now to testify in front of the Senate.

And this will be interesting because that's all within the next couple months are those dates. So that's going to be something obviously we'll be covering with open eyes. A lot of people looking for justice for what happened during COVID. This is another national conversation that we hope to wrap up in a short time and really move on and keep the healing moving. You know, Jeffrey, at the hearing, there was a moment with Toby Rogers. It didn't cover exactly this issue of Tony Fauci, but it was what I was thinking as it was going on. You know, to watch Blumenthal, to watch these senators, and to watch, you know, Dr. Jake Scott talk about how deadly. COVID was and how many millions of lives were saved. Of course, a lot of that was debunked, the

lives saved. We're going to get to the bottom of that in a moment coming up with Aaron Siri. But it strikes me, all these politicians going, do you know how deadly that virus was? And now we know, we know with almost certainty that Ralph Barrett, you know, you've got Anthony Fauci and a couple of others, were involved in gain of function research in North Carolina. They moved that over to the Wuhan lab. So what are we talking about? What would they do to any other human being that built a bio weapon that killed, you know, that created a disease that you are saying killed millions of millions of people,

made us rush a product in the market to save millions of people? You know, how is this not a conversation? How is there not a Nuremberg trial? And, you know, Blumenthal really went at Tony, I mean, at Toby Rogers about a post that he made, about Nuremberg. And Jake Scott said, you are, you're saying with Nuremberg that you want doctors killed. They really tried to move into this sort of violent space, which came up several times. But I want to just show Toby Robert's response to that, because I think it's important when we also think about these people should be on trial for creating the disease that then they made a vaccine that

ended up being dangerous also. Let's take a look at this. In some of your Twitter posts, you said, and I'm quoting, you people are all going to spend eternity in hell. Nuremberg 2 first, then hell. What did you mean by that? I believe that we are in the midst of one of the greatest crimes in human history. We have a product being in just. into children 70 plus times over the course of their development that's never been tested against a proper saline placebo.

Over that course of that time period, chronic illness in this country has gone from 10% of children having one or more chronic conditions to now more than 40% of children having one or more chronic conditions. Secretary Kennedy in the hearing that was last week said that the latest data from the CDC says that 76% of Americans now have one or more chronic conditions. And I believe that lots of these chronic conditions stem from iotogenic injury. We have 3 million children with autism back in 1970. The rate was so low that it was essentially zero. I'm outraged by that. And I think every person in this room should be outraged by that.

And I think the people who have covered up, the autism epidemic, and the epidemics of iatrogenic injury should be held to account for their actions. And as I said, I would add to that, the people that created this virus, continue to create viruses and not take responsibility for the carnage they're creating. They need to be held accountable. And I am all about Nuremberg, too. I stand with Toby Rogers on that. I don't think you're saying I'm calling for the death.

No, I'm calling for a trial. I'm calling for an investigation. They will have a right to express themselves, explain themselves. They better be under oath and there should be real consequences. But, you know, so huge shifts right now, Jeffrey. And it's so unfortunate the shadow that sits over this week because there's actually really brilliant moves that I know Charlie would be proud of having been a part of this move for freedom, transparency in sciences taking place as we speak.

Absolutely. And it's been just a rough week, I think, for everybody, a rough couple days now. So I want to say thank you. And Toby, Aaron, Siri, they did amazing. I think people should really, if they haven't seen that yet, go back and watch that hearing, because it is one of the most concise examples of giving facts and staying calm under adversarial conditions and attacks by not only senators but other doctors. This is what it's all about, is showing the facts, having open dialogue, having conversation, and, and, and, you know, and really trying to get past this divide.

And I think that's where out in the country right now. So thank you so much, Del. Thank you, Jeffrey. I look forward to seeing you next week. You know, this show is made possible because of you. We don't have advertisers. No one's ever going to be able to say, you know, the high wire was taking in a billion dollars a year from pharma.

You don't get their ads here. You don't get anyone's ads here. This is commercial free. You probably wouldn't mind a break on some of these days. 30 seconds might be nice to take a break and talk about diapers. But what we do is we talk about you. And we talk about your contribution, how these changes you're watching happen in the news. They happen because of you.

Not because of me or Aaron. We are, you know, we're simply doing what we do. This is what I do for a living. I talk about things. I do investigations. I have great teams working for me. Aaron's a great lawyer. He goes into courtrooms.

None of that is possible if you aren't supporting us. if you're not there. And so we have a really great opportunity now to not only have you be there, but to leave a message, to leave a piece of stone on this earth that will forever say you were here, that you were present, you were accounted for, you made a difference in the world. That started with our high road, and now it's moving into our next project on the campus here at ICAN. Take a look at this.

A couple of years ago, we asked you to help us build the high road. And you did. Brick by brick, message by message. you helped pave the road that led us to historic legal victories. Let me introduce you to phase two, the terrace. A peaceful, powerful space, nestled at the very part of the high road. A sanctuary where reflection meets purpose. Whether you already have a brick, or this is your first time,

this is your moment, to renew your commitment. So go to Ican Decide.org and click buy a brick. Choose your message, leave your mark, and become part of the very very and become part of the very heart of this campus at the center of the high road. Just to get a sense of how special the high road is in this experience here really does, can make your day.

This is my favorite brick today. Well, I'm on the walkway heading to do the show today, and it's days like this where some of the messages in these bricks can really move you to a different place. And this brick, I think, says it all for me today. In times of darkness, be the light. In this moment, I'm going to be going into the show with a heavy heart.

That is really a message that I'm carrying today, which is there's a lot we don't have control over. What we have is this moment, what we do here, who we are. So let's bring the light that we can do. Whoever created that beautiful brick, thank you, it moved me today. It's a great opportunity for all of you out there. So I hope you'll get involved.

There's gonna be a limited amount of bricks. So I hate to get the calls like I did last time. I didn't get a chance. So taking out of you. opportunity is also some other things you can get benches and things like that. There will be a part of this campus forever. And, you know, why do we do this? Well, part of it is not just this show and the reporting that we do or the hearings that

we attend and are a part of or the movies that we make, but probably most importantly, the lawsuits that we bring and the battle that we take on in courtrooms so that we're not only changing legislation, we are winning in courts and changing hearts and minds and bringing evidence that then gets used for legislation. All of it is a part of a multi-pronged approach towards change that we set out all the way back in 2016 when we started ICANN. We are going to bring media. We're going to be a media hub. We are going to be involved in meeting with politicians and talking about change in legislation.

And we're going to bring lawsuits that we can start changing in courtrooms, things that are not right. Of course, we're attempting to free the five. And as we speak right now, Aaron Siri is in court in West. Virginia. He was in court in West Virginia yesterday. He actually asked, can we push this back a little bit? I have a big hearing in Washington, D.C. that he was the center of. He was getting information in the middle of the night. I swear, Aaron has not slept, I don't think, in probably five days, preparing for that hearing, which he was dynamic in, but also preparing for this case that he couldn't move. So yesterday, after a full day in court fighting to bring back

the religious exemption in West Virginia, which is going to be critical. Can you know, you imagine when that happens, you know what the power of that. We've already got Mississippi. Now if we can pull off West Virginia, it's looking good. He's working very hard. So right after court yesterday, because I knew he wouldn't be here today, I sat down with him to talk about the hearing and his new book, which is Vaccines, Amen. So let's take a look at that interview, which started out with this incredible moment where one of the big arguments that, The doctor, I'm forgetting his name at the moment, hit me, Jake Scott, Dr. Jake Scott, he came in with his argument that there has been over 600 placebo-based trials.

This idea that we've never tested childhood schedules. Ridiculous. I built the biggest database. I'm the number one guy. Boy, did that get torn apart. Take a look at this. We documented 661 trials using inert placebo controls. We confirmed that all 16 antigenes, routine.

recommended for children have been studied in placebo control trials. The claim that childhood vaccines haven't been tested against placebo's is demonstrably false. But when you actually drill down into those 661 trials, let me give you the breakdown of them, okay? 567 of these trials were not a routine injected vaccine for a disease on the CDC's childhood schedule. So totally irrelevant to the safety of routine injected childhood vaccines. The remaining 94 studies, 70 of them did not involve healthy children. Again, completely irrelevant to the safety of childhood vaccines. Of the remaining 24, 21 did not involve a U.S. licensed vaccine. That leaves us with three studies, three, that were claimed to have an inert control that were relied upon

to license a routine injected childhood vaccine out of this entire list of 661. And these actually helped really highlight the problem we have in terms of assessing safety. One was a trial for the chickenpox vaccine, the varicella vaccine. It was only a few hundred people, so it was underpowered anyway. But Dr. Scott says it's got an inert control, but actually it was an injection of neomycin, an antibiotic. That's not inert. The second one was Gardasil 4 trial, which had thousands and thousands of

girls and women in the control group, almost all of them got an aluminum adjuvant injection. And then there were a few hundred, only a few hundred that were labeled as a inert control, but they weren't. They got everything that's in the vial except for the antigens and the alum, which included elhistodine, psorbitid, sodium borate, yeast protein, not inert.

And then the third one was a Gardasil nine trial, which finally, by the way, did have a saline injection. The few hundred that got the placebo, but they only got it if they first got three doses of Gardasil four. So again, not an actual inert control group. The result is there's zero trials, zero, which were relied upon in this list of 60-61,

to license a routine injected vaccine on the CDC schedule that included a placebo, as well as zero trials of a vaccine uses a control to like a vaccine. to license a routine ejective vaccine on the CDC schedule. Yeah, I'd be very surprised if you went through all 661 trials. We haven't even conducted the full analysis yet. But once...

I think Mr. Siri kind of has. We should join our team. Yeah. You see, he's got a pretty cracked team doing that. Yeah. If you let me make the decisions, I'll join your team. Well, he's not only one of the world's greatest attorneys. He's also the author of this brand new book, Vaccines.

Amen. just hit the shelves. You're going to want to check this out. I'm joined by none other than Aaron, Siri. Aaron, thanks for joining us today. I know you are right now in West Virginia. You're in the fight of your life right now to bring back the religious exemption. This case is ongoing. I know you got prepping. In fact, you were just in Washington, D.C. yesterday we were there. Are you getting any sleep? I mean, you are working so hard. It's really actually hard to imagine how you're still standing. standing. Sleep, what is that? Yeah.

I know you're putting in a lot of time right now. A lot of different plates are spinning. But let's go to this clip that we just showed. I mean, you know, I think that in many ways this was like the pinnacle of this moment, in this hearing, but also of how these people come to these debates. This guy just said, you know, my coup de grace argument that I've shown up with that I thought everyone would just accept, you tear it down. Not a single study he's referencing actually references the argument that he was making

against a Kennedy tweet, which is how this all started. It has nothing to do with the childhood vaccine program really in America. Then like what do they think they're going to win with bravado? I mean, it's just shocking. These are doctors. They went to college. They know what winning an argument should look like. And this. is total bull crap. I mean, it just, I guess I just keep thinking they believe their own hype. Basically, they think they can just show up and they're going to use some humor and a little motion and a study that we don't know anything about is that that's going to win the day. And you just absolutely trounced Dr. Scott here. But what's it from your perspective?

You're sitting in the front row seat there. Would that blow your mind when he said, we haven't even looked at our own studies? No, I'm not surprised. I think Dr. Scott and his kin epitomize what I call the religion of vaccines. They don't actually have knowledge about these products. They don't base their decisions on real evidence. They have beliefs.

They have dogs. They have things they think and repeat through repetition they believe are true. Actual science, actual data, really doing the hard work? No. There's no pushback. Since 1986, basically, it's been a one-way street. They've been unopposed, unchallenged, and so they repeat to each other, guz and catchphrases. And over time, they just start believing them because nobody ever actually questions them. Nobody gives them pushback. Well, you know, Dr. Scott showed up,

not only thinking that he had, I guess, the upper hand in terms of the evidence, which he didn't, because when you read his report, let me tell you something. There are folks like Dr. Stanley Plotkin or who would not have shown up to that hearing. You know why? Because I think that he and his kin, they know they could not actually support the claims that Dr. Scott tried to support. But Dr. Scott, see, he's like almost the rest of the medical profession. He still believes in the slogans.

He believes in the catchphrases and in things that are just mythical claims about vaccination. And so he walked right into it. I mean, he met, I'm sure he believed those things were true, but that's the problem. He believed him. He believed they were true. He never really looked at a minute. I want to push back on that a second. You cannot say, you know, Robert Kennedy Jr. makes a statement, tweets out, none of the childhood vaccines on the CDC schedule were other tested against placebos in a pre-licensure safety trial. He is, he's not just any doctor. The reason he's there is he's the guy they go to. He's building the great database. They keep saying, that's a lie. We've done those placebos. They've been, with thousands of times we've tested all those vaccines

with placebos. He knows for a fact that he's collecting bologna studies about totally different vaccines from all around the world, most of them not really even saline placibos, injecting you with aluminum and formaldehyde and all the carrier substances, everything but the virus itself. I mean, we know how the whole game is played. He knows he's lying. He knows when he's sitting there. He doesn't have 16, you know, studies of 16 vaccines with placebos in them, which is how you would win that argument. So he literally knows he's trying to bull crap his way through this. You can't not know that you are not providing actual evidence. So I'm sorry, he may believe vaccines are safe and effective, but when you show up, it should bother him that's showing up this hearing

and that his studies being touted around the world is the evidence that Robert Kennedy Jr. is wrong when deep down he's got to know someone's going to call you out bro you are lying you might be correct um or it could also be that beliefs they die hard you know challenging person beliefs um it's hard um it's hard for people to let go as he told CNN apparently in their article when he saw Robert f kennedy's junior's claim that no routine injected child the vaccine was licensed based on a placebo control trial. He knew. He knew that was false and he set out to prove it wrong. See, he didn't set out to find the truth. He'd set out to prove his a priori belief that that could not be true. But to my point, can't find it. Can't find Endericks B. Can't find the MMR 2.

Can't find the actual names of the vaccines we're talking about in a placebo trial with the name of that vaccine. It can't find it. So when he went out to prove it, He didn't find it. What he found was completely and just kept pile. It's almost like I know that we see it in movies. Like lawyers all of a sudden they send all the evidence. So you got rooms and rooms and stacks and stacks of paper like no one's ever going to look through all this and catch me at this. That's what he's doing.

He didn't win. He knows it. Deep down his heart, he's got to know he doesn't have the answer. Yeah, he's doing it. And I guess to be as generous as possible to Dr. Scott. In some ways, he kind of, he kind of is duping him. himself maybe. He filled the room with so many studies. He convinced himself, see, I do have the that does support the safety. There is, but it's, it's obviously nonsense because all he had to do

is, as I said at the hearing, you want to know what the vaccines were relied upon, what trials were allowed upon to license them. Look at the clinical trial license document. Don't crowdsource random studies off their internet about HIV and God knows what else vaccines. But, you know, and, you know, look, you're probably right. I'm just trying to always give somebody the benefit of the doubt. Well, you do that. I'm going to take that benefit away myself. Let's move on to another clip.

I actually, I think to the point, I think we've said it. These guys think I have a PhD or doctor, like doctor something. They have the white lab coat. It is like a religion. what your book is about here is the fact that they're running this like a religion. You're not allowed to question me. You don't get to read the actual text. Only I get to see the text.

And most of the time, I haven't read it. I hear about the text from the, you know, from the Pope. But in this point, I think Senator Blumenthal, you know, tries to catch you with that. You don't have a doctor's license. Let's just play this moment because I think you handled this in a way we've never seen it before, which was fantastic. Let's take a look at this clip. Mr. Siri, we've been talking about medical issues.

You're not a medical doctor, are you? No, sir. And you're not an immunologist or biologist or any kind of... Or vaccinologists, no, but I depose them regularly, including the world's leading ones with regards to vaccines. And I have to make my claims based on actual evidence when I go to court with regards to vaccines. I don't get to rely on titles. Okay. I felt like that moment, Aaron, when I read your book,

You really called out this is what it is. Because I don't have a doctorate. I'm incapable of reading. I don't know what a study is. In fact, you have to do more work because you are putting doctors and scientists on the stand. You've got to have evidence and you are winning. And I've said this, you know, to reporters for the last, you know, eight years we've been working together. If we're spreading misinformation, I would love for you to try to use misinformation to win lawsuits against the government in the United States,

which is what we're doing, what Aaron's series doing. What did you think? I mean, I thought you really put, like, Blumenthal did not know how to respond. They're like, oh, my God, you're not going to bow down to the idea of a doctor having, you know, it doesn't even matter. I mean, you know, it was like crazy to him that we're not all just going to like, you know, genuflect down to this, the doctor in the room. You know, as Senator Blumenthal, when we had our exchange last time when I was there, I think it was in May for a hearing. came out me one time and never came out of me again, if I recall. But he did quip.

Well, we're both trial attorneys. And, you know, I think that in that regard, you could see the look on his face. I know that look. He got me. You got me. And he smiles. He smiles. And I think he smiles, really, okay, I have nowhere to go from there.

I, okay, yeah, because he's trying. He's processing. He's trying. But where is he going to go from there? Because you know what? He may not understand medicine or other stuff, but he knows what being a trial attorney means. He knows how exacting, if you're a good trial attorney, if you really take it seriously. And you're dealing especially with an issue where everything's stacked against you, right? You have all the beliefs out there.

You have all of the perceived notions. Go down the list. I mean, of all the issues to litigate, you know, sometimes I wonder, I wish I'd picked an easier one, but that's, you know, everybody's got their calling. With that said, he knows what experts, when they're put to task in trials that really the lawyer that can take that expert to task really does have to be more knowledgeable than the expert. And if they can't take the person who's the head of that discipline to task, yeah, you probably can very much rely on that lawyer. opinion. You know, I did not realize he's a trial attorney, and that helps me understand that

look he had in his face. I couldn't quite understand it. There was like a knowing and an acknowledgement. I thought I was just going to his head, so you're right. Now I understand what I was looking at. You had him. He knows if you're good at what you're doing. It doesn't, nobody's going to, you know, have better facts than you do. Speaking of facts, you know, Senator Johnson did a great job of breaking down the death rates, you know, that we're told, like are modeled in America and showing how ridiculous those are. But you had a great moment also where you these numbers that the WHO's touting about, you know, death rates of COVID in the world. It was really a spectacular moment. Let's take a look at this. The choice before this committee is clear. Based public health policy on transparent

peer-reviewed evidence that anyone can verify or on an unpublished analysis with acknowledged fatal biases hidden from scientific scrutiny. Vaccines have saved 154 million lives globally over 50 years. The data are public. The evidence is overwhelming. Parents deserve policies grounded in this evidence. Thank you. I welcome your questions.

Thank you, Dr. Scott. I'll start the question. I'll just basically turn it over to Mr. Siri. Do you want to start with 154 million claim? Absolutely. I think the claim. about 154 million lives saves is it actually is the epitome of the corruption of science.

It reflects the corruption of science in action. This study is just based on guesswork and assumptions. As the, it is a study published by the WHO. It is essentially an advertising piece by them for how effective their immunization program has been over the last 50 years. So what is the study published? confidence interval at 154 million claim? What is the reliability range of it? It doesn't have one.

You know why it doesn't have one? Because it's totally unreliable. As buried in page 42 of the supplement to that quote-unquote advertising piece by the WHO, in a section entitled Uncertainty of Estimates, it says, it says that, quote, it cannot put, quote, bounds around the veracity of the estimates. It can't put bounds around the vastity of the estimates. It can't put bounds around the vast of the estimates. And that, quote, any bounds are arbitrary, end quote, and that, quote, it should not be interpreted as a claim to where the edges of valid estimates possibly lie, end quote. What that means is it could be equally true that 200 million lives were lost because of the vaccine program. It's an unbounded estimate. That is the corruption of science.

Yeah, I remember that moment in the room, Aaron, and I'll tell you. tell you the audience started like getting vocal, the energy. By the way, a lot of people in that hearing when we were all walking out, they said that was the most fiery, interesting, exciting hearing I've ever seen. I mean, it really, there really were like fireworks in there. Just because I think the disparity between, you know, facts, like what a fact is was so much different how you were presenting it. And then this guy, Dr. Scott, just keeps getting blown out of the water. I mean, I'd hate to at a certain point. You said, I mean, honestly, we almost had that negative effect when you start feeling sorry for the guy

that can't is just just outmaned in this debate completely. But what is it? Again, this modeling thing, these numbers, they're so absurd. Do they think we're stupid or are they just stupid? They think they're morally, intellectually, and otherwise superior. and that all comes from belief in that regard it very much as a religion. In a scientific environment, you are open to questions. You are excited when somebody comes and says,

hey, there's another piece of data here. It might make what you're looking at now. You can make your model better the way you look at it. You want to get it right, except that's not the way this universe works. They have their belief. These products are safe and effective, and they engage in selection.

bias where the only thing they really are willing to accept and let into their minds are things that affirm those beliefs. And you saw that on full display. I mean, that's why he gets angry. He has to withdraw. He doesn't know what to do because when presented with the reality, I mean, it's, you know, the thing I said about the WHO study, for example, I mean, if you're a serious scientist, it does not take much to look at and go, wait, there's no confidence intervals. Wait, how How reliable is that number? Okay, well, let me go look at the limitation section, right? Oh, wait, it's not in the study. Oh, I got to go find the appendix. Oh, I got to go all the page 42. And when you read it, you're like, holy crap, they're saying these are totally unreliable.

And, you know, what I did is what a scientist who is being objective and thinking and not believing would do and could reach the same conclusions and make the same points that I made, but they're They don't do that in that universe. No, I mean, and that's exactly what was on trial, I felt like, in this hearing like we've never seen it before. I know at the heart of it was the, you know, this study that we've got coming out of Ford Medical Center by Dr. Zervos, one of the most damning studies we've ever seen.

But, you know, Senator Johnson said to us, I don't want to just make it about the study. I want to make it about this orthodoxy that keeps people from publishing the science when it's in front of them and not, you're being afraid to put it out, there and then this belief system because they're not seeing in the science that doesn't get published and they're in their own thought bubble, you know, but I think one of the greatest ways to show that was this moment where Senator Johnson challenges because, you know, Dr. Scott

ends up talking about how deadly COVID was and the hundreds of patients. Then he, then you can tell he's out over the tips of his skis as numbers start changing and then ultimately how are you treating them? Take a look at it. Let's take a look at this. I think early on, yes, there were a lot of deaths. I lost over 100 patients, okay? I mean... From COVID or with COVID? COVID, from COVID.

COVID was terrible. Did you say you lost 100 then? I'm not trying to... I lost dozens of patients, probably over 100. I lost track, to be honest. It was awful. Okay. I lost many, many nursing home folks.

who live nearby and multiple a day sometimes. What was the protocol G is, did you use remdesivir? Were you using monoclonal antibodies? Did you ever try ivermectin or budesinide or some of the other generic drugs that were recommended? So I was going based on the best available evidence. My role was actually to focus on the best available evidence for therapeutics. I helped develop the guidelines. And so yeah, we used remdesivir, if patients met eligibility,

we used dexamethosone, which clearly shows or had been shown to be life-saving. By the way, I had Pierre Corey, I think in May of 2020, he talked about corticosteroids. He was vilified and savaged in the media until a couple months later they actually had a study come out of England that dexomethosone worked, which is corticosteroid. Now, generally underdosed when they gave it, but regardless, I mean, continue. Yeah, so, I mean, we used a number of things. Did I ever use ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine? I don't think so. That about says it all right there.

And what he's saying is, and this guy, he's a top expert. Not only did I, you know, use remdesivir, I was one of the guys writing the protocol based on the available science. The available science coming down, as your book clearly points out, coming down from, you know, the Pope and the religion on high, what we're allowed to teach, what we're allowed to use. I mean, you do it so beautifully in this book, talking about everything from their version of original sin, the golden cap. I love how you put this together because it's what people don't understand when they're saying, how is it this is happening? How are these

people so clueless? Is it money? Is it greed? Is it power? I said, no, no, it's much, it's something different. It's a religion. These people are, they believe in an orthodoxy and a religion, and it's heresy to even ask a question. I mean, and that's where this guy is in capable of asking a question about hydroxy chloroquine, ivermectin, every doctor that looked at that saved lives. Everyone that said, wait a minute, totally safe product. Everybody's using it around the world. We've been using it forever. There's no, we should have no fear of using it. So why are we letting Tony Fauci telling us it's dangerous? These are two of the safest drugs that have ever been on the planet. And yet he's like, no, I don't think I ever went near that. We stuck with remdesivir. And I wanted to jump up there and say, and killed like nine out of 10 patients. So yeah, you saw a lot of death, you moron. It's really sad and unfortunate.

And because a lot of doctors, as we've heard many of them testify, like Dr. Jordan Vaughn, who's got numerous clinics, had an extremely low death rate. And so depending on the protocol, and, you know, and, you know, when you even, when you look at some of the things they did, like, for example, yes, somebody comes in and they have a blow oxygen, a low blood ox level, right? Where normally that would mean they have mechanical issues with their lungs, so you would intubate. But these folks could breathe. They just had a low blood oxygen level. So their lungs are working fine. Why intubating them?

Obviously that it's just illogic. like think about it, right? It doesn't make logical sense to do that. Obviously, it was all about ventilators until they realized they were killing everybody on these ventilators, is the most part. Yeah. And then they stopped doing that. The best evidence.

That was the best evidence of the time. And we stuck to it until we just killed so many people. But you know, I tell you ventilator, a good example of, and there are good crossover to vaccines for the following reason. It shows you how financial incentives can pervert medical care. Yeah. They were giving basically bonuses, essentially. If somebody was admitted with COVID and you treated them and you went through the protocol,

including with the ventilators and so forth, those hospitals end up getting this, you know, bolus bonus. Tens of thousands of dollars extra, yeah. It's just like vaccines where they gave them immunity, what I call the original sin in 1986. And from there, it spurred an entire industry that pumped out product after product, without any concern for how many people they killed or injured. In fact, as you know, as you and I have talked about many times,

it is the only product in America where a company can kill a child with impunity, even if they could have made the product safer, even if they knew how to make the future. Only one. It's amazing. You know, look, you're in the middle of a case. I don't want to hold you up too long. Let's just play this final clip.

This is just beyond the pale. We're in a science discussion. This is supposed to be about a debate about a vaccinated versus unvaccinated study. We keep saying CDC should have done this. The world health organizations should do this. Every, you know, decent database in the world should just compare these two groups of people.

Every time it's done by an independent, smaller group, we see horrific results from, you know, in the vaccinated. This, for the first time ever is a study, done by a pro-vaccine scientist, Dr. Marcus Zervos, head of infectious disease at Ford Medical Center. The very same scientist was at the center of disclosing the Flint, Michigan water crisis and the toxic water there and went up against the health system. So a guy that's usually fearless, he does a study in one of the most, you know, probably prestigious but also pro-vaccine medical establishments, everyone on the team is pro-vaccine, and yet this bombshell comes out that in almost

every health category, the vaccinated are just doing far worse. That's what this hearing is for, but this guy, Dr. Scott, after having every one of his points destroyed, proving that you have no actual science, it is a, you're bringing in mountains of useless, you know, fodder and calling it science instead of ending with like I'm expecting well this should be good I'm sure he's thought about his great closing remarks on science instead it becomes like a rebuke of of you know our are emotional levels around this and are we dangerous it was unbelievable let me just play it there has been a very alarming degree of threats against doctors and in public health experts I mean, I think that it's very important that we recognize the CDC shooting for what it was.

And I hope that we can all agree that regardless of our beliefs and opinions about vaccine safety, that we don't send mobs looking for scientists and physicians. I believe what you're trying to say is you're characterizing those who take issue with this product as violent, which is precisely what folks do when they don't agree with another person's position. They dehumanize them in that matter. so I don't agree on that score, but I, of course, abhor and always condemn violence from anybody. We need to be civil and we need to be respectful.

There's nobody out there that you can talk about the way that the media and the medical profession talks about people that don't vaccinate, throw them out of school, kick them out of their jobs. The way that those folks are treated, they're not to be lectured by anybody about civility. Remember this one? That is, that is the height of absurdity. I mean, truly absurdity.

So I actually, I actually have. It's an insult on top of injury. That's what it is. Obviously, you know, and I know you have, as I've interviewed thousands of parents with injured children, you've litigated for them. It is, it is so hard to listen to that. Instead, I mean, all I know is thousands, tens of thousands, millions of parents of vaccine injured children that day. day, you know, stand in that with their children, love those children, and then go out and try and take whatever moments they have away from that child to warn everybody else, look out,

don't let this happen to you. To me, I mean, these are the most giving, beautiful, they were filling that room, and again, this guy with, can we not be attacked, can we not make this about emotion? And I think in light of what's happened today with the assassination of Charlie, Kirk and this this discussion of violence it really is disturbing that this is where they want to go in it to end a scientific discussion this had nothing to do with violence and what is he talking about what mob is going after scientists no mob is going after scientists this is a fiction that that people this is what people do when they want to dehumanize a group. All he did, he didn't reveal anything about the people who don't vaccinate. He revealed everything about himself. He revealed how he sees the people

who don't vaccinate because he sees them as violent. He sees them as inferior. That's why he calls out a fiction that doesn't exist, that they need to be somehow controlled. What is he talking about? you want to talk about sending a mob him and his kin send truly send mobs the government when the government comes

their child from you because you don't vaccinate that is a form of violence it's legal violence but it's violence in a way when they throw your children out of school and don't let them walk through the threshold of that building

that too is a form of so to speak mob whatever he wants to characterize it when they go on TV and they say those parents aren't when they talk about them in the most outrageous language possible, that they're immoral, that they're selfish, that they should be excluded from society.

When I think of the Jimmy Kimmel moment, you know, you need a heart transplant or whatever, or you know, or your asthma, whatever it was, no vaccine, you're not allowed in here. Good luck, wheezy. I mean, that is violent language against innocent people. That somehow, because you haven't taken place in this ritual that you're involved with,

you're not allowed to be taken care of. You're not allowed to be cared for. In fact, we don't have to care about you at all. It doesn't get more disgusting than that. What he doesn't understand, and he's just not getting it, and Senator Blumenthal doesn't get it either, is that, you know what breeds the most vaccine hesitancy? Is there utter and shameless disregard

for the millions of individuals who are injured by these products in America and far more abroad? That is what breeds vaccine hesitancy. You know, you, when you talk about these products, when I talk about these products, it's not like, you know, there's this whole universe of folks who are just so interested in this particular consumer product. No, they have a personal, they've been personally affected by it. That's the person I meet over and over again. And the stories are just, it's one heartbreaking story after another.

You know, and I will readily admit that in that moment, that bothered me when he said that. And I don't usually, I usually don't get bothered in these hearings. And I don't usually, and of all the, you know, it's just because it was just, you know, we were having an exchange of facts, an exchange of evidence, a discussion about critical trial designed, a discussion of whether the evidence he put forth was good. He attacked my evidence. Wonderful. I welcome it. I like those kinds of debates. I will debate that any day with any vaccinologist, infectious disease doctor, immunologist, you name it. Let's do it. But that was an attempt to dehumanize the millions of folks whose hearts, who suffer in silence every day. See them. Interact with them. You said, I mean, it's, you know, in some ways,

when their children get injured or they get injured, I often, you think that it would make them angry, but I often find it makes them even more caring, more human in a way. It often has the opposite effect. Even people whose children have devastating injuries, I'm always amazed at how, just how, how they, their focus is on their children. Their focus is not on anger or revenge or vengeance.

Their focus is on their children. And then this guy is going to sit there and pretend like these folks are going to bring the mob against scientists, and I stand exactly by my words, and I stand at the tone and I said them. It is absurd and is the height of absurdity for that man or any of his kin to dare after the way they treat unvaccinated lecture, the folks who choose to not vaccinate their next child after one child has been injured, you know, that they're somehow the ones who are going to use force in any way to get their well,

precisely the opposite. Let's talk about your book real quick before I let you get back to, you know, getting ready for tomorrow's day in court. So many of us, I mean, even I know you really well, but been waiting for you to write a book. We all want to get inside the head of Aaron Siri. What is going on in there? How does your mind work?

How do you put these thoughts together? How are you so eloquent? You know, the strategies you come up with. We watch these incredible hearings, nine-hour hearing with Stanley Plotkin. But, you know, why vaccines amen? Why is it that, why this book, when you decide to write about the really, you know, was it eight, nine years now you've been litigating for I can, also doing your own work with vaccine injury with your law firm?

Why this story, this book, why was this what you decided to go with? Well, unlike these vaccine scientists and infectious teachers of vaccinologists, When this journey started, when, you know, at the very, very beginning, we started looking at vaccine safety, we approached it. I certainly approached it with an open mind. I wanted to see what does the evidence actually show. And I will say that in the first few years, it was one shock after another. You know, when I deposed Dr. Stanley Block, and that was actually early on, I actually knew a small fraction. of what I know today.

And I will tell you, the night before I took that deposition of Stanley Plotkin, I was absolutely expecting turns, twists. I was expecting him to bring up stuff that I hadn't anticipated facts, data, studies that I'd missed, that I'd be like, ooh, you got me, okay? But, you know, during that nine-hour course, I was amazed. There's none of that. And it wasn't like he didn't have a chance. He had every opportunity.

I actually even asked the extra question, so to speak. I went back. I gave an opportunity. I said, well, where is it? I said, oh, it's in your book here. Your book's in front of you, right? You're saying that there are clinical trials, placebo control trials to license the MMR vaccine. He goes, yes.

I said, great. I said, where are they? He says in this book. I said, go ahead, I'll wait here. Go ahead, look in the book. I'll wait, right? I mean, I gave opportunity. And so, you know, what I have come to realize over this period of time is that I don't know a better way

to characterize all of these books, knowologists, and doctors that I have deposed, I've crossed examined, I have debated with, I have interacted with, I have exchanged with. It's like a religious belief. Now, that's not meant it as an insult to any religion or to religion at all, right?

But obviously, there are things in life that you can't explain. And so you have to draw on on beliefs, right? I don't know where the universe, you know, I can't explain that with logic. I have to essentially, to some degree, there's got to be some element of belief in some level, you know, life, death, the big questions, okay? As a scientist will always tell you and me, there's no place for that in science, right? Okay, great.

Well, and there shouldn't be no place for that for a liability-free product. We inject over and over and over and over into healthy babies that you say are perfectly safe. Okay? There should be no place for that. But in fact, that's what I keep encountering. I keep encountering these experts in the field, the leading experts who have policy, who set the standards, who influenced the CDC, the ASIP, that they have these beliefs, and they're impervious to reason, to logic, and they're even impervious, and this is the most part that I always find most credible, even when their own Oracle, the CDC, or even when the studies that just make things something irrefutable come out, they still, it's like they just can't accept it. can't even accept sometimes their own evidence. It's, it's amazing. You can watch it in some of the depositions to take to them. So my best analogy, my best framing of this whole thing is that

vaccines amen, you know, that there's a point at which all I can say to you is, or you're saying is, well, I guess what you're saying is vaccines amen, that that's what you're, that's your, that's your closing argument to me because you have nothing else. And, you know, and I'll add this. You know, and this is obviously just a little bit, a little bit of semantics, but you never hear somebody say, I believe in tools, I believe in cars, I believe in lamps, I believe in telephones, I believe in, I believe in window coverings. No, they're all products. I believe in TVs, but you hear all the time, people say, I believe in vaccines.

And let me tell you something, I carry a truism, because most of what you hear about vaccines really our beliefs. So I wrote this book, and I'll tell you why I wrote the book, putting aside it was a labor of love, and I just had to put this all down someplace. If we're going to make sure that we secure our rights, our right to choose what medical interventions we want, you want to get a vaccine, it's America.

Go get them, that's freedom. You want to wear 50 masks, go for it. If you don't want to get them, the government should never be coercing anybody to get it. And in that regard, I would like to give it incredible, I mean, I just a shout out to, you know, Surgeon General Joe Lodipo, the governor and his wife in Florida, for recognizing that incredibly important principle.

Promote vaccines, spend billions of dollars promoting them, even try to persuade if you want, but you got to let people choose at the end. And so if we're going to make sure we secure that right, the more people who truly understand this issue, not just understand one piece of it. Some people understand it from the perspective of their child was injured, and so they have a very deep knowledge in regards to that component of it,

or they have this particular vaccine that they have an issue with. A lot of people, it's been a COVID vaccine. They could tell you about MRI and a biodistribute and spike protein, but they don't really know a lot about the other vaccines, but they also believe in informed consent and medical liberty. This book is intended to arm anybody that, it with the knowledge, with the ability to effectively advocate on this topic, not youth beliefs, not with mantras, not with slogans, but with evidence, with exactly the type of evidence that I use

all the time in my court cases and that you saw in that hearing before the U.S. Senate. This book is intended to create an army of people who understand and maybe even emerge from there some warriors. The day will come. I won't be here. And so they'll be. And so they'll this book is there for others to pick up and continue to fight because more people out there who fight the more we can do it. Delvin, you and I can't do this alone. We need as many allies and effective advocates out there. And this is for everybody out there who wants to advocate or who just wants to learn more by this product. Especially recommend that anybody who's in any way says they believe in vaccines or catches themselves saying that phrase. Yeah.

I believe in vaccines. I really urge you to read this book. Where do we buy it? Where can we find the book right now? It's available on Amazon and that's where you can find it. It's apparently like, looks like the number one vexeller in vaccination. So that's great. It gets in the hands of a whole lot of people and not just hold them, but actually really, really read it. I hope people enjoy it because it really was a labor of love. It took me a long time to do. And I try to make it interesting and fun along the way as well. I don't know how you found the time, but you are one of the most spectacular individuals I've ever met. It's really great the years we've gotten to work with you. I look forward to more and I can't wait to hear about you winning this case. So get out there

tomorrow. Go get them, Aaron. This is huge. Let's bring religious freedom back to West Virginia, give children the right to go to school without being coerced. Let's stop destroying our commitment to the Nuremberg Code and the right to inform consent. Just it's in your hands and there's no better hands out there. Thank you, Della. And if I may just make one last comment about freedom and those who fight for freedom, I think we lost somebody who dedicated himself to the freedom of speech. And obviously, there are some who viewed him as controversial.

There are others who saw him as somebody who was trying to create dialogue, whether you agreed with him or not. and he was exercising his First Amendment right to speak. He was exercising his first amendment right to speak and in his own way he was trying to engage in dialogue. And may he rest in peace, Charlie Kirk. I'll wrap it up there. I think we're all feeling that said to it.

But it's about doing the work. Aaron's, you know, dedicated so much work to help the people and the children that have been a part of our work with ICANN. If you want to know what really motivates this beautiful man and you can see the emotion there, you definitely want to check out this book. You want this to be a part of your understanding of what we've been doing, what Aaron's been doing. It truly is spectacular. Thank you for the work that you do. Thank you for your courage. You're one of those heroes out there too.

We're all thinking about that today in the loss of Charlie Kirk. But thank you for your courage. Go out. Let's win this. Let's win this case. Let's win this debate. Let's finish this. Let's go save our kids.

You're doing a great work, man. Thank you. We'll talk to you soon. Thank you, Del. Well, to bring this all back together, we're all having conversations now. Maybe that is the reason things happen as we ask ourselves in these moments why. I have an interesting week because in this same week just over last weekend was the memorial service for Malaya,

whose story was told on our show when her family's car was swept up in the river during the flooding in Texas and everyone in the family survived except 17-year-old Malaya. Her memorial service was this weekend, and she was heavy on my heart as I walked through the days, and you ask why. Why is someone that young? People say, you know, they're too good for this earth. And then, of course, we lose Charlie Kirk in a totally different type of circumstances. And I find myself trying to, are there differences, is it the same? You know, why does God make these decisions? You know, why? I think that part of, you know, when I go around talking about, you know, Genesis and the Bible,

and I attach it to these conversations, you know, we're only given one rule, do not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Which means it's not ours to know why. We don't know why. What I know is Charlie was courageous. What I know is he walked out in a T-shirt in front of audiences, he could have had plate glass. A lot of the people in this movement could stand behind plate glass. He didn't do that. He opened himself up to giant audiences, gave them a microphone, and let them speak. Said to the coward out there that from a distance unseen decides to take a life that's just sitting there open to you.

How absurd. How terrible. How weak that is. But I also know in knowing Charlie and knowing other. great people like him, he knew what he was doing. He walked with courage because he had God. And, you know, when I think about, you know, Malaya at 17, so many people say the amount of lives she affected. And when I look at a week like this, two totally different stories, I'm left with perhaps a much more simple understanding, which is, it's about perspective, I guess.

You know, if you look from the creation of this earth or just the dawn of man, in the scope of what happens in experience, we are just one tiny momentary flash of that experience. And we take that moment very seriously. We judge those that have a little bit longer flash than others. But what I come to think about when I hug my children, children tonight, as I stand in this moment, as I speak my truth because nothing is going to stop this, I too believe God is overseeing all that is happening here. One thing I know is we really are wasting time when we judge how long a moment was. A moment is all any of us are going to have.

you do with that moment is what decides the value of your life. And I know Charlie, wherever we end up, when this physical body leaves, he is comfortable and happy with how he used his moment. And I know Malaya knows she used her moment to be everything it could be. So as we sit and ponder these things. The most important thing I think we all have to ask ourselves is how am I going to use my moment? Am I going to get caught up in trivial arguments and dissent, conflicts, or am I going to shine a light in this world? We lost Charlie Kirk after just 31 years. But compared to many people, those 31 years, Charlie lived a thousand lives. We should all be so lucky. We should all be so dedicated. And for Charlie, I'm going to let him have the last words from a brilliant

interview with our friend Layla Settner. These are the words of Charlie Kirk that I hope we all carry. I'll see you next week. The cool thing about courage is that it actually doesn't require any talent, it is just a choice. That's it. You have to choose to be courageous. A lot of things in life have to do with, well, I don't have enough money. I don't have enough. Courage is different. You could just choose to be courageous. You could say, today, I am going to be courageous. And everyone knows what courage is. Courage is doing the right thing when you don't know how it's going to work out. That is courage. So you do the right thing when there is some or and some element of unpredictability.

When there is risk, that is when courage comes in, how do you create more courage in a generation that is so lacking it? The best answer that I can give is that we must find other role models and find other stories of the past of courageous people and raise our children in those stories. Some of the great heroes that have built our citizens, civilization, men and women full of courage, we need to teach our young people about that.