The Highwire with Del Bigtree - Episode 443: CEASE AND DESIST

Episode Date: September 26, 2025

Del unveils the latest on the upcoming film ‘An Inconvenient Study,’ including a brand-new trailer that we believe will raise eyebrows. Jefferey Jaxen reports on President Trump’s and RFK Jr.’s first-ever autism report and the fallout shaking Washington. YouTube faces scrutiny after admitting it caved to government pressure to censor accounts. Finally, Del sits down with Xlear founder Nathan Jones, who shares his battle against the DOJ and FTC after being shut down in 2021 for bringing a promising natural nasal spray to market during the pandemic.Guest: Nathan JonesBecome 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 for us all to step out into the high wire. From the moment I stepped in the issue of vaccine injury, I have been attacked and censored. When I left my job as an Emmy-winning producer on the CBS talk show, the doctor, to produce the documentary Vaxed, we were disparaged and called horrible names by mainstream news agencies

and medical institutions, which led to our film being unceremoniously kicked out of the Tribeca Film Festival. Now, of course, all the censorship and rage against Vaxed only fueled people's curiosity, which turned it into an international sensation that is often credited with igniting the medical freedom movement around the world. Then, during COVID, when this very show, the high wire, was one of the first to investigate the lab origin theory. The first report that the MRNA vaccines would not stop transmission. The first report that the studies around the world revealed surgical masks and homemade bandanas could not stop a particle the size of coronavirus.

And the first report that social distancing was an arbitrary construct that had no basis in science, we were attacked mercilessly by the press and censored by virtually every social media platform, including Facebook, Twitter, and Google that took our channels away. Still, none of the pressure and attacks could quiet us from reporting that the lockdowns were unconstitutional and that the unprecedented measures would cause more harm than the disease itself. Once again, all of the controversy coupled with unprecedented accuracy of our reporting throughout COVID, fueled the growth of the high wire from hundreds of thousands of weekly viewers to millions across the world. And I say all this because today, in the Highwire's commitment to truth and

transparency, I report to you that once again there's an attempt to silence us, this time concerning our new film, an inconvenient study. This time it comes in the form of a cease and desist letter that we received this week from the lawyers representing Henry Ford Health System. In the letter they accused me, Del Beigree, and our nonprofit, the informed consent action network, of defamation. Here are a couple of excerpts from this letter. It has come to our attention that you plan to publish, promote, and distribute a documentary film entitled an inconvenient study, which asserts that a draft research study was not published because of the results, rather than the fact that it did not meet the rigorous scientific standards, let alone

the standards required for publication due to flaws in its data and methodology. This film and your associated promotional material contain false, misleading, and defamatory statements about HFH that violate Michigan and federal law. By publishing such statements, you are liable for damage and reputational harm inflicted upon HFH. The truth is that the draft study did not proceed past initial co-author and internal independent peer reviews and was never submitted due to significant and serious flaws in its data and methodology. In sum, this draft was not published because it did not come close to meeting the rigorous scientific standards HFH and its researchers demand, not because of the results.

By publishing these false and defamatory statements, you are liable for all compensatory and exemplary damages your publications have caused to HFH, including for loss of reputation and business, as well as for potential punitive damages. Well, essentially their accusation is that the purpose of our film is to hurt the reputation of Henry Ford. So let me make this perfectly clear. Our intent is to inform the public about an unpublished study, which we believe sheds important light on the potential risks that are associated with the U.S. Childhood Vaccine Program.

This unpublished study was performed by the very capable team at Henry Ford, comparing unvaccinated children to children who have received one or more vaccines. This unpublished study is not the only one of its kind, but rather it's amongst at least seven other vaccinated versus unvaccinated studies that all had similar findings. What sets this study apart is the size of this study with over 18,000 children and the fact that it is conducted by credentialed scientists at a prestigious medical institution. Ironically, while Dr. Zurbos indicated he followed the CDC's recommendations on conducting a vaccinated versus unvaccinated study,

Henry Ford insists it did not meet the rigorous scientific standards, let alone standards required for publication due to flaws in its data and methodology. It is my strongly held opinion that had the results of the study been reversed. And instead of the vaccinated, it was unvaccinated who were revealed to have 2.5 times the rate of chronic disease, six times the rate of neurological disorders, four times the rate of asthma, and all of the other shocking health outcomes, this study would not have been shelved or questioned, but instead would have been rushed to print and touted as the most important paper of its kind and be the definitive study that prove to the world that vaccines make children healthier. But again, that is just my opinion, an opinion that is not only based on this study and the conduct at Ford,

it is based on the merciless attacks that I have witnessed upon great scientists, doctors, and institutions that have dared to publish a study or paper that even questions the orthodox beliefs at the heart of the vaccine program. My opinion is also based on nearly 1,000 interviews that I have produced and conducted of parents who witnessed the destruction of their children's health directly after vaccination. My opinion is also based on the vast body of information that has been acquired through lawsuits that my nonprofit is won against our government health agencies and institutions. But perhaps most importantly,

the opinions that are shared in this film an inconvenient study are also based on the statements that the head of infectious disease at Henry Ford made directly to me about this study, which is why it is important we present never-before-seen hidden camera footage in the new trailer for our film. So ladies and gentlemen, without further ado, and anyone who may be watching at Henry Ford Health, I present to you the premiere of our new trailer for an inconvenient study. We are now the sickest country in the world.

It is now believed that over 54% of our kids have a permanent chronic disease. Shouldn't we look closest at the one product designed to alter our immune system for life? There'd be one easy study to rule it out. The vaccinated versus unvaccinated study. As fate would have it, Del Met Marcuservos. He agreed to do a vaxed versus unvaxed study. Kids that are vaccinated, it doesn't look so good. 4.47 times the amount, five and a half times risk.

Six times increase. Amongst the unvaccinated group, there were zero. Like, if this is true, this is devastating. It needs to be published. This is information the public should have had in 2020, and I forced the issue. Do you see how Ford responded? They said this report was not published because it did not meet the rigorous scientific standards we demand as a premier medical research institution.

They have forced our hand. We're going to have to show them the footage. I'm going to bring hidden cameras and recording equipment so that no matter what happens at this dinner, I can prove it happened. What do you think about the study you guys have done? I think it's a good study, but it does have a little. limitations. Do you find any clause in the study? I mean, is it a way they could do the study better? Not that I'm not.

I put it out just how it is. I don't want to say it's not the right thing. It's the right thing to do, but I just don't want to. Somebody's going to come back and they're going to say, you know, the study was flawed. The unpublished Henry Ford analysis is fundamentally flawed. How about looking at this is important scientific information that can inform how the proper study to be done won't be taken like that. Why?

because there's a political agenda. Is what your study shows, is it important? Yeah, it is important. I'm just not gonna do it. If I can't get this study out, and what hope is there for every kid in the future? I said to you, if you do this study, you're gonna come under fire.

You said, I don't care about that, I'm all about the data, and I'm about to retire anyway. That's literally what you said. Yeah. So your energy is definitely changed on that. Energy is changing. Publishing something. like that, might as well retire, I'd be finished.

This is an inconvenient study for the entire vaccine agenda. Well, I'm excited to announce that an inconvenient study is now an official selection at the Malibu Film Festival. It's going to screen on October 12th. So we've decided, because of this incredible opportunity, we're going to move the release date from October 3rd, just down the road to October 12. This also gives me a few extra days to do this. Dr. Marcus Zervos or anyone at Henry Ford, I'd like to offer you the opportunity to be interviewed and be a part of this film to share your perspective.

It's going to have to happen by early next week, so a timely response would be greatly appreciated. All right, and for anyone else that's out there right now, and if you're interested in seeing this historic screening at the Malibu Film Festival, please sign up for more information at an inconvenience study.com. All right, we have a huge show coming up. An amazing story about Nathan Jones, one of the owners of Clear, the nasal spray. He was sued by the government for

saying that his spray could help with COVID. They eventually dropped that suit, and now he's suing back to make sure that no one has ever treated like this again. I can't wait to talk to him about this incredible journey he's on. But first, it's time for the Jackson Report. Well, Well, Jeffrey, there is a lot going on, not just today, but all week. It's been incredible from every perspective. So, you know, what do you have for us? What did you focus on? Yes, Thursday couldn't come fast enough here.

So we have President Trump and Bobby Kennedy Jr. They kicked off the first of the many Maha autism reports. Okay. And if you haven't seen it yet, here's a little about what it looked like. Okay. Today we're delighted to be joined by America's top medical and public health professionals as we announced historic steps to confront the crisis of autism. So I'd like to ask Bobby to get up to the podium and say a few words.

To meet the president's challenge, I ordered HHS to launch unprecedented all agency effort to identify all cause of autism, including toxic and pharmaceutical exposures. We promised transparency as we uncover the potential causes and treatments. and we will notify the public regularly of our progress. First, HHS will act on acetametaphim. The FDA is responding to clinical and laboratory studies that suggests an potential association between acetamapin used during pregnancy

and adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes, including later diagnosis for ADHD and autism. Today, the FDA is filing a federal register notice to change the label on an exciting treatment called prescription lukevorn so that it can be available to children with autism. You know, autism may also be due to a autoimmune reaction to a folate receptor on the brain, not allowing that important vitamin to get into the brain cells. It's a fairly established mature pathway. Again, we have a duty to let doctors and the public know. We are going to change the label to make it available. Hundreds of thousands of kids, in my opinion, will benefit.

One study found that with kids with autism and chronic folate deficiency, two-thirds of kids with autism symptoms had improvement and some market improvement. One area that we are closely examining, as the president mentioned, is vaccines. Some 40 to 70 percent of mothers who have children with autism believe that their child was injured by a vaccine. President Trump believes that we should be listening to these mothers in the United States. instead of gaslighting and marginalizing them, like prior administrations. Because research on the potential link between autism and vaccines has been actively suppressed

in the past. It will take time for an honest look at this topic by scientists. But I want to reassure the people in the autism community that we will be uncompromising and relentless in our search for answers. We will perform the studies that should have been performed 25 years ago. Whatever the answer is, we will tell you what we find.

Historic indeed. I mean, it's sort of everything so many people have been waiting for, in many ways, dreaming about. But it was incredible to watch it. And this is a massive step. A lot of people are saying this is going to be the start of an entire new paradigm shift. Some of the public wasn't happy enough.

They didn't go far enough, but as Kennedy said, they're unraveling decades of science that really never looked under these stones. They were just said, it's genetics, go back home. So you can see here what's great about the administration and what's happening with this initiative is they're trying to keep kids from becoming another statistic in this epidemic, but they're also trying to help the kids and the parents who are searching for solutions who have just been diagnosed on the spectrum or in this autism community. So this is great.

So we go to the press release. This is the HHS press release. And just the facts here, we have what they announced. And we see here, leukoborin. This is a folate deficiency. So they're fast-tracking of drugs, basically a supplement, a synthetic supplement, a folate supplement for these children. There's lots of science behind this.

And that acetaminophen. This is Tylenol, basically. And it's showing that the evidence that they're showing that there's prenatal acetydominipin exposure. It shows, and we went over this two weeks ago, Del. when they started to pre-plan this. And we showed it wasn't just Tylenol, it wasn't just the Cetaminophen. The same mechanisms that are happening

that lead to this neural development in the studies are very similar to mechanisms women get in their brains and the children's brains when they're vaccinated. So that is going to be another thing to look at. So we have Kennedy, we have all of the health agency heads. We have Mehmet Oz. We have McCurry there.

And they stay pretty much by the books. Then you have President Trump. And when he grabbed the mic, it sounded like this. So I've been waiting for this meeting for 20 years, actually. And it's not that everything's 100% understood or known, but I think we've made a lot of strides. I wish it was done a long time ago.

On the vaccines, it would be good instead of one visit where they pump the baby loaded up with stuff. You'll do it over a period of four times or five times. I mean, I've been so into this issue for so many years, just because I couldn't understand how a thing like this could happen. And you know it's artificially induced. It's not like something that when you go from all of those, you know, healthy babies to a point where I don't even know structurally if a country can afford it.

And that's the least of the problems. To have families destroyed over this is just so, so terrible. I also, and we've already done this, we want no mercury. in the vaccine. We want no aluminum in the vaccine. The MMR, I think, should be taken separately. This is based on what I feel. Hepatitis B is sexually transmitted. There's no reason to give a baby that's almost just born hepatitis B. So I would say, wait till the baby is 12 years old. The MMR and the chicken pox. Chickenpox has already been broken out. It's a singular singular shot, but the MMR is not.

And I've heard for years that there's a problem with it. But they say that there's no problem if you do each shot separately, not put together. So an MMR go out and do it separately. Don't take Tylenol. Don't give Tylenol to the baby after the baby's born. Every time the baby gets a shot, the baby goes, the shot, they say, here, take a couple of titles. I've heard that for years. Take Tylenol. Don't take Tylenol. Don't have your baby take Tylenol. Once again, one of the most incredible

moments by a president, certainly we have never, ever seen any president talk about vaccines and autism, the way it was just done. I mean, I'll be honest, Jeffrey. It was clear that that work is still going on. I know a lot of people are frustrated. It's taking so long. I don't have inside information, but when I looked at the firing of Susan Menares, who would have to help with that, you know, those studies, it's clear that Bobby's been delayed on that process by the bureaucracy around him. He's clearing it up. I think we can't expect results coming. But what I got out of that is President Trump's frustrated, right? I got the sense there that he, fine, great, Tylenol, it's terrible. You know, and folate, you know, and folate, you know,

know, a lucavoren, great, but I'll tell you what's on my mind. And boy, did he tell us what's on his mind. It gives me a feeling that there's a, you know, a secret television set somewhere in the White House or Trump Tower, wherever Trump is, it's watching the high wire. I mean, those are the things, many of those statements so clearly stated that we've been saying for years, it's a deep part of the statements that came out of Vax and all the work that we did all the way back then. But what, I mean, to watch the U.S. government, in fact, to watch the leader of the free world speaking, you know, his truth around this issue, didn't care if we can prove it. A couple times he leaned back by. I know Bobby can't, you know, do this, but this, I'm saying it.

So what a moment. What a moment. Right. Yeah. And you can see they're reading between the lines. There's a lot of things that could be kicking off autism in these children. And it perhaps is a synergistic effect. But what's also clear is the factors of.

the vulnerable children to these environmental toxins have never been studied. So we just don't know. So this is the logical way to go is to start taking these off the board, putting warnings on these, these toxins, these environmental toxins, these pharmaceutical toxins, that it may be putting these kids in the line of fire that are vulnerable for this. So in true fashion, we have the media come out and instead of reporting it right down the line, we have headlines like this. This is the independent over in the UK.

Trump makes unproven claim linking talent, autism, while doctors insist it safe. Here's another one, NPR recently defunded, and you can see this is under their shots section of their reporting, I guess. I wonder who sponsors that. NPR, Trump blames Tylenol for autism. Science doesn't back them up, okay.

Reuters, WHO says inconsistent of link between autism and paracetamol, that's basically Tylenol, use and pregnancy. Well, we can look at this in a couple different ways. We went through this topic before, but let's just tell the story from the headlines. Here's Reuters in 2013. Notice something different in their reporting.

Too much Tylenol in pregnancy could affect development. I thought we were supposed to say that. What happened? But now let's just go to the studies. So we have a laundry list of studies, but in 2019, we have this, taking Tylenol during pregnancy associated with elevated risk for autism ADHD. This was a 20-year study. You looked at children's cord blood and those that contain the highest levels of

acetaminophan in the cord are almost three times as likely to be diagnosed with autism, from ADHD than those with the lowest concentrations. So that's 2019. Another study in 2019, this was out of Boston. This is an analysis to evaluate basically acetyminephine exposure and ADHD. They says our findings corroborate those of prior reports suggesting that prenatal acetaminophen exposure

may influence neurodevelopment. And then last month, Mount Sinai, this was a meta-analysis of a lot of studies, evaluation of the evidence of acetaminophen use and neurodevelopmental disorders. And it says here, and they're concluding, Their analysis thus support evidence consistent with an association between acetaminin exposure during pregnancy and increase incidences of neurodevelopmental disorders.

But they say this, appropriate and immediate steps should be taken to advise pregnant women to limit acetaminin consumption to protect their offspring's neural development. And that's exactly what the FDA did. The FDA didn't ban Tylenol. The FDA didn't say you'll never going to take it again. It said because of, in the spirit of patient safety, we're asking doctors to to consider not giving them as much, not giving pregnant mothers as much Tylenol

because of these studies. That's all they did. And you can see. It begs the question when you look at NPR and Reuters making statements that this decision is not based in science, it really makes me question whether they understand the term science. I'm thinking like Princess Bride.

This word science, I do not think this word means what you think it means. It's unbelievable. What is science? It's like, I mean, you got major John's Hops. Hopkins and Harvard's and massive major, the greatest universities and school systems are reporting on this. And they're acting like there's no science at all. It's just, it's mind-boggling.

Like we are living on different planets. I'm seeing the specter of the COVID era coming in here. This is the science TM. This is Fauci's I am the science. Perhaps that's what they're talking about. Right, okay. The fact that they can't let this line be crossed. Because once they let this line be crossed, then the subsequent announcements from HHS and President Trump were probably going to get more.

That's what they said. Then that's just going to be watershed moment after watershed moment. So they have to defend it every step. Well, it's because. And here's why this is the first time it's ever been stated that an outside environmental toxin, something you're taking can contribute to autism. This is the first, you know, absolute destruction of what Bobby, you know, mentions in. there in that statement that our HHS has only been investing over the last several decades in the science looking at genetics, as though this rise in autism.

There's no rise that moves as fast as being explained by genetics. I think he said it's about as useful as, you know, blaming cancer, lung cancer on genetics when you know it's cigarettes and not looking at cigarettes. A really powerful statement there. But this is it. This is the beginning. What I don't think everyone realizes this is the beginning now of the investigation that should have happened the entire time. We know it's got to be environmental.

Even President Trump knows it's environmental. And now you're seeing the first environmental toxin acedomedeophon. And what it does. And by the way, you and I both know that and what Trump's alluding to is when you tell people to take a Tylenol, if their child gets bussy after a vaccine, you're making all of the dangerous elements, all of the adjuvants in that vaccine. You are reducing the glutathione, which we know Tylenol does, which helps get those toxins out of the body. Now you halt that process so that the child cannot clear these toxins. And then the rest, as they say, is a horrendous history. So eventually, I believe you're going to see these things start to link up, which is this connection between Tylenol with vaccinations.

And then I think the floodgates open up. So I think we're all looking forward to that moment. that's what the science has shown us so far. It'd be very interesting to see what the science inside of HHS, CDC, FDA, and all those that were present and accounted for, really supporting this, watching Marty McRey talk about it, and Dr. Oz and Jay Batacharya, excited about the fact that they're doing studies

where it's all on the table, nothing's being left out. Very, very exciting times in this conversation. And let's link this to a story that's near and dear to our heart. that's YouTube censorship. So we have House Chairman. He's the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Jim Jordan. And what he did is he took to X and posted this just yesterday. Breaking. Due to our oversight efforts, Google commits to offer all creators previously kicked off YouTube due to political speech violations to return to the platform. And then it goes on to say this. He says YouTube also admitted that the Biden administration censorship pressure was quote, unacceptable and wrong. Now this was, this was. from Google, which is Alphabet now, this was from their lawyers. So that a legal letter was sent to Jim Jordan. It goes on to say that this legal letter said it confirms. Google confirms that the Biden administration wanted Americans censored for the speech that did not violate YouTube policies. Sounds familiar here at the Highwire. Then it goes on to talk about YouTube

is going to begin rolling back censorship policies on political speech when the GOP began its investigation and states that public debate should never come at the expense of relying on authorities. It's never going to promote third-party fact checkers. But that is interesting. It says Europe's censorship laws that target American companies are threatening to American speech. So they even put that in there. The lawyers, the legal team thought it was important to do that. So we have now Business Insider. This goes across all of the wires, all the news. YouTube says it'll bring back creators banned for violating COVID-19 and election content policies. So that brings us right into our backyard because for those of people that have just

tuning into us maybe finding us now in july of 20 july 29 2020 talking over five years that's when youtube kicked us off yeah we were out the gates we were one of the front runners we had as you said at the beginning of the show lab origins we're the first to talk about the vaccine not stopping transmission and we had all the experts on loan mccullough everybody so we were gone we were out of there well people now are saying great we can go back on youtube right well our chance didn't come back and so other people started to put their channels up and noticed that their channel that people that were censored they were starting to try to put their channels up and they noticed they were getting pulled down so youtube comes out just before just before we went to air

here and they posted this on x this is their youtube account this is an update it says we've seen some previously terminated creators try to start new channels and they say this it's still against our community guidelines for previously terminated users to use possess create or create other channels. And we'll terminate new channels from previously terminated users in accordance with our guidance. And then it says, we'll have more to share

on the limited pilot program soon. So YouTube admitting they were kicking people off because the government was forcing them, but those people I got kicked off, sorry, the First Amendment is just a pilot program. It's a someday maybe thing for YouTube. Just wait around. Get back in your hole, we'll tell you when it come out.

I love that. The First Amendment is a pilot program. I'm genius. That's where we're at with YouTube. So despite what Jim Jordan said, YouTube, the wheels are not turning over there in YouTube for people like us, people like Alex Jones, he tried to put his channel back up, kicked off.

So what's sad about this really, if we take away the jokes, the censorship of us and other people that were out there out front of us during the pandemic, it didn't keep us all safe or healthy. In fact, it actually, it made the public suffer as a result. And our government did that and YouTube did that and Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram. And that's where we're at. And we're kind of still there because they're still shadow banning.

They're still not letting people on. And when we talk about this, we're seeing mainstream headlines now. At least the public five years later is getting truth. So mainstream can talk about this now. But think about if they could put headlines like this five years ago. Here's the daily mail. Scientists finally admit the COVID vaccines are less effective than claimed. We were reporting on for years. Wow. 50% rapid, rapidly lose protection. We go to an image here in the study, an article from the study, and you can see about

six months at wanes, and then even the people that are doing great, and you only get an extra month there and it's done. So you wonder, people are still lined up for these shots. I mean, this is something a lot of our viewers already knew, but now the rest of the public maybe is starting to get these wheels turning that small, I don't know what, less than 50% of people that still believe in this vaccine. But here's the big study. This is really the big study because in Ron Johnson's hearing, we kept hearing the term COVID vaccine saved millions of lives.

Well, a study has come out to exhaustively look at this. It's 40 something pages. We're not going to go through the whole thing, but it's called a step-by-step evaluation of the claim that COVID-19 vaccines saved millions of lives. They based this, that statement has been based, is based on hypothetical models that were resting on a sequence of assumptions. of assumptions. One of those assumptions were vaccine stopped transmission. We knew right away that that wasn't the case. So that is where we're at. So the conclusion only throws a study off just a little bit that the actual definition of a vaccine, which is to stop transmission, had to be changed in the Webster's dictionary simply because this vaccine failed so hard. But we still stuck with a stopping

transmission, which lead how much, how far could be off? I mean, yeah, I don't know. Like the entire worldwide spread you got wrong? After vaccination, I mean, unbelievable. It's laughable. It is. And so we have to put this the idea to bed because we're hearing this out of the mouths of people in Senate hearings. We're hearing this out of the mouths of people across the media. They're still saying these vaccines save millions of lives.

So the article concludes this. And this is the science. Anybody can go look at the science here. It says, based on the evidence reviewed in this article, we find no solid empirical foundation for the claim that COVID-19 vaccines saved millions and millions of lives. Moreover, this biologically active intervention was administered repeatedly in the form of boosters, often a healthy individual with zero risk of COVID-related mortality. Taken together with the lack of demonstrable long-term efficacy presented in this article, the available evidence suggests that the risk-benefit balance of the COVID-19 vaccine is,

in fact, tilted toward the negative end of this fundamental medical question. So that is the study of our time. That's really the cherry on top of this entire pandemic. It didn't work. And we put out this biologically active intervention with an experimental lipid manoparticle, LNP, that has been injected into hundreds of millions, probably over a billion people. And that goes throughout the entire body. We still don't have answers on this. So what also happened since our last show was the ASIP committee. This is CDC's advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, and we have a new lean, mean group of people at this committee,

one of them being Robert Malone. Robert Malone had a chance to question Pfizer at this committee about this lipid nanoparticle. Take a listen. Okay. This is a representative from Pfizer. Our bi-distribution studies were done in concert and consultation with the FDA, and we did use a luciferous based product that was manufactured the same way as our drug substance and our drug product are LMP itself. Can I follow up on that as a person who developed that assay and used it first in tissue and also developed the various sub methods for analysis? You appear to have used the least sensitive method available, that being whole body imaging using a VIM camera, rather than the most sensitive method, which is individual tissue dissection, lysis, and counting in the lumenometer.

Am I incorrect in that? And furthermore, the data that were submitted to the FDA were edited. They were edited relative to data that was submitted to other agencies. the actual images were edited. Can you comment on that, please? So Pfizer does not have a further comment other than we did work in close consultation with the FDA on all of our biodistribution studies

that were approved for our licensed product. Fascinating. I mean, I don't know what in a laugh or cry right now. First of all, it's amazing to finally hear these types of questions. We've been going to these ASIP meetings for, you know, many, many years now. We've been reporting on the fact that, you know, when good questions are asked, the answers are horrible. But to think that Robert Malone was one of those people that's sort of being attacked for being on this board, what background does he have? I don't know. Only that I

invented the essay you're referring to, I was the first one to use it. And I have so much knowledge about it. I'd like to know why you're using the weakest form and version there is. Why aren't you being, you know, more thorough and using what we know this product is capable of. I mean, an astounding moment and then just, well, all we can say is FDA, you know, work closely with us. Yeah, that's exactly why Robert Kennedy Jr., Donald Trump, have just replaced the, you know, the FDA, the CDC, the NIH, HHS for exactly these reasons. And again, that was a lipid nanoparticle, experimental in a vaccine given to that many people,

and Pfizer used the least, the least magnification to find out. where it goes in the body and how it biostributes. And we know this was an issue. So that's Pfizer for you, and that's ASIP for you. But we have some real problems here. We still have problems. Because a lot of people took this shot. A lot of young boys took this shot.

And we know what happens there. This is Marty McCarrie. FDA had in a recent interview. Listen to what he had to say about some new numbers. Okay. We should note that vaccine injury and God forbid vaccine deaths have been a very, very small minority

of the tens, hundreds of millions of people who've taken this vaccine? Hundreds of thousands of Americans describe vaccine injury. 25% of clinicians know of somebody that's been significantly disabled or died from a vaccine. I know of three people who have died from the COVID vaccine, not personally, but through a physician or friend that has had a first-degree contact with someone who has had a vaccine complication. We know there's a risk of myocarditis in young healthy men. That's one in 2,600 young boys. So when people use these blanket terms, they're ignoring the very nuanced question in medical science,

and that is, do the benefits outweigh the risks? That is the question. Let's blindfold ourselves and insist that everybody take this. Look at the last administration. Rubber stamping COVID boosters every year with no update. clinical trial and we said we're not going to keep going down this road. I'm 21,600, that's what we're pulling out here. One in 2,600, I think, you know, I mean, he keeps talking about the numbers you would have to

vaccinate to, you know, save one child and to save that one child you're going to put 44 in the hospital with myracoditis, pericoditis. I mean, it's just really just, it may have those numbers. Yeah, I have those numbers right here, Adele. Okay. We look at, we have to look at the UK actually because in May of 2024, the federal directives here in the United States was you don't have to really count these anymore. So the UK government kept counting. This is autumn. So this is kind of our best guesstimate, but this is autumn 24. And the number needed to vaccinate to avoid one hospitalization. Here's the list. And the 15 to 19 year old age group, 113,700. So if you divide that by 2,600 boys, that's like you said, 44 cases of mildcarditis. heart death, heart cell muscle death to avoid one hospitalization. 20 to 24-year-olds, 100, 2,900.

You're looking at about 39 cases of myocarditis. You're going to give the kids to avoid one hospitalization. That's the truth of this vaccine. And when people say you have these coalitions in California and Washington State and here in New England, and the coalition saying, we're going to give these to children and infants still because we're following the science. What science? What science?

Yeah. No, it's really amazing. And by the way, it's the first time I ever remember on television, the head of the FDA, saying that we now can prove that this vaccine is doing more harm than the disease itself. When it comes to a risk-reward benefit ratio, the science has been done. We finally have scientists that are willing to admit it and are beginning to make changes on this. So it's really, again, like part of me is so ecstatic. I just want to dance out of here and just say, this show has already said enough today.

But also, it's just so sad. It's so incredibly sad the level of ineptitude and bias that has destroyed so many lives. Let's finish off with ASIP here because there were votes during the ASIP committee and we have three votes. One of them was on the hepatitis B vaccine. That vaccine that's given to every newborn infant in America the second they're born, whether they're in the NICU unit or they're premature, you're getting that shot. Well, they were supposed to vote on the safety efficacy and to keep this on the schedule as it is. Well, they punted on that. So they punted that to the next ASIP committee.

They're going to talk about it then. If Trump's comments were any foreshadowing, 12 years and older, maybe where they're going to go with that, we don't know. The MMRV, that's the measles, mom's rebella, and varicella, the chickenpox vaccine. They took out the V, the varicela for younger than four because there was a seizure risk. They also voted on making shared individual, sorry, individual decision making for COVID vaccines. So you make the choice. The doctor can give his two cents, but no more mandates. We're done with that.

So that was unanimous. And then they also voted to test all newborn, all mothers in the United States for hepatitis B. So we know for sure who's getting this shot. It's not just indiscriminate one size fits all. So this is a good thing. But in the ASIP committee, something interesting happened, something that's a that's near and dear again to the informed consent action network.

And that was the placebo-controlled studies for safety, for vaccines using an inert placebo. We have RETTIP-Levy. He's an ASIP committee member. And he brought up an interesting question when they were talking about the MRV and the hepatitis B. Listen to what he had to say.

I just, I have to say that one thing that puzzles me is that many of the speakers that push for this scientific approach are speaking. very confidently in the absence of the gold standard evidence of robust long-term clinical trials against placebo. And we all agree that those trials in these settings for this particular intervention do not exist. So I just suggest that if we want to keep a scientific approach, we should be scientific

throughout all the steps of the decision-making. And I think that too many times we We hear very confident statements about safe and effective in the absence of that gold standard, especially in the context of vaccination. So with all due respect, I just encourage all of us to be a little bit more humble and also recognize that many times we make decisions not following the gold standard. I mean, beautifully said, and obviously someone on a hot mic there, you know, caught saying, you're an idiot.

You're an idiot for wanting safety studies. Again, like this word science that is getting, you know, batted around, it really makes us all wonder, how long have we been so distant from the actual definition of science? And that's a huge clip, because that should be breaking. Government Vaccine Board admits gold standard science was never done for vaccines. And then maybe a byline,

gets verbally abused by audience. I mean, that's what I saw. So the cat's out of the bag, and now the headlines are coming to defend this. So, uh-oh, they found out our trick. Here's PBS News. They have a really a whammy of an article here. RFK Jr. wants all new vaccines tested against a placebo.

Doctors say, that isn't good science. There's that word again. It's just throwing around like, keep or treat candy, I guess. Let's go into it. this article here because you think that's funny you're going to love this. It says it remains unclear under which circumstances, if any, a placebo-controlled trial design is ethically justifiable when an efficacious or partially efficacious vaccine already exists. Experts wrote in 2013 World Health

Organization report. That means that even if a previously approved vaccine is improved upon many times over, those new trials are not conducted against a placebo, but rather the previous version of the vaccine, there it is. I mean, it's all we've been saying since for 10, 10 years. No, it goes on to say this. This is a quote actually from some, so they reach out to some public health experts. They say, you can't compare the new vaccine to no vaccine because the standard of care is the old vaccine, says Daniel Solomon, director of the Institute for Vaccine Safety at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. So they're their expert. He says, as a result, you don't have a true non-vaccine control group, and you can't, ethically. Well, okay, let's use that logic.

So you can't have it because the new vaccine has to be compared to the old vaccines, can't leave people out. Well, what about when the vaccine, because we know around 1986, well after that, when vaccine manufacturers receive complete blanket liability for any harms done, you saw them adding injectable products like hotcakes onto the CDC schedule. So what about those new vaccines that were just new on the market, never before seen again? Surely those were tested against a placebo. Well, here's ICAN's placebo pyramid.

This is their pyramid scheme. And you can see here that whole first line, that full half circle, none of that, no placebo-controlled trial, not one injected vaccine routinely recommended by the CDC has been licensed based on a placebo-controlled trial. And this is the evidence right here. So that's not true, but let's go further on this. Now they talk about in this article, I'm going to go back to this, I'm going to do a couple more quotes because this is a really telling moment in history. It says discussing the logistics of conducting randomized control trials when standards of care are already established. Dr. Mark Heyman, a family physician, focused on functional medicine and blah, blah, blah, has their own podcast. He says, you've got to go

to populations that are unvaccinated, like the Amish or Mennonites or groups like that. But he says, if you're talking about an observational study, the Amish are a terrible control group, because not only do they not use vaccines as much, although some do, they'll do all these other things that are different, he said, they utilize health care systems and health care very differently. If that's just the control group, then you've reinvented an observational study, which is not gold standard science, Dean said. So I guess, Del, we're back to square one. I don't even know what to do. We can't do it because of ethics. We can't do it with, I don't know, maybe half the population that wouldn't take a COVID vaccine. We can't use them for some reason. So we can't use the Amish.

So let's see, what are we left with? Well, maybe if there's some huge hospital systems out there somewhere that could just look at their records and just run a study of Vax versus unvax in their records to see who has more chronic disease, that may help. I don't know if anybody's done that before. Yes. Indeed, Jeffrey. You know, obviously you are referring to our new documentary film, an inconvenient study. And that is the heart of what we talk about.

We talk about this entire game that they're playing, spinning around. It's really deceitful. They keep saying, well, we can't do a placebo-based trial because there's already a vaccine that exists, as though that vaccine was tested against the saline. placebo as our pyramid shows, but also the documents themselves, if you just read the inserts of every vaccine as we have, as we've provided for every single, you know, editorial writer out there that wants to know the truth. They've never, there's no placebo insight for any single vaccine, not the original forms of these vaccines. So we literally are flying blind and we're being told

by mainstream medicine, sorry, we're just going to all have to stay blind and keep taking more and more vaccines as the health of our children complains, you know, continues just careen towards absolute destruction. Now we know, based on the recent CDC studies, over 76% of this nation has a chronic disease. Is the sickest we've ever been. It's the fastest we've ever gotten this sick in history. We've never seen declines at this level. But yeah, let's just keep flying blind. Let's just keep, you know, just guessing and assuming and never do any real science. And you brought up something there really quick, just behind the scenes for the rest of the audience. When people are saying, why doesn't corporate media report on this?

We are talking, you, Aaron, you're doing several interviews a week and have been for years with New York Times, Washington Post. Name any outlet. They have the evidence. They have been told the evidence, and they're not running this. I know. It's incredible. I know how they do it. I don't know how they call themselves journalists.

All I know is every time they write another article, they're making sure that we never forget in the end. handles of history that they were the last stupid people alive on the planet Earth. Jeffrey, thank you for that incredible reporting. What a week. I mean, really, just what a week. You know, we keep saying, you know, tipping point, turning point, the winds are shifting. It's just really fantastic. Lots of great things happening. Really proud of the moves that are now happening inside the regulatory agencies. But keep up the goal, you know, the good work. We're going to keep the pressure on. It doesn't mean it's perfect. We're looking for those vaccines. studies, but we're going to do everything we can to just, you know, keep it reported here.

No one does it better than you. So Jeffrey, great work. We'll see you next week. Thank you. All right. All right. Well, I just want to say, you know, as we talk about YouTube censoring, just an anecdotal story really quick. I remember the moment that happened. There were some articles that were coming out saying that we should be shut down, that to be making lab origin claims, these people must be stopped. It's incredible, right? Like we were shut down for the thing that all science now finally admits, we had it, you know, before there was a vaccine. I mean, we had it so early on, it was really crazy. But just for us, to get it behind the scenes, what that was like, our entire show was built on YouTube and Facebook. So we lost both those

platforms, but specifically YouTube was the player we were using on our website, and then suddenly we were shut down. If I remember correctly, it was a Tuesday, and we knew we had to have a show on Thursday. So we started trying to use every other platform that was still open, all the emails that had signed up, which is why we love it. If we have your email, if they ever try to shut us down again, we'd love it. If we have you in an email list, it's super easy. We never share it with anybody. You just scroll down to the middle of the page on the highwire.com, right in their brave, bold news, type in your email right there, and we'll make sure that if anything happens, if we're breaking a new trailer, if, by the way, one of the things that's been amazing is when we've been going live with these

hearings. You know how many people are reaching out and said, oh my God, I know that if there's anything about health, that the Senate has a hearing, if it's against Bobby for Bobby or with Macri or whatever's going on, we're streaming all of those live right now. So every time there's breaking news coming from Washington, D.C., you can see it here, but you'll only know about it. If you're signed up with the email, if we have you, we can ping you in a text message or send you an email. It's really important that you sign up there. But to get back to the story, you know, So we went, we tried to find the strongest, you know, third-party player we could use on our website in order to be ready for the audience that were saying, just go to our website, YouTube's not going to be there, Facebook's not, just come over and we'll be ready for you. Well, I think when we ran the show that week, that Thursday, two days later, I think we crashed our computer, like the entire thing shut down, I think three or four times throughout the show.

And we're like, wow, I mean, we really got overloaded. But here's the thing. We've been watching our YouTube numbers, and it said that we were getting about 10,000 live views per show. Of course, it would spread out over the week as people were playing it. But then all of a sudden we're like, wow, we got crushed by 10,000 live views that really overwhelmed this player we're using. Well, about a week later, we finally started getting the background demographics and numbers that came in.

And we found out that we were getting over 200,000 live viewers were trying to watch. the show on our website. So not only had YouTube been censoring us, we believe that they were actually lying to us about the numbers that were watching our show, which became clear we needed a player capable of hundreds of thousands of people watching at the same time, and then we started building our own players and everything else, and thank you for the team that's made that possible. It's just things like that that we don't really talk about on this show, but when you are sponsoring us, when you become a recurring donor, or you're a recurring donor, you decide to donate, those things help us to stay live.

We don't have anyone working in our favor. Right now, all you have to do is just go to the top of the page and click on donate and become a recurring donor. If you go to the highwire.com right there, there it is. Donate to ICANN. We're asking for you to become a recurring donor because that way we know, you know, what type of internet products we can build, like a new player or a social media platform or things like that. All things we're discussing now. Or how many lawsuits we're going to be able to bring?

And, you know, when you look at the success that we've had, we have live right now 90 lawsuits across this country. We've won more lawsuits against our government agencies than anyone in terms of health against FDA, CDC, Health and Human Services, the NIH, all victorious. Whoever thought you could win, what do they say, don't sue City Hall? Guess who sees Sue City Hall every day and wins? Aaron Siri, our lawyer, I can for you, so that we could bring back the religious exemption in Mississippi, which we fought for years to achieve. Now it's achieved. Kids can decide. Parents can say, I don't want a boarded fetal DNA inside of my children. I'm opting out for religious reasons. And any child in Mississippi has to be allowed to go to school. And we are deep right now,

as you heard last week, Aaron was just deposing in court in West Virginia. We are on the brink of winning back the religious exemption for West Virginia, who I think hasn't had it for even long in the Mississippi. We're talking like since the 1970s. So this is about religious freedom. It's about freedom. It's about body autonomy and sovereignty, which are all things this country is supposed to celebrate, not fight and try to take away. This is a part of our fight. These are the five holdout states. We think we're going to take West Virginia any minute. And we have lawsuits all across in those other states. And especially. especially one in New York that we believe will go all the Supreme Court and maybe change

this conversation forever. It's not cheap to do this. It's not easy to do it. As I've said before, these lawsuits don't make money. The government doesn't say, oh, well, here you go. Here's a billion dollars wanting to go and pay for all those injured kids. I wish it worked that way. Instead, all they do is get a slap on the wrist and we get a file that says you lied to America.

But that file is getting thicker and thicker and thicker. They are trying to fight us longer and longer in the courts. And the only reason we have ever been able to stand in those courtrooms right now, West Virginia, I think Aaron says there's almost 20 lawyers he's against. He has to wait for like five different organizations to cross-examine every single witness because so many people are fighting just our case. Still, watch it. We're going to win this.

All of that is made possible by your donations. You make it possible for them to never wait us out. They're going to try and make it long and arduous and painful. And believe me, it is. But we're not going anywhere until we win. And that's why we're having the success that we do. So to be a part of that, to be a part of this movie that now they're trying to shut us down and say, you know, threatening to sue us for, you know, showing a study that is now out there in the public. Everyone can look at it that mirrors the same problem.

We're seeing so many other studies. Oh, we can't have that documentary out there. Look, we're used to living on the edge of threat. We do it because that's what it takes to stand for the truth. It's what our founding fathers told us we were supposed to do, that we were supposed to believe in, that we were supposed to remain vigilant no matter what. Highwire and I can are vigilant.

So if you want to continue to help us, we've got a great program right now. Of course, this is our terrorist program in our high road, which are the bricks that pave the way on this beautiful campus that I walk every day. Let me just show you my favorite brick today. Take a look at this. All right. Well, my favorite brick this week is perfect for today's show and what we're dealing with. Wait till you find out, but here it is. The truth shall set you free with thanks to all the courageous souls who stand and lend a voice for the greater good,

allowing their light to shine until the darkness is no more. Margaret Bullitt, Seattle, Washington, 2020. Well, indeed, the truth shall set us free. So let's go get into that right now. It's why we're standing our ground and we're going to move forward this documentary because it is about all of those courageous souls. The scientists and the doctors that have ventured out to point out a problem that they're seeing even though they lose their licenses or they're under review and they're under attack.

All of those courageous souls, all of those mothers and fathers that not only dealt with this incredible injury at home, but took whatever little time they had left in their lives to come out and tell the world, will you please watch out? I know they're telling you we're crazy, but our children have never been the same since vaccination. To all of those courageous souls, the truth will absolutely set us free. Only the truth can. And that is what we're dedicated to here. So everyone that's donating right now, we appreciate it, whether you're a recurring donor

or whether you're getting a brick right now or a bench or some of the plaques that are going to be this property, you have an opportunity to make a foundational point, to stand in the test of time. This location, this beautiful campus will always be here, and we want everyone to be able to say, I laid a stone for the future of freedom in the greatest nation in the world. Well, speaking of fighting for freedom, it's amazing in this health space how important it becomes. Well, what if you could, you know, help people? What if you could save people's lives? And then suddenly when you have a product, you've tested it, it works.

It can protect you from COVID. And then all of a sudden your own government sues you to try and shut you down. What would you do? Well, I'll see what my next guest did. You are the head of a company called Clear. Every year, I used to get colds constantly. And I have to get antibiotics and all of that. I started taking this, your stuff.

It's been about seven and a half months. I feel healthier. It's a whole, the whole thing is crazy. Zylitol helps reduce bacterial adhesion. It stops bacteria from binding up with a tissue. And if they can't bind up with a tissue, they're not going to get injured. Cells are not going to make you sick.

A tremendous amount of research is going on to help stop the pandemic. Doug Jessup profiles a company that is getting nosy about COVID-19. The virus lives in the upper airway. That's its dominant site. We've known that since March when they put in an article in the New England Journal of Medicine where they showed roughly 90% of the viral load is in your nose. The doctors are telling us it's having a good effect and so we sent it up to Utah State University virology lab. Does this kill this SARS COVID too? And sure enough, they respond and said yes, it destroys it. The FTC filed suit against a Utah company that claims its nasal spray is capable of preventing and treating COVID-19.

Hort documents indicate the makers of clear claim the spray offers up to four hours of protection. The FTC complaint says the company lacked valid factual or scientific basis for those and other COVID-19 claims. July 29th of 2020, we actually got a warning letter from the FTC saying that we could not be sharing any of the data from any of our studies or any of the doctors what they were talking about as far as nasal hygiene goes and how it could be beneficial. I can show you with data that by the stuff that they're censoring, people died. I mean, if they'd come out on the news and said, hey, guys, just wash your nose with saltwater. I guarantee you there would be hundreds of thousands of people alive today. Well, the last time Nate Jones was on our show, he was in the middle of being sued. They eventually dropped that lawsuit.

But guess what? In an turn of events, Nate is suing them back. And so it's my honor and pleasure to be joined right now to get to the bottom of this crazy story. Most people are just relieved. It's over. I'm out. And yet you rushed right back into the Lionsden. Why?

Because I think it's the right thing to do. I think that, you know, as I mentioned that clip, what the FTC was doing, you've had this whole talk today on this whole episode today about censorship. Yeah. I mean, that's really what the FTC was doing is they were censoring. studies. They were censoring studies from Vanderbilt. They were censoring stuff that was published on the CDC's website. Prior to 2020, the CDC had on its website that the way to treat a respiratory coronavirus infection was by flushing it out, washing it out of your nose. And by April, May of 2020,

Vanderbilt had already published studies showing that, yes, what worked prior to 2020, worked after 2020. I mean, telling me crazy. But what worked, worked? And it was a study done with 60 patients over the age of 65. All of them had COVID. All of them tested positive. They all, you know, all of it. And every single one of them in under a week, just using saltwater, nothing that was killing the virus, nothing that blocked adhesion,

just simply salt water and flushing it. A hundred percent of them were better. The FTC sent warning letters to all of us in the industry and told us to cease and desist. Stop sharing the studies. Incredible. So for people that are not aware of clear as a product, what's in it? And how does it work?

So ours is it's a saline nasal spray that has xylitol. And what the xylitol is, it's a sugar. And, you know, we have sugars all throughout our body. They're actually what's used for cells to communicate. Like even in the COVID protein, everybody knows that protein. Around that protein is what's called a glycolacalyx. That glycolacalx is all full of sugars. And those sugars are how they actually attach to other tissues.

And what happens with xylitol? And we've known this going back to the 90s because it's the same thing with bacteria. is the xylitol binds up on these receptor sites, blocks the ability of these bacteria and viruses to adhere to the tissue. If they can't adhere to the tissue, they obviously aren't gonna get you sick because they get flushed away.

So where they were saying even saline would do this job, that's just doing the flushing part, your product was flushing then also binding to the tissue to block binding by whatever is there with the spike protein or the virus itself. Correct. That's exactly what it does. And you can, and there's other

products out there that go a step further where you're actually using, they use some with iodine, they use some with other viricidal or bactericidal ingredients. And if you're already sick, I'm not a doctor, but I would probably go and use one of those. But I don't want to encourage people to use them on a regular basis because, you know, we all know about our gut microbiome. Yeah. We have an oral microbiome and we have a nasal microbiome. And these microbiomes are what feed our gut microbiome. That's where our gut microbiome comes from. So if you're kids, killing all of this, you're going to screw up your micro-wilomes. And just very quickly, it's an amazing story, but your father was the one that sort of

discovered this feature in xylitol. How did that happen? Well, he's not the one that discovered it. Okay. So the big body of science behind xylitol is that they've known since the late 1960s that it prevents tooth decay, very effective at doing it. I mean, so much more effective than practically anything else in the market. And when they were doing this studies looking at how it prevented tooth decay, what they

started noticing in all the data they collected in these studies is the kids that chewed xylitol gum, not only were they not getting tooth decay, they were also getting 42% fewer respiratory infections. And in 1998, there was a study that was published in the Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy where they showed that what's happening is the xylitol is binding up on these receptor sites. It's blocking the ability of this bacteria to adhere to the tissue, the strepnumo, H-flu, MCAT, which caused the majority of our bacterial respiratory infections.

So he, living in northern Texas, he actually read that study. He had a bunch of babies that are too young to chew them. And he goes, well, if ear infections start in the nose, why don't we just spray it up their nose? So he put it into saline and started washing out their nose and they'd stop getting sick. Wow. So it helped with ear infections, which I know we've covered this all before, but we have a brand new audience now. So yeah. And just going back to the ear infections, if I can throw this out there, we actually, in the 2000s, I don't know what you call them, the Otts, we actually did us

study, looking at how it prevented ear infections, we submitted that study to one of the journals. I can't remember which one it was. And the editor of the journal said, there's no way in hell that a sugar is going to cause this much reduction in ear infections. They refused to even send it out for peer review. Wow. I mean, that's a huge part of the movie that we're putting out right now. I mean, that is just, as you know, and anyone in this space, the level of control by, you know, industry, in the space of medicine and science, it's really, it's actually horrifying. It's horrifying to think how many life-saving tools

are probably out there, but I got to know you or I have to know someone that says, have you tried clear to get there? When you do start getting, you know, all the news that we saw there saying, this is a great product, the government itself comes after you, probably prompted by some senators

or assembly members that are being funded. Or farm companies. Exactly. Right. Well, that's funded, you know, by a pharma company. Hey, will you bust this guy's chops? We got to shut this down. So the lawsuit now, the return loss that you're bringing, what is it that, what is the heart of that case?

What are you claiming and what is the relief? So what were, so maybe I should clarify, the FTC was suing me and my company to saying that we had made faults and misleading statement. Okay. In the four years that that lawsuit was going on at no point. did they ever show a study that contradicted anything that we said? Okay. And the way that the FTC has historically, you know, practice their law is they'll actually go out and sue someone and it's your job to prove your innocence, which is exactly the opposite of what our Constitution says. Exactly.

We're innocent until proven guilty. Yeah. And they keep moving the goalpost. Like, for example, prior, in 1998, they came on with what they call their industry guidance or something. like that. And you know, you read through that and it gives you guidance and it says, you have to have studies showing that what you're saying and the claims you're making are correct. When they actually, when they actually sent us a warning letter, we sent them a bunch of studies, dozens and dozens of studies backing up all the different steps that we had made.

And we actually learned later in depositions that they ignored them, that they could not even give us a single person at the FTC who had opened and read a single one of those studies. Wow. Their logic was it's not in the news, so it can't be true. Oh, my God. They actually said this. I remember when, you know, the head of CDC during COVID says, I didn't see it on CNN or I did see it on CNN. That's how she made her decisions.

A little scary. It's sketchy. A teeny bit. Walensky. So what we wanted, and, you know, there was a lot of times where it would have been a lot cheaper and easier to back down, but I really just want to push back and say, you know, you've got people, what you're doing, what the FTC was doing was killing American citizens. And that's not something I'm saying lightly.

I'm saying that studies that have been done since then on other nasal hygiene products on xylitol using iota carogen and using saline show an increased reduction in even transmission of COVID and other diseases across the board when people do it. And the FTC censored that. So it's easy to demonstrate how they were killing people. And I said, I just want to change how the FTC is doing this because they move the goalposts. Okay, we had the studies and then they came out and said well This is a study that you did in vitro on varro kidney monkey tissue which is the industry standard for the pharmaceutical industry

They came to us and said well you have to do it on human airway tissue which is a significantly more expensive study but still you know affordable So we actually went and did it at the Utah State University kudos to them But we actually had them check different sugars different bacteria or not bacteria different sugars and different viruses We actually used erythritol, which is a four carbon sugar. We use xylotol, which is a five carbon sure. We use sorbitol, which is a six carbon sugar. And we used RSV, we used H1N1, H5N1,

SARS COVID-2, the delta strain. And what they found is that different sugars are actually blocking different viruses in different levels. Wow. Okay? And the thing that was interesting is that almost all of them blocked SARS-COVID-2.

So SARS-COVID-2 is an easy virus to actually get rid of. You just have to do something. But when we shared that with the FTC and said, hey, you know, here's the study you asked for. They said, well, no, now you have to do a couple of RCTs. Randomized control trial. Randomized control trial. And I was sitting on a boat. It was in the summer of, I want to say, 2021.

But I was sitting on a boat in the middle of Lake Powell in southern Utah. Okay. And I had to go out in the middle of the lake to get phone reception. I'm on the phone with my lawyers and the FTC lawyers. and they said, and we were talking about this study, and they said, well, you can go out and make the claim that it blocks RSV. You can go out and make the claim that it blocks H1N1, H511, which is a bird flu, but you can't say SARS-COVID 2. And I'm like, how does this make sense? How does this even make sense?

This is just the stupidest thing I've ever heard. You're talking about the same study, exactly the same thing, and yet they're saying you can do this and this, and it's because we said so. And so I actually texted my lawyers at that time, and I said, end this conference. I'm going back to enjoy my time at the lake. If they sue us, they sue us and we'll fight back. Because this is ridiculous. Then flash, you know, after two years of that, depositions that actually learned that the FTC is,

I don't want to say as dumb as they come, but they have a lot of issues there, probably as many or more than the FDA and some of these other. But they dropped our lawsuit, probably because, what I think is they knew we were going to win. Yeah, I was going to say it's something called that we refer to as losing. Yes.

They were losing? Yes. And what helped us really was the Chevron deference when was overturned, the Loper Bright lawsuit. So what's that, Chevron deference, was that? So what that is, is prior to that, it was that the agencies could go out and interpret the laws however they want to. Okay. Which is absurdly crazy. I can't even understand how anybody ever thought that was a good idea.

And the goalposts were, that's why the goalposts would move from here to there to here to there and back around. And that's why everybody always caved. I was just too dumb to understand that. So when that happened, they actually called us and said, hey, you know, we want to get this case dismissed. And I was actually up in the mountains in the snowstorm, and they called me and said, hey, they want to dismiss. And I said, no, I want to, I want a victory.

I want to go to court. And it took them about five hours. My lawyers, it took them about five hours to convince me that that was the best thing. And so we actually dismissed it. And the next day, I told my lawyer, they said, They said, yeah, let's go back and fight them. I want to get a declaratory judgment against the FTC so that they will have to stop doing this.

I want to judge to interpret the law and say what faults and misleading is because a statement, the FTC law says that we can't put products, that nobody can put a product on the market and make false and misleading statements about it. And that's something we can all agree to. Sure. But what the FTC is now saying is in order to put a product on the market in the health space, you have to have at least two very expensive RCT studies in order to put it on the market. And what that's doing is going to do to the industry

if they continue to enforce it is if you have to go out before you can put a new product in the market and spend millions of dollars on doing studies on your specific product and you can't rely on any of the data from other products that have ever been done in the past, then nobody's going to be able to come out with a new product except a huge pharmaceutical company with deep pockets that's being funded by the government.

That's what I've discovered in the years that I've been at this, you know, is that, you know, they'll cry as though, well, the FDA is so restrictive. We have to go through, we have to spend all this money. They're holding back innovation when they're the ones behind the scenes, holding everybody's innovation back, say make it expensive as you can, so that we're the only ones that can play this game. We have no competition. There's no innovation that can enter from anywhere else,

but these big monolithic conglomerates, and they're just out there to crush a little guy, but you're standing up, which is just incredible, brave, and I'm glad you're doing it. Thank you. I think you're probably like the rest of us. You feel inspired and guided to do what's right. It's like an American value, I wish, was permeated every human being in this country right now.

We've got to try. Yeah. So now you're working on a petition. Yes. So tell me a little bit about that. So what the petition is, it's a petition that we're submitting to the FDA next week, I believe, maybe the week after, October. Okay. The first week of October because October is dental hygiene month.

Okay. And what it is, it's a petition asking the FDA to allow anti-cabity claims to be made for xylitol. Because nothing has come out of the FDA. Since the FDA was founded, they grandfathered fluoride in, and that is the only anti-carriage agent. that you can go down on the storm by a product. If you go down to the storm by a product that says anti-carries on it, it has to have xylitol in it. Or not silo, sorry.

It has to have fluoride. It's the only thing in 100 years. Wow. And over the only thing they accept as being able to stop. It's the only one. And our country has spent literally hundreds of billions of dollars over the past century looking at ways to prevent tooth decay. So you're telling me that we've spent hundreds of billions

and we can't come up with a single product that the FDA has allowed to be put on the market. that can say helps to prevent tooth decay. Yeah. So we want to actually petition the FDA and ask the FDA to allow claims to be made for xylitol. And again, I mentioned this earlier, the big body of science behind xylitol

isn't in nasal hygiene, it's actually an oral hygiene. Because when you have, I mean, I don't know how much to explain the tooth decay, but. Yeah, please. So they teach in dental school that you have to have three things, maybe four, because they count time as one. But you have to have three things in order for a cavity, a tooth decay to happen.

You have to have teeth, obviously. You have to have a bacteria that ferments carbohydrates into acid because the acid is what dissolves the enamel. And then you also have to have the carbohydrate. You take away any one of those, and you're not going to have tooth decay. Does that make sense? Yeah. We can all understand that.

The dental industry, the way they treat dentistry, and I'm speaking very broadly because there are a lot of very good dentists out there who actually do work to prevent tooth decay. But if you listen to what everybody says about fluoride, what does fluoride do? It remineralizes your enamel. That's the only claim they make for it. It remineralizes your enamel. It makes it stronger so it's more resistant to the acid.

They're not doing anything to actually solve the bacterial infection. And they've known since 1924 that it's a bacterial infection of strep mutants in the mouth. Making your enamel more resistant to it without treating that is actually going to cause more inflammation in your mouth. and it's going to cause more systemic illnesses because bacteria will go through that inflamed tissue, get in your bloodstream, it'll go to your brain with Alzheimer's. There's thousands of studies in the dental letters that are talking about it, heart disease, diabetes, obesity,

I mean, the list goes on, all of these systemic illnesses because we're not actually treating that bacterial infection in our mouth. That is what xylitol does. It's what erythritol does. Anything that you can use to get rid of that bacteria will help reduce tooth decay. Fantastic. Is this petition? Just xylotol, though? That's all that you... Well, you got a baby steps, baby steps at a time.

But you've all of these other things that are out there. So you're not, you're probably at the beginning of a line of products. They're just like, hey, there's a bunch of ways to deal with cavities and you're focused on fluoride, which now you would think there'd be a gold rush to this information, if you will, because the studies are now coming clear. Robert Kennedy Jr.'s in there. We're starting to see EPA, you know, all these different groups. see the damages of, you know, fluoride. Well, I just want to... Dropping IQ.

Yeah. Take that camera right there. Number five. I just want to call kudos to my home state of Utah, first state to get fluoride out of the water. That's true. That's true. We're jealous. Florida, I mean, Utah's been really rocked out there.

So, so... We actually think in there, and I can get you dentists upon dentists to talk about, and the data's out there, but they can actually do, if they put, you know, implement xylitol gum chewing programs in elementary schools, you get rid of tooth decay. And once you get rid of the bacteria in your mouth, the protection lasts for a fairly long time. We're talking decades. They've actually done studies showing that if pregnant women choose isylitol gum, their children don't have tooth decay. Because it is a vertically transmitted disease, we get it from our parents, we give it to our kids. If we get rid of it in our mouth, we don't have it to give to our children.

So it logically makes sense. And, you know, Dr. Mark Cannon, who is a good friend of mine, But he's putting together a paper right now, and hopefully I don't spill the beans. But he's actually been able to pull from the data that of public health, Medicaid, who almost half of the births in the country today are paid for my Medicaid. But if you can get the pregnant mothers on Medicaid and give them xylitol gum, talk to them about why and what it is, you can invest $17 million in prevention. And in downstream health care costs, you're going to say $14 billion with a B. It won't ever happen because it's government.

Well, so what website or how do we follow you with social media to sign petitions, things you're doing, are obviously out there. We have a very active audience. I'd love for them to be involved in assisting any way they can. They can follow us on X or Twitter at clear.com or at Clear. At Clear, okay. All right, here we go. W.W.X.clear.com. For the petition, just go to our webpage, clear.com.

And there will be a little link that you can go right to it. it. Fantastic. Now, you were just mentioning that if we can just chew gum, it would be great for children. It gets rid of, you know, the propensity towards cavities. Well, one of the things that we happen to know is that your gum is in this bag for trick by the treat, which is an initiative I can as a part of. We've been talking about this, everybody. How about healthy candy? How about gum like spry, which is your product, Sprite with xylitol in it, that actually, can I, I mean, Is it too far to say that once my kids have gotten the before Switch Witch, they've maybe had a couple of the ugly candies, that if they went and chewed spry, they would clear that the cavity causing sugars and things out of their mouth? Yeah.

No, that is what it does. And what we usually tell people is when they start using our products, because we have toothpaste, we have mouthwash, we have all that, that after they eat, just chew some gum. Because really what you're doing is xylitol, A, it blocks the bacteria, the strip mutants. It also stops it from reproducing. And the other thing that it does is it increases salivary flow, saliva, so that it's actually flushing all those sugars out of your mouth. Wow. I'm not going to say it does anything for the systemic issues that sugar causes, but at least in your mouth. Some studies that need to be done.

We'll bring you back on when you do those studies. Baby steps. It's really great to have you on. Well, thank you. Anytime. I appreciate it. And so for those of you out there, my understanding, there's only 500 bags left of the trick by the treat. Candy uses healthy candy by several different groups, including Sprite that, you know, went into the cause.

Why poison our kids on Halloween? But if you want to know a little bit more about it, watch this. Dear neighbors, it's the mom down the street. I've got a confession to make. Every Halloween, my kids race home with bags full of candy. And every year, I force a smile while secretly plotting to throw it all in the trash. Why? Because the scariest thing on Halloween isn't the ghosts and goblins roaming our neighborhood. It's the candy. The toxic candy you're passing out, lurking inside their bags.

It's not just about the insane amounts of high fructose corn syrup. It's the artificial dyes, chemicals, preservatives, and hydrogenated oils in every piece. And if I let them eat it, they get a tummy ache and turn into hyperactive monsters. So, I pry the junk candy from their sweet little hands with promises of the Switch Witch, and I'm left feeling like the real villain for stealing all their fun. This year, I've had enough. It's a waste of money and our kids' health. It's time for a Halloween candy revolution. I love Halloween because we get to go trick-or-treating and also the candy,

and we throw most of it away because it's bad for you. I wish there was candy that my mom approved. and it was good and it had good ingredients in it. I wish candy could make me strong like back. What if there's Halloween candy that was healthy for me? Introducing tricked by the treat, a healthy Halloween treat initiative, bringing delicious, non-toxic treats

to our kids this holiday season. The truth is, most people don't even know how toxic Halloween candy has become, which is why this is a two-part initiative. First, educate neighbors and friends by fliring your friends, neighborhood or posting on community pages, exposing toxic conventional candy and letting them know a candy revolution has begun. The second part is providing a fun, healthier alternative. Our healthy Halloween variety pack is filled with kid-approved candy made with clean ingredients,

natural sugars, and believe it or not, options that promote healthy teeth. From rich chocolate to chewy gummies, fruity lollipops and bubble gum. This isn't a compromise. It's a Halloween win for everyone. This should go fast. I love me. Conventional candy is filled with GMO corn syrup, synthetic stabilizers, and even plastic. But we've partnered with incredible brands that use plant-based coloring, real juice concentrates, and natural sugars that kids love.

Purchase your 30-pack of candy now and enter the code I can at checkout to get 10% off every pack. You'll also receive coupons for every brand inside, perfect for a switch-witch swap, or be a rock star neighbor and pass them out. to trick-or-treaters Halloween night. Buy in bulk and get free shipping. It's time to stop this toxic candy spiral. Join me and the thousands of parents that want the best for our kids

and keep the magic of Halloween alive. Order now at tricked by the treat.com. Well, you know, we got Halloween right around the corner. Want you to do what's right for your kids, your family, and your neighbors. Hey, that's what it's about being a good neighbor, right? Look, this show has talked about a lot of the same, issues. We are really up against it. And we have a government now that is starting to move in the

right direction, but the corporate interests and controls are involved in so much of what we do are just, it's just so deep and profound that it just takes constant vigilance, and we all need to be aware of it. And I want to just thank everybody that makes, you know, this show possible, that makes our legal battles possible. I want to just really give a shout out and take a moment for one of the sponsors that really gets me here. I said at the top of the show how important vaxed was to my journey. That's what brought me into this thing. Well, one of the sponsors that really saved us at a moment where we needed was Casey Coates-Danson who left the world this week and our hearts go out to her. I just want to say, you know, it was an amazing moment when we'd

been accepted in the Tribeca Film Festival. We were a little film that, you know, was just bootstrapped and funded by a couple of people and some chiropractors out there wouldn't have been able to make that film if they hadn't stepped up and seen the value in it. But when we got kicked out of the Tribeca Film Festival, I got a call from Angelica Film Center in New York City right there. And they said to me, is this Del Beattree? You've made this film Vax. That's all over the the news. I said, yes. And they said, we will screen your film starting Friday. We will give you the premiere release. And I said, oh, well, the film isn't ready. We weren't even going to be screening in the festival for another month. And probably we make some changes from that screening

and the notes we get from the Q&As and put it out maybe a couple months later. Is there any way we could just push that back? And he says, we're not pushing it anywhere. The only reason I'm calling you is Vax is the biggest news story in media in the entire world. right now. It's the number one story. Everyone's talking about it and that's the only reason I have any interest in putting it in the theaters. So take it or leave it. I decided to take it which meant we had to ramp up titles and music and coloring and all of these things that I thought we're gonna have time to do which put us in this huge debt. I needed help and Casey Coates through a very good friend of mine Kelly Gallagher and some others stepped up and said let us introduce you a powerful environmentalist that had never looked at this issue that decided to help us out.

Here's just a little video of her talking about it. Tell us more about you and how you got me. Welcome back. To be the executive producer. I wrote a small check at a time when they needed help. But I was so swayed by the issue, because I've been in environmental activists for 30 years. And I said, oh no, this isn't for me.

Until I saw the film, Vaxton, and I went, this has got to get out there mainstream. We have the worst record of health in the world. of health in the world and at the most vaccines. Other countries aren't experiencing what we were experiencing. Right. Only because I've been working on this for a year. I just recently discovered one of my children's vaccine damaged.

I noticed when she was around two at her second birthday, she'd been getting her MMR. And I have this photograph of this little child, this beautiful little, angelic. Just put this look on the face of totally, total despair and that she's got ADD, ADHD asthma, you know, continual ear infections, tubes, adenoids removed, and behavioral problems that were indescribable. And now I know after a year playing around with this gang that she's

vaccine damage. Big Pharma, multi-billion dollar business is calling the shots. We're America. We are America and we have rights and And they are taking away rights. It's got to stop. If only every powerful environmentalist living in California could have the same realization that Casey Coates, Dancin did when I sat down with her, she got it. You can see she got it. And that small check wasn't that small.

It really did make a difference. But to all those people in our world that step up and do something, do the right thing, when they're confronted with it. That's why we're living in this incredible country right now, in this incredible moment. It's gonna take every one of us. So whatever you can do, whether it's give or go out and help or work with somebody or just share a video

or share a story or introduce people like I was introduced to Casey, those are the moments that make a difference. That is how we make this world great. And that is how we stand for our children and the future generations. of our people. For everyone involved in this beautiful task,

in this beautiful journey, and those that have been on this ride just a few days, and those are the women's for years. Keep watching. We're not backing down. We're never going to let you down. We're here to tell the truth. And that's what I'll do until I see you next week on the high wire.