The Highwire with Del Bigtree - Episode 444: FORBIDDEN FACTS

Episode Date: October 3, 2025

Del Bigtree shares new details on the highly anticipated release of ‘An Inconvenient Study’; Jefferey Jaxen reports on the UK’s newly imposed Digital ID mandate, now required for employment; New Book empowers children to think critically; Canadian bill to end eugenics reveals deeper problems; Security expert & author Gavin de Becker exposes government and Big Pharma deception in his explosive new book ‘Forbidden Facts.’ Guests: Shannon Kroner, Gavin de Becker 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. Action. Good morning, good afternoon, good evening. Wherever you are out there in the world, it's time for us all to step out onto the very, very high wire. Last week, I reported to you that Henry Ford Health has sent us a cease and desist letter through its attorneys regarding our. our new film and Inconvenient Study. The film, for those of you who may be tuning in for this the first time, is about an unpublished study with Dr. Marcus Zervos,

the head of infectious disease at Henry Ford Health, as the lead author. This unpublished study compared the health outcomes of vaccinated versus completely unvaccinated children born into the Henry Ford Health System. This study was conducted after I challenged Dr. Zervos back in 2016 to prove me wrong. I had made it clear that I thought the vaccine program was causing more harm than good. When he finally agreed to conduct the study, I only had one request. No matter the outcome of the study, whether my hypothesis is correct or yours, you published the study.

And after completing the study somewhere around 2020, instead of upholding his end of the bargain, he refused to submit the study for publication. The question for me is why the study was never published. Although it was conducted by one of their most esteemed epidemiologist, Henry Ford, that it wasn't published because it, quote, did not come close to meeting the rigorous scientific standards that Henry Ford Health and its researchers demand, not because of the results, end quote. I made clear last week all of the reasons supporting my opinion that the issue was not the quality of the study, but the results of the study that have kept it from being published. I will state it again

that it is my full-throated opinion that had the results of the study been flipped and it was the unvaccinated who were 2.5 times more likely to develop a chronic disease, I believe this study would have been rushed to publication. But because it showed the vaccinated were the ones suffering the worst health outcomes, this study was not submitted for publication. Again, this opinion is based on lots of information, including information I received directly from the unpublished studies lead author himself during a conversation that I recorded. Last week, I revealed portions of that never before seen hidden camera footage of Dr. Zervo saying that he thought the study was a good study and should be published just as it is.

In his own words, he told me that he did not want to publish the study because it was political and he thought it would end his career. In my opinion, these statements made directly to me answer the question of why. When you watch an inconvenient study, you can make up your own mind. You will learn what Henry Ford says are the reasons the study was not submitted for publication. You will hear what Dr. Zervo said, and you will hear some results for the study. and then you can form your own opinion. So just to bring you up to speed, last week, I offered Dr. Zervos

or anyone at Henry Ford the opportunity to be interviewed and share their perspective in our film. Unfortunately, they did not respond to our offer. Instead, they have posted a statement on their website expressing their point of view to follow through with our commitment to truth and transparency.

We will post a link to their statement in our comments below. But let me read the opening sentence or statement. Henry Ford Health, a nationally recognized academic medical center and research institution, has issued a cease and desist letter to the makers of an upcoming documentary that falsely and dangerously claims the health system suppressed a draft of a research paper because of its results. The health system also condemns the purposeful twisting of information and the spread of disinformation happening on the topic, which poses a direct threat to public health.

Later in the statement, Henry Ford Health addresses information being presented on social media and calls it disinformation. Although I do not know what information they're talking about. I do know about being accused of spreading disinformation. If you've been watching the high wire over the years, then you will know that we have grown accustomed to accusations of disinformation. In fact, we've been censored and we've lost our social media channels based on this very accusation. So I'd like to take this opportunity to push back, just a little bit. Let me start by asking, was this disinformation? Everyone who takes the vaccine is not just protecting themselves,

but reducing their transmission to other people and allowing society to get back to normal. We can kind of almost see the end. We're vaccinating so very fast. Our data from the CDC today suggests that vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don't get sick. Getting vaccinated and getting a booster shot when eligible, can save your life and protect you and your family and friends from getting seriously ill and spreading infection. What do you think the probability is 80%?

Personally, I think it's 100%. I think that there's a reduction in transmission. Essentially, vaccines block you from getting and giving the virus. We have all the vaccines we need. We just need our people to take it, A, for their own protection, for the protection of their family,

but also to break the chain of transmission. You want to be a dead end to the virus. So when the virus gets to you, you stop it. You don't allow it to use you as the stepping stone to the next person. Failure to get vaccinated doesn't just put you at risk. I think this is what is important in a way if it's not you who suffers if you don't simply. It's also other people. If you've done the right thing and gotten vaccinated, you deserve the freedom to be safe from COVID-19, to have your kids Safe from COVID to get back to the things you love. You're not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations.

If enough people get vaccinated, it actually halts transmission. The people who are not getting vaccines, you don't have to listen to a minority of people who are being harmful to the greater good and who are not acting on logic, reason and science. I want everyone to be vaccinated so that they're safe and so that their families are safe and so that life can feel a little more normal again. Now we know that the vaccines work well enough. that the virus stops with every vaccinated person.

A vaccinated person gets exposed to the virus. The virus does not infect them. The virus cannot then use that person to go anywhere else. It cannot use a vaccinated person as a host to go get more people. That means the vaccines will get us to the end of this. All right, so serious question. Was it disinformation to say that the COVID vaccine would stop transmission since now everybody knows that that was false? Or are the people who made those claims exonerated because maybe some of them didn't know they were lying?

So is it only disinformation if you know you were lying? Like maybe declaring a scientific fact that you admit behind closed doors is not actually a fact. Vaccines don't cause autism? Absolutely sure. Absolutely sure. You can never really say MMR doesn't cause autism, but frankly, when you get in front of the media, you better get used to saying it because otherwise people hear a door being left open when a door shouldn't be left open. Or what if you told the world you know vaccines are safe because you have a robust safety monitoring system that tracks any issues that may occur so you can fix them? But behind closed doors admit that you need to build a safety monitoring system because you really don't have one.

Vaccines are very safe. If someone gets sick after vaccination, it is usually either a coincidence, an error in administering the vaccine, or very rarely a problem with the vaccine itself. That's why we have vaccine safety systems. Robust vaccine safety systems allow health workers and experts to react immediately to any problems that may arise. They can examine the problem. rigorously and scientifically look at the data and then promptly address the problem. WHO works closely with countries to make sure that vaccines can do what they do best,

prevent disease without risks. New vaccines against malaria, meningitis and encephalitis in Asia and Africa are now being thoroughly monitored with support from WHO. Vaccines are one of the safest tools we have to prevent disease and ensure a healthy future for all children. I think we cannot overemphasize the fact that we really don't have very good safety monitoring systems in many countries and this adds to the miscommunication and the misapprehensions because we're not able to give clear-cut answers when people ask questions about the deaths

that have occurred due to a particular vaccine and this always gets blown up in the media. one should be able to give a very factual account of what exactly has happened and what the cause of deaths are. But in most cases, there's some obfuscation at that level, and therefore there's less and less trust then in the system. Putting in place the mechanisms, whether they're cohort studies or whether there are sentinel surveillance sites, to be able to monitor what's going on and report back, and then for corrective action to be taken. because unexpected things could arise after introduction and one always has to be prepared, as we've seen the history of many drugs,

you've learned about adverse events only after the drugs being licensed and introduced into the population. So I think that risk is always there and the population needs to understand that and feel confident that mechanisms are being put in place to study some of those things. I sure hope they get that surveillance

system built one of these days because it would really be helpful. But let me continue on. Is it disinformation if you're the godfather of the vaccine program? If you literally wrote the Bible, as they call it on vaccines, and they named it after you Plotkin's vaccines. Stanley Plotkin, of course, is who I'm talking about. And is it disinformation when he claims under oath that a particular side effect from a vaccine really isn't caused by the vaccine when he knows there's a no science to back it up. Take a look at this. This is an excerpt from the IOM's report. Mm-hmm. Right? Yes. Okay. And this is where the IOM discusses the evidence with regard to whether D-TAP or T-DAP cause autism, correct? Correct. Okay. If you turn to

the second page, can you read the causality conclusion with regard to whether D-TAP and T-DAP cause autism? The evidence is inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship between diphtheria toxoid, tetanus toxoid, or accellular pertusses containing vaccine and autism. So the IOM reviewed the available evidence with regard to whether Tdap or D-TAP can cause autism and their conclusion was the evidence doesn't exist to show whether D-TAP or T-DAP do or do not cause autism. Correct?

Yes. If you don't know whether D-TAP or T-DAP cause autism, shouldn't you wait until you do know, until you have the science to support it, to then say that vaccines do not cause autism? Do I wait? No. I do not wait because I have to take into account the health of the child. And so for that reason, you're okay with telling the parent that D-TAP does not cause autism, even though the science isn't there yet to support that claim.

Absolutely. Amazing. In all of these pages, we weren't able to get the science behind that. But let me ask you another question. Is it disinformation if you're one of the other four authors on the Bible for vaccinations, and you swear under oath in a legal case, but you get caught making statements that seemingly cannot be supported by science?

In the expert disclosures for this case, it asserts that among other things, you will testify that, quote, the issue of whether vaccines cause autism has been thoroughly researched and rejected, end quote. It's your testimony that MMR vaccine cannot cause autism. That's correct. It's your testimony that head B vaccine cannot cause autism?

That's correct. It's your testimony that I poll cannot cause autism? Yes. It's your testimony that HIPV vaccine cannot cause autism. Yes. Your testimony that Varicella vaccine cannot cause autism? Yes. It's your testimony that PrevNAR vaccine cannot cause autism.

Yes. It's your testimony that D-TAP vaccine cannot cause autism. Yes. And do you have a study that supports that D-TAP doesn't cause autism? I have. I do not have a study that D-TAP caused autism, so I don't have either. Do you have any study one way or another of whether iPol causes autism? No, I do not, sir.

Do you have any study one way or another of whether Endrix B causes autism? I do not have any evidence that it causes autism nor that it does not. And what about Hid Tiders vaccine? Any evidence one way or another whether it causes autism? No. And what about Prevnor vaccine? Any evidence one way or another? No, sir.

And how about varicelial vaccine? Let me just finish. Are there any studies one way or another that's for whether it does or doesn't cause autism? Part of MMR, but not as varicella by itself. No, sir. No studies that say it does or no studies that say it doesn't. Right. There have been studies that have found an association between hepatitis BVet,

vaccine and autism, correct? Not studies that I feel are credible. Okay, which study are you referring to when you say that? Well, why don't you show me this study and then I'll see whether I agree with it. According to your profile, you have done most of the predictable trials relied upon to license many of the vaccines, correct, on the market? Yes, sir. Okay. So you're highly experienced in conducting clinical trials, correct? Correct?

I'm highly experienced conducting clinical trials. And you're familiar with many of the clinical trials that relied upon to license, many of the vaccines currently on the market, correct? I am. In your opinion, did the clinical trials relied upon to license the vaccines that Yates received, many of which are still on the market today? Were they designed to rule out that the vaccine causes autism? No.

You've badgered me into answering the question the way you want me to, but I think that that I, that's probably the answer. Is it, is that your accurate and truthful testimony? Yes. Well, look, my wife has said to me many times that I need to know when I have won an argument. All right. And so, though I could do this all day, I believe that when it comes to discussion of this information, I have won this argument. I also believe that history has shown that the high wire and our nonprofit I can gets it right more often than any other news agency in the world. I want to thank my international team of scientists, researchers, and lawyers for that achievement. So let me finish by saying this.

I believe our new film and inconvenience study addresses the core issues laid out in the statement, that is now posted on the Henry Ford website. I encourage you to read their statement, contemplate it, and then watch our film on October 12th and come to your own conclusion. Because that is, in fact, how the scientific method works. It also happens to be how our First Amendment right to free speech works. And it is why we will show the world this unpublished study

and our film about it. So mark your calendars because we are just 10 days away from the world premiere of this. The health of American children is in crisis. When we're talking about an autoimmune disease crisis, 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,

compare vaccinated children to unvaccinated children. As fate would have it, Delmet, Marcus Servos. He agreed to do the study. This could be one of the most valuable studies in the field. 4.47 times the amount of speech disorders. Learning issues, developmental delays. Over four times more likely to have an asthma diagnosis. Five and a half times risk.

Amongst the unvaccinated group, they were zero. If this is true, we are systematically making kids sick, very sick. Only one problem, they're not going to publish it. They left us with no choice. I'm going to bring hidden cameras so that no matter what happens at this dinner, I can prove it happened. What do you think about the study you guys have thought? I think it's a good study.

The way they can do the study better? Not that I'm going to. I put it out just out days. It's a right thing to do, but I just don't want to. Somebody's going to come back and they're going to say the study is flawed. The unpublished Henry Ford analysis is fundamentally flawed. Because there's a political attendant to it. I'm not going to do it.

Publishing something like that, might as well retire. I'd be finished. It's really sick. I'm going to obviously like really, really, This is an inconvenient study for the entire vaccine agenda. Well, as we announced last week, we're so excited that we're now an official selection in the Malibu Film Festival. And I want, you know, those of you that are watching live right now, you're going to be at a serious disadvantage. There's only 600 seats in the theater for that premiere that happens on Sunday, October 12th.

And you can buy tickets right now as we speak. I highly recommend that you do it. We have a huge movement that wants to see this film. So get on it. I'm going to walk you through it right now. For those of you that may want to know, you can just go to the Malibu Film Festival.com website. There it is. Type that in. And then when you get there, you can select tickets and then look for our film. And you really just want, like you could pay for the whole festival, but you can just buy the single ticket, which is what you want to look for. And I've just found out that there's even a discount for those of you. All you have to do when you're checking out is, type in I can. I see a N and you will get a discount to those tickets. I hope to see you there. This is going to be exciting. We're going to have a panel afterwards, talk about the film, probably opening up the questions to anybody that has any there. I'm sure there's going to be people from the press wanting to jump in here and celebrate the film the way they always do.

But it's going to be an amazing experience. I want to just thank Malibu Film Festival for just having the courage to allow a film like this that is already proving to be one of the most controversial films of the year, as they always are if you decide to go anywhere near this topic. But if you can't make it to California, if you're not going to be in the Hollywood area on October 12th, we are going to release this film worldwide. It's going to be free. All you have to do is go do in Inconvenience Study.com. That's where this film is going to live in all of its forms. It will premiere later that evening at 5 p.m. I think we're going to try and attach the Q&A from the film festival on the end of that film so that you can see how that went and be a part of the whole thing.

We're also going to put up there away. Many of you are reaching out right now saying, I want to do a screening at a movie theater in my area. You can go to info at an inconvenience study.com because obviously if it's going to go into a theater, it's a higher resolution file that has to be delivered. We'll help you do that. And look, Maybe we get lucky and there's a space of my schedule and I can show up and say hi. But we want watch parties out there. You should be inviting your friends. Get popcorn.

This is going to be entertaining, informative. And really, it's just so important that we start to recognize this now growing, you know, I won't call it a mountain. But we were talking about now seven or eight different vaccinated versus unvaccinated studies that are now showing a reproducible, recurring events. which is there's a signal that the vaccinated are far less healthy than the unvaccinated. And they're going to make all the excuses they want. Everyone always does when you say, hey, why don't you just compare it to the Amos? Well, the Amish do a lot of things in their lives that make them healthier. There's always excuses, but we should have all of the information.

That is what I've said before. That's what the scientific method is all about. We want this debate. It's a debate everyone in this world is demanding. It's a debate that we're demanding here in America. It's the reason Robert Kennedy Jr. is now H.H.H. HHS Secretary, thanks be to God, and is finally asking the questions we've been wanting asked from our regulatory agencies for decades. The world is changing. We're actually starting

to understand what science is and how it works, and we want to be a part of it, and we want to be told the truth, and we want to be transparent, which is what we're all about here on the high wire. So speaking of getting down to the truth and the transparency about what is happening in our world today, it's time for the Jackson Report. All right, Jeffrey. I love the smell of a good trailer in the morning. We got a movie coming. It's very, very exciting times. But while we're focused on the high water, what's happening in the world right now? Yeah, not your first rodeo with releases of films that are controversial. So if you're a member of the United Kingdom, just a couple days ago, you may have woke up, opened up your computer, turned on your TV, and your prime minister told you this. Take a look. Today, I am announcing this government will make a new free of charge digital ID mandatory for the right to work by the end of this Parliament. Let me spell that out.

You will not be able to work in the United Kingdom if you do not have digital ID. It's as simple as that. Because decent, pragmatic, fair-minded people, they want us to tackle the issues that they see. around them. And of course the truth is we won't solve our problems if we don't also take on the root causes. For too many years it's been too easy for people to come here, slip into the shadow economy and remain here illegally. Because frankly, we've been squeamish about saying things that are clearly true. It's not just that it's not compassionate left-wing politics, to rely on labor that exploits foreign workers and undercuts fair wages.

But the simple fact that every nation needs to have control over its borders, we do need to know who is in our country. God, it is really a trip, Jeffrey, watching this just from the vantage point we have. We have our own issues here in America. We talk about them all the time. But to watch, let's open our borders wide. Let's get just surrounded by foreigners that are, you know, assaulting women on the street. Nobody seems to be doing anything about it. Our own government keeps you from being able to talk about it.

We're censoring you. We're throwing you in jail for even complaining about it. But we really care about you and your jobs, which is why we need to take away your rights and get this digital idea to protect you from those foreigners that are coming in and taking over your jobs. I mean, it's crazy the headspin to watch this from, you know, a distance. I mean, talk about double-speak.

It's 1984. The amount of hypocrisy and gaslighting in just one speech, I couldn't believe it. So just like you said, unchecked migration has been going on for at least a decade, increasing, and the government has done nothing about it. In fact, they've accelerated it. They've basically turned a blind eye to the crime. And so you see Starmor come up there and try to grandstand on this and say, we need digital IDs for everybody. Notice this was outside of parliament.

So there's no democratic process allowed, no MPs were allowed to speak on this. It was never put to a vote by the people. He just announced it. And why did he do that? Well, because in the UK, there's a long history of digital IDs trying to be pushed through. And they tried it in 2009, 15 years ago. And it was almost immediately stopped by members of parliament and the public because they were saying that we have to dismantle this because this is beginning of a surveillance state.

Well, what happened in the last 15 years from then until now? Well, we have, so again, this digital ID, people out there thinking that maybe the first time they see this, well, it's just a card, right? It's going to bring us into the modern day, the modern era of digital media. Well, digital ID, so think about your banking, your transactions, your carbon footprint, your online posts, your health biometrics. Every facet of your life could be tracked and surveilled, and it all starts with this digital ID. So why is it being pushed now? Well, because maybe in 2021, the UK was one of the hardest countries to push the digital vaccine passports. in order to actually live your life in order to go out, go to a restaurant, get groceries, anything. You needed to do that and the public, much of the public was forced into taking this.

So you have Starmer come out there with a purposefully, purposefully inflammatory comment saying, you can't work without this. Guess what? So why did he do that? Well, we still don't know, we can guess. He's now the most unpopular prime minister in the history of the country. This is a poll. So perhaps maybe they're seeing the writing on the wall he's going to be out of there and they're just trying to push there as many agendas as they can before they get out of there. But the public unsurprisingly has rejected this in real time and mass. Here is a petition at UK.gov and you're seeing here approaching almost 3 million signatures and this is just after about a week. So, you know, really almost 4% of the entire UK population

at this point is rejecting this in this petition. And this is a way. wider conversations. So there's eight other countries that have digital IDs right now. This is starting to fast roll. And you can see here by this article, it shows this that digital IDs were really something that were only previously existed during wartime, just to give you an idea maybe where we're at right now. So those countries, according to this article, Estonia, Singapore, India, Sweden, Belgium, Denmark, Netherlands, and Nigeria. They all have some form of digital ID and they all use it in different ways, but the really interesting thing here is the UK as a test ground for this because the UK has several moving pieces that are really not, really not

pro-human, really not pro-liberty. Moving into place and the digital ID is the last piece of this. And so what do I mean by that? Well, we have during the same week that Kierr Starrmer comes out and says this, we have their minister of police comes out and says also this conversation. They're paving the way for a facial recognition rollout. This is alongside of the digital ID. So they're calling it live time facial recognition, LFR technology, and it connects cameras to watch list containing photos of suspects wanted for a range of offenses. As an individual walks past the camera, their facial measurements are scanned for a positive match against the database. It alerts the officers and they basically arrest the person. So you have that. They're going up. These cameras

are going up all over, all through the streets. And the UK police, haven't really been pro-liberty and pro-free speech lately you remember just this past year you have the UK police commissioner he came out and he threatened to extradite in jail US citizens over online posts he said we'll come after you and why are they doing that well it seems like in their country they already have it down pat on how to do this they're already arresting 30 people per day for online messages they're coming to their houses at night they're interrogating they're knocking on their door these are police

officers and so you have lifetime facial recognition you have a police force that is going after people's speech and thoughts in real time and you have a digital ID all three of those things combine to start to look like China and this is China in 2019 see if you can see any parallels take a look okay the government here says it is trying to purify society by rewarding those who are trustworthy and punishing those who are not so like the credit score that most Americans get for how they handle their finances, Chinese citizens are now getting social credit scores based on everything from whether they pay their taxes on time to how they cross

the street. When Leo Hu recently tried to book a flight, he was told he was banned from flying because he's on the list of untrustworthy people. Leo was a journalist who was ordered by a court to apologize for a series of tweets he wrote and was then told his apology was insincere. property, my child can't go to private school, he says. You feel you're being controlled by the list all the time. And the list is now getting longer, as every Chinese citizen is being assigned a social credit score, a fluctuating rating based on a range of behaviors. China's growing network of surveillance cameras makes all of this possible. The country already has an estimated 176 million cameras, and it plans to have more than 600 million installed by 12,000.

It can recognize more than 4,000 vehicles. Xu Li is the CEO of Sense Time, one of China's most successful artificial intelligence companies. It has created smart cameras for the government that can help catch criminals, but also track average citizens. I mean, I'm going to just say it as I always do, Jeffrey. We should be careful that we don't just watch UK go, oh, that poor country, when I think deep down, we know we are literally just millimeters away from, you know, you know, turning on a system that's already there to do exactly this in our country. So this is a really, really scary dystopian movie or novel that we're in the middle of as we speak. Absolutely. And we're not out of the woods. Larry Ellison's Oracle is really in China working kind of as a third party helping that and erecting that surveillance system.

So it's a business of a lot of these companies. And we're not out of the woods here in the United States. So I want to talk about, we're talking about population control, and there's a lot of ways to control the population. You control the speech, which is thought, and thought, which is speech. But a lot of populations are in decline right now. Canada being one of them, here's a recent article looking at Canada's replacement, basically, birth rate. Canada's population growth slows to historic lows as temporary residents decline. This is going on in a lot of countries as well. But Canada is interesting because on one end,

you have the birth and the population slowing, but on the other end, on the end where people are ending their lives, you have made, which is this medically assisted dying. Assisted dying now counts for one in 20 Canada deaths, is the headline. And we've spoken about this on the show before. So you have a squeeze on both ends. And so knowing that, when I saw this headline

come across my desk from the Canadian Medical Association, I kind of scratched my head. It says, is CMA, Canadian Medical Association, supports national effort to end forced and coerced sterilization. And you go into this and it says the CMA supports Bill S228, which makes it clear that performing a medical act without free prior and informed consent constitutes aggravated assault. And so first of all, I didn't know this was still going on.

I thought we ended that, you know, with Margaret Sanger in the 1930s. But apparently they're trying to stop this and they have to put a bill forward to stop it in Canada, of all places, with the population that's already decreasing at record numbers. So this is Senator Yvonne Boyer, and she put forth this bill. And this is really for people in the First Nations, Inuit people, maybe people of Canada. And this is Bill S-228. they've been the most vulnerable to this coerced and forced sterilization. And this all stemmed from a Senate Committee on Human Rights Report,

and they looked at this. They went out into the field, they did testimonies, and they concluded this. Again, this was in 2018. So we're talking pretty recently, concluded witness testimony confirmed the ongoing practice of forced and coerced sterilization in Canada. The forms of coercion described by witnesses range from confinement to manipulation, exploiting the vulnerability, vulnerability or omitting to consult patients before forever moving their ability to conceive. So I want to tell a story here off the back of this because it clearly it's still happening. And we look back and this is, again, this is eugenics. And we've covered this throughout the show.

We've covered the roots of it through Darwin. Again, Margaret Sanger. We have Planned Parenthood. We even had laws in the U.S. that were doing this. But we had something that happened at the end of the 1960s. We had the assassination of JFK, RFK, MLK, and that was really the end of political unity, the end of stopping forever wars, of judging people by their character. And a vacuum was created. And out of that vacuum came something somewhat dark. We had 1972 limits to growth, which said humans are the cause and are killing life on this planet, ironically. And we became the target of climate change, humanity itself. But in 1974, you can see this. started this this edifice starting to be erected in 1974 we have a national security memorandum

200 this is the national security council you may remember that from the COVID response and I want to I want to direct people to one line in here it's subsection E creating conditions conducive to fertility decline this is official policy it says it is clear that the availability of contraceptive services and information is not a complete answer to the population problem in In view of the importance of social and economic factors in determining desired family size, overall assistance strategy should increasingly concentrate on selective policies, which will contribute to population decline as well as other goals. And you can see that last line there, it says Congressional mandate to focus on problems

of what they call the poor majority in lower developed countries. Then it goes on to say, well, how are we going to do this? They said, beyond seeking to reach and influence national leaders, we're going to improve worldwide support for population-related efforts, should be sought through increased emphasis on mass media in other population education and motivation programs by the UN, USIA, which is the United States Information Agency, and USAID. So remember that, UN, USAID. So now, again, this is all year after year after year. You see this being through it. So that was 1974. In the background, the World Health Organization has been funding trying to make an anti-fertility vaccine.

This was their Willie Wonka golden ticket for the population problem that they're talking about in this memorandum. By 1976, they have their aha moment. They did it, they found it. And they actually put it in a study here. This is a very well-referenced study. This was funded by the WHO.

I want to emphasize that. I so immunization against human corionic genatotropin with tetanist toxoid. So let's break this down. Isomunization is autoimmunity. So that's when your immune system attacked its own cells. So they're saying, we're teaching the body to attack its own cells. What cells?

Well, the human corionic genatotropin. What is that? That's the hormone that signals the body's recognition of pregnancy. It's produced by the placenta. So the body is attacking that. And what do they do? The researchers took that hormone, chemically linked it with the tetanist toxoid. They used that as a carrier pathogen.

And now you're making antibodies. The women are making antibodies when they're injected to their own, basically, pregnancies. And so they have this new weapon. The WHO funded it. By 1982, you see something from USAID. Here it comes in again. 1982 policy paper on population assistance. It says USAID policy governing the use of agency funds

for sterilization provides that USAID funds can only be used to support voluntary sterilization activities if the following six conditions are met. And they have this great flowerly language in there. Oh, we need informed consent. We need to give them other options if they want, But there was no enforcement mechanism. So unfortunately, that didn't happen.

And as the records show, there was forced vaccination campaigns in Peru. And this was the headline here. The US government led, it did lead a program that forcefully sterilized thousands of Peruvian women. So that's USAID for you. It says an unsettling aspect of the entire Peruvian campaign is the involvement of the US government.

The specific agencies that were involved in Peru's sterilization campaign were the US agency for international development, USAID, and the United Nations, Population Fund. And then it says Nippon also from Japan is known that the United Nations Population Fund donated 10 million for the force sterilization campaign. They're really excited about that, really wanted this. So people watching this might go, well, that was the 70s, that was the 80s. I wasn't even born then, say some people, okay, well, let's bring this to 2014.

It's getting a little closer now. So in 2014 in Kenya, all of the sudden, out of the blue, nothing was declared. The government there said, we're going to do a tetanist camp. We're going to go and start giving tetanus vaccines to not the entire population, just women, ages about 14 to 49. So we have the Catholic Health Commission. The Kenya Conference of Catholic Bishops came forth because they're the ones that are working in the field with these communities. They said, wait a minute, no one said anything about any type of tetanus crisis. Why are we just giving this to women?

They put out a press release. And they questioned WHO. This again, it was sponsored by WHO. very interesting. And this actually even made Washington Post. Kenya's Catholic bishops, it says, tetanus vaccine is birth control in disguise. Well, they never really received the answers they wanted, but thankfully researchers, independent researchers, took up the information there, and they put forth this paper, which is forever on the record now. H-CG found in WHO's Tetanus vaccine in Kenya. And it says this, three independent Nairobi accredited biochemistry laboratories,

tested samples from vials of the WHO Tennis vaccine being used in March of 2014 and found HCG where none should be present. In October of 2014, six additional vials were obtained by Catholic doctors and were tested in six accredited laboratories. Again, HCG was found in half the samples. And that is, I really do think that if the alternative media is what it was now back then, this would have been an international crisis. We may have never even had COVID run as far as it did because people would have been on the lookout for this. Now let's bring it all the way to real time. 2019, we have some other issues.

It's not just lower developed countries. It's the United States. We have this study, a lowered probability of pregnancy and females in the USA, age 25 to 29, who received a human papillomavirus vaccine injection. The researcher here says approximately 60% of women who did not receive the HPV vaccine have been pregnant at least once, whereas only 35% of the women who were exposed to the vaccine

had conceived. And the researcher went on to conclude, if 100% of females in this study had received the HPV vaccine, data suggests the number of women having ever conceived would have fallen by 2 million. Well, that couldn't stand because the safeguards weren't there for independent researchers like they are now through what Kennedy is doing and also what Javada Chari is doing at NIH. So that article was retracted. Can't have that in a medical journal.

The author Gail DeLong, the late Gail DeLong, actually. she wrote a rebuttal to that and said with it gave detailed explanation why that study should stay, although they pulled it because they didn't actually give too much of a reason why they pulled it, but that forever stays. And so that's bringing up to the present day in 2024, the last year, the Biden presidency, otherwise known as the Autopan presidency, there was a final rule here that was done by the FDA. It was signed in for the institutional review board. It says this final rule permits an institutional review board to waive or alter certain informed

consent elements or to waive the requirement to obtain informed consent under limited conditions for certain FDA regulated minimum risk clinical investigations. So now we come full circle of Canada. We have minimal risk informed consent waivers. Well, the MRNA vaccine is minimal risk. There's a lot of other interventions that would be considered minimal risk that we know are not. So this is on the books now with the FDA. I think it's very important for the FDA to re-look at this waiver because I don't know why we're reducing informed consent in an era where Canada is still trying to stop force vaccination,

forced sterilizations. Yeah. You know, it's really, I love it when we do these stories. We've covered this before. We've covered Kenya before. But to see right across the border, you know, that wasn't just vaccination programs. It was hysterectomies.

sorts of things they were doing to women, sometimes without even their understanding, they thought they were in the hospital for something else. It's absolutely horrific. But as you point out, the historical references that put us in this position. But I just want to say this very clearly. It's one of the greatest concerns I have with a mandated vaccine program. I really, and, you know, you could call it a conspiracy theory, except that we have the evidence. We have all of the writings where they refer to reducing population through use of what? Vaccination. We've caused it. We've caught them using vaccines to reduce populations around the world. In fact, right here in America, we celebrate a vaccine program of the deer population because we use a vaccine, you know,

that, you know, stops fertility amongst deer. So vaccines and infertility and using them to, you know, reduce fertility is a part of the science. It's a part of the vernacular. It's in all the textbooks. It's how they talk about it. And so when I first got onto this issue, whether or not you love the vaccine program. I've said it clearly. It is a free country. If you want to inject these things into you or your children, then that's a choice you get to make. But it should never be mandated on you. I cannot. I mean, if and when you hear as many leaders and as many scientists, the head of Gavi, the heads of WHO, we're talking about obviously Bill Gates is in there. When they keep telling you they want to reduce population through modern medicine, I'll say it again,

listen to them, believe them. They are telling you their truth. They have lots of money going towards this and how do you think they're going to do it? Well, the easiest delivery system would not be like atomizing it in the sky because then they have to breathe it. This is just my perspective. They wouldn't be putting it in the water because how do they know unless they just drink bottled water? But you know it the best delivery system to bring harm or at least fertility problems against anyone. Maybe they're not socioeconomically strong. enough to be a part of a society, especially with AI coming, and now we're going to have, you know, universal basic income and all these people playing video games and not working. Well,

what are we going to do about it? They're telling you what they're going to do about it. They've done it before. The best way to reduce population, the most accurate scalpel you could ever use is a program that every single one of your citizens marches in to do, believing it's perfectly safe and effective, you know, that it's all there for your good, and you never question what's in it. question what it's there for, and anyone that does question it gets cease and desist letters say you're not allowed to talk about that. And so that's the world we do live in. And I do believe that that is our future. Whether it's happening right now or not, that's to be debated. But do they think about this product as a way to control the size of your family wherever you

are? Absolutely, you know, that conversation is happening. So that's why, you know, over all other things are what we stand firm on here at the high wire and i can is your right to choose it's why we fight so hard of these legal cases that we've won in mississippi why we're spending fortunes right now to bring freedom religious freedom from vaccination to west virginia and the rest of the five stays free the five that is what we're dedicated to is your freedom all right Jeffrey i'll give you the last word so important oh all right no yeah that was wonderful i so i just look Looking across time, this is why informed consent and free speech are so important. The two things, the two backbones of the high wire and I can, because you look throughout time,

when does eugenics kind of raise its ugly head? It's when you have political division, division between government and the people and also unchecked power. Those two, one plus one equals, it seems to be this eugenics ideology that comes forward. So we're seeing those ingredients starting. So this is why we have to keep out for this. We're the watchdog, the public health watchdog, and we're going to keep reporting whatever we see,

as shocking as it may be. Jeffrey, no one does it better than you. Thank you for all the great work you continue to do. Thank you being a part of this whole investigation that we've got going on and the behind the scenes work on an inconvenience study. It's just, it's so important. I'm really, you know, as I said, you know, and I congratulate all the scientists and all of the,

lawyers and the researchers that we have across the world helping us make sure we're accurate, but you are a huge part of that, Jeffrey. I'm confident. I love that we can sit here and look at how all of the things we've stated over the last, what is it, eight, nine years now and say, boy, are the claims we've made and the things that we've pointed out, they're aging well, Jeffrey. I love that I can count on you for it. So keep up the good work. All right, thank you. All right, folks, look, I hope it's obvious to you right now that we are taking on a lot here at the highwire and especially the informed consent action network on nonprofit. We've been designed to produce this show every week, but we now find ourselves in 90 lawsuits across the country. It's a huge burden.

And I, you know, people keep asking me, reporters keep asking me, well, you have really huge donors, right? I know. I can say this unequivocally. You know that our major funding comes, the majority of our funding comes from five, ten, $20 donations from people just like yourself. But it's what we rely on. And right now, taking on this film is pushing our envelope. I'm going to be honest with you. And, you know, receiving cease and desist letters makes you recognize how dangerous the world that we live in is, how dangerous this work can be and the threats that are out there.

And I am going to always charge forward no matter what, where I believe there is truth that needs to be shown. That is what we're going to do, but we really do need your help right now. We are, you know, in the crunch trying to finish this film. It is, we're 10 days out, and believe it or not, I've got editors going right now. I'm going to leave this show right when it's over and go and look at the most recent cut. We're trying to be able to afford coloring it and bringing the sound and the audio to the place it needs to be, than to crank out like this perfect digital copy so that it can get to the movie theater in time so that we can premiere on the 12th. I love the challenge.

I love where it's at. But boy, this is a perfect time if you have never donated to ICANN, the highway to say, I want to be an executive producer on that film. I want to help make a difference. Every dollar makes you a producer right now. So donate to ICAN, go to the top of the page. If you can become a recurring donor, maybe it's $25 a month. basically what you spend at any movie theater, but this is a movie. You're going to help us get millions of people to see it. When have you ever had that opportunity? And on top of that, to be

fighting legally, to win back the religious exemption in West Virginia, which, by the way, I believe that's the Falcon Point. They know it. It's why there's 20 lawyers on the other side in the room every time that Aaron is stepping in there now. They know if that wall falls, this thing is coming down. California, Connecticut, New York. We've got, we've got a case that is going to, we believe is going to get all the Supreme Court in the New York to finally take down Jacobson versus Massachusetts. We've been held hostage by a 1905 Supreme Court ruling. Can you believe that it really works that way? That all the way back in 1905 where they didn't certainly didn't have Teslas, didn't have computers, didn't have clean running water in every single

house, didn't have refrigerators, that we are still being held hostage because one guy said, I don't want to take a small box vaccine. The government said, well, if you don't, then you're going to have to pay a $5 fine. By the way, that is all that the ruling was. The Supreme Court ruled not that Jacobson had to take the vaccine, that he had to pay a $5 fine. But somehow that robbed us of our religious rights across this country. And it's the foundation that they keep trying to build their castle on top of. We're tearing the castle down.

We're coming full force with documentaries, with a house, highwire with films, you name it, with lawsuits. No one does it like us. I don't believe anyone is charging forward the way we are. I hope you'll support us right now. We could use your help like we've never needed before. All right. I've gotten to meet just some really spectacular and interesting people. I feel so blessed with the life that I live when I'm not working with my amazing team here. You know, probably every other weekend I am flying to speak. you know in front of audiences of of like-minded people meeting all the other speakers at dinners that are there talking about politics talking about

First Amendment rights talking about religious rights having these conversations of course I got to be director of communications for Robert Kennedy Jr. which introduced me to a whole other set of brilliant people and one of those people that I met I'll tell you is probably one of the most interesting conversations you will ever have no matter when this guy decides to talk to you you can sit back and listen and have your mind blown he's just written a book of course I'm talking about Gavin Debecker Gavin Debecker is a big name and I'm here for it Gavin Debecker remember that name world renowned security expert Gavin Debecker

he's so good I use him myself I've worked with the FBI and the CIA US Supreme Court the White House I've been a presidential appointee at the Department of Justice Gavin says the gift of fear can keep you a lot It's the 10th anniversary of that book, which I know has changed so many lives, just as it did for me. When we are told to fear something, it might be a virus, might be with great purpose. It is our responsibility as citizens, always to ask what is it and how well do we understand it? When you are afraid, it definitely disables our ability for critical thinking. Didn't Americans use to distrust big pharma companies?

If you were listening to the CDC, you would be on your 10th injection. They are still recommending boosters today, and it's still now in the childhood vaccine schedule. Leaders throughout human history have used fear to control populations, and boy, is that happening right now. Well, he's a securities expert, a criminologist, a three-time presidential appointee, and he's just written a new book Forbidden Facts. It's my honor and pleasure to be joined by Gavin De Becker. Thank you. I want to thank you for joining me.

I could also describe you as probably one of the best conversations. in the world. I've had the pleasure of getting to have a few conversations with you. Of course, your security company handled security for Robert Kennedy Jr. when I was director of communications, so we had some interactions about those things. But I want to get right to it. Why is someone that is, you know, a historian? You are probably one of the greatest minds on how assassinations happen. You get into criminology, fear. Why write a book essentially about, I mean, I don't want to say it's a vaccine book because you cover so much of the fraud that the government, you know, puts forward upon the

American public, almost a formula for how they lie to us. But it does evolve a lot about vaccines, autism. Why write this book? I think there were a few things that motivated me the most. One was I wanted my own. I've raised 10 kids and I have two young sons. now, 16 and 14, and I really wanted to communicate to them and then by association to other people, the methods that are used for deception. All governments, this is not a comment on the U.S.

government, all governments throughout human history, use fear to control their populations, and use deceit and suppression. No government that has the power to do otherwise admits mistakes voluntarily. No government gives back powers that it has usurped. And I wanted my kids, and other readers to recognize the method, you can see the system by which it's done. And it's done, you know, vaccines are one example, but it's done for Agent Orange, it's done for baby powder, it's done for baby formula,

for Gulf War Syndrome, all of these things where the government had responsibility, it has a method for how it debunks things. And really with this book, what I hoped for was to have a book not only for people who basically all, recognized that something isn't right, for example, with pharma as an industry, but rather a book that you could hand to that skeptical or in denial brother-in-law or sister-in-law or parent or kid or neighbor or friend or co-worker, you could hand this book to them and I believe it takes an approach that it can reach people who are hard to reach. And that's what I've tried to do. I would completely agree with you. And there's been a lot of several great books recently.

whether it's about COVID. Of course, Aaron, Siri just put out vaccines, Amen. Great book. Talks about how, you know, it's almost like a religion the way that they handle it. So it gets into the mindset, you know, John Lakin and Peter McCullough have a great book out about sort of the myths around all of the stories we've been told on vaccines. But I would say what does set your book apart, and I said this, I don't mean this in an offensive way. I said it's sort of like a perfect book for dudes. And I mean that because not in any sort of hopefully not seen as in a sexless way, but so many mothers come up to me and say, I cannot get my husband to understand this. Sometimes they'll say, I finally got him to watch your show and you were able to get through him when I couldn't. But it does strike to how I see these conversations need to be approached. And it's really just very, you're funny. I laughed out loud. It's cynical, but it's hysterical. It's absurd.

of these, I mean, you get into the actual transcripts of debates the Institute of Medicine is having that are like a cartoon. You cannot believe what you're reading. But there was just your ability to say, you know, let's look at Agent Orange, something that none of us are attached to. We don't have some emotional response about. This is how that was handled. This is how the government covered up the fact that they'd injured, you know, Vietnam vets. Here were the exact people involved, used by the Institute of Medicine, used by the CDC to say that this is perfectly safe. And then once we've signed on, they go, yeah, we see the transcripts. And you go, same people, different product.

This is their conversations on vaccines. And so it really was just like it was like a scalpel, it was very clinical, but so easy to understand. And for some reason, not triggering, except that it triggered some laughter. But that, I think, makes it sink in even deeper. But why the humor? Well, some of the humor is not my, first of all, you know, ridicule is an important component of challenging power. There was always the court jester, and he was often the only person who could say something in front of the king that maybe when the king's walking down the hall afterwards, you know, they may have a point there,

whereas anybody else would do it, it would be off with their heads. But the real source of humor in this book, aside from my occasional asides on something that is ridiculous, and ridiculous means worthy of ridicule. The real source of humor is the activity in these committees in the Institute of Medicine, which I want to take a second to explain because most people don't know. The Institute of Medicine, you know, revered, you know, leading experts, and they're the most esteemed and most respected, and the media takes anything, you know, that they say and declares it is true.

people assume that the Institute of Medicine and the National Academies of Sciences are government agencies. They are not. They are private organizations. They are funded by government at times, by pharma at times, by other industry at times. The guy who runs it gets $1.1 million a year, it ain't no government agency. And so the idea that we said, oh, that, because they got that big, cool building, and they look really serious, everybody said, well, when the Institute of Medicine opines on something, well, they must have really done something, you know, impressive. Right. And what we got in this book is that there is a series of meetings where they debunk the idea

that vaccines can have anything to do with autism, for example. As you mentioned, they debunk Agent Orange, and I talk about that one in Gulf War Syndrome. But on the debunking of vaccines and autism, as you know, better than most people, people will say when you bring up that subject, oh, well, that's been debunked. that's been debunked and you're an idiot if you're talking about it because it's been debunked. I'm not an idiot because I know it's been debunked. So I asked the question and answer the question in this book, who debunked it? And how was it debunked?

And so the answer to that question is it was debunked by the Institute of Medicine. Nobody knows that. I mean, most people don't, they only know it's debunked. I would guess, I would say that most journalists. Of course. And certainly most doctors and certainly most pediatricians, if you ask them how it was debunked or where it was debunked. So you first find out that it was debunked by the Institute of Medicine. Number two, you find out that the Institute of Medicine is a paid organization that basically does crisis management for the U.S. government. And number three is

we got something fantastic, which is that the meetings over 2001 and 2003 that were held behind closed doors for the Institute of Medicine experts that they convened to debunk the vaccine autism link were transcribed. And they were secret and some person with a big heart and the kind attitude leaked it. So we have the actual transcripts. And I'm still answering your question of what was funny. The actual transcripts are like a Broadway play, like a comedy. It is literally ridiculous, the way they engage with each other.

And on day one, hour one, the very first thing said to them by the woman Dr. McCormick is there is one line we will not cross here. And that is to find that any vaccine is the problem or that the vaccine schedule should be changed in any way. So give me that again. On day one, before you've even had your meeting, you've decided the line you will not cross is that line, right? So now they go ahead and they have their meeting over two years.

And it's literally funny, as I said. It would be, if it was a one-act play, people would sit there and laugh, other than the fact that the result of it was, no compensation for, you know, children who's... who suffered inflammation of the brain and other things that are basically autism. You know, a key that emerged from me is that autism itself, the definition of autism, is highly imprecise. I have a section in there called The Tale of Two Teenagers, where one teenager is never, for one minute in her entire life alone,

always has to be attended, needs full-time care all the time, can't go to the toilet by herself, can't clean herself, cannot speak, cannot engage, cannot be allowed access to food unless it's very titrated and controlled. That's autism, that's severe autism. And then another kid who's diagnosed with autism, he's a little shy in school, but he drives himself to college and he eventually forms a big tech company. And so when you have this spectrum, you could have a spectrum about everything in the world. You've got a cold, that's the early part of the spectrum, you've got tuberculosis, that's the

high part of the spectrum. As soon as you say autism spectrum disorder, you have a target you can't hit. Yeah. And so it is true, if you say, vaccines cannot cause autism. It's absolutely true because what's a vaccine? That definition has been changed four times. And what's autism? You can't find it? You can't strike it. I know it's a long answer, but can I give you one other quick example? Yes. Thanks. SIDS. You should write a book. I will do that. So SIDS is another thing debunked by the Institute of Medicine. So SIDS, sudden infant death syndrome, is the category of the deaths are put in when you cannot determine the cause. You've done an autopsy, you've done a police investigation, you've investigated the death scene, you've interviewed the parents, and

nothing tells you what caused this death. And so you can't be diagnosed with SIDS. You can't die of SIDS. It's a category. It's not a cause of death. And so the Institute of Medicine concludes that this thing about which we cannot possibly say what causes it we only know one thing it's not vaccines that we're sure of right and this is a kind of it's not funny but it because it has the result of determining who gets compensated and who doesn't yeah it has the result of what stays on the childhood vaccine schedule so you know this is a long answer to the funny parts the funny parts are what happens in that room when they get together and these esteem experts begin a process where they already know the ending is embedded in the beginning.

They already know what they're being paid for, and that is to conclude that autism is not caused by vaccines, SIDS is not caused by vaccines, child deformity and offspring of Vietnam vets is not caused by Agent Orange, nobody's hurt by burn pits, there's no such thing as Gulf War Syndrome, what are you talking about, baby powder causes cancer? And the irony is they do this, and the media waits at the door? and takes all the information and promotes it. And now you're as crazy as Bobby Kennedy if you think that baby powder causes cancer,

which it does. And it took them 50 years to get it off the market. 50 years before the day that Johnson and Johnson walked into the FDA and said, we've got to tell you guys something. We've got asbestos in there, but not a lot. It's just a little bit of asbestos in the baby powder. 50 years for the FDA to say, let's determine how much asbestos is okay in baby powder.

Right. Now, I could have told them that on day one if it's my baby. How about zero asbestos in the baby powder? Right. But no, they're going to figure out the allowable and limits and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And during those 50 years, half the people who worked at FDA end up going to work for Johnson & Johnson. Yeah. So this is the process.

It really is the process. And you laid it out perfectly there. And you do that in this book, which, you do that in this book, which, you do it. which is let's just look at something we all have a problem with, the baby powder causing cancer. We saw the multi-billion dollar lawsuits and they're losing. And then they say we're going to withdraw as though they've done something great. They've made so much money. They finally paid out huge settlements.

It's obvious now. And we see, you know, the emails where you knew this was happening all the time. And so we keep watching this over and over again. But it does help us understand what we're looking at. I wonder if you could just, you know, read one of those. sections, you know, on this meeting because it's like who's on first, right? It's like the, is that Abbott and Costello or, you know, but. Let's see.

I want to repeat the outcome is not funny. Here's one woman. Oh, by the way, a big thing I forgot to mention. So Agent Orange happens. It's studied by the IOM. The IOM comes out and says, Agent Orange, birth defects, what are you talking about? How could it? It's just a defoliant.

It's not a chemical weapon, but it's a defoliant. you know filled with one of the most toxic substances there is and eventually The the the US government has to acknowledge that it causes all these health problems by a guy named Admiral Zumwalt who did his own independent study very respected and he testifies before Congress that in fact the Institute of Medicine report is flawed science done he accuses them all kinds of of corruption and it's really interesting because he is He is the person who ordered that Agent Orange be used in Vietnam, and he is the person whose son died from it. Wow.

So it's a really dramatic moment discussed in this book, but he comes out and says the Institute of Medicine and the CDC were fraudulent. The two leading researchers on the Agent Orange study, what did they do after that? They get promoted to childhood vaccines. So what parent in the world would say, I'd like the people who did that chemical weapon. I'd like them to be responsible for me. You're talking about Colleen Boyle and Frank DeStefano that are the heart of the movie I made vaxed. Yeah, exactly.

The whole fraudulent study there. And your movie was one of my big teachers on this. Anyway, they open up like this. The point of no return, the line we will not cross in public policy is pull the vaccine or change the schedule. We wouldn't say compensate the injured. We wouldn't say pull the vaccine. And we wouldn't say stop the program. So what the hell are you doing there, guys?

Right. Right. Three years of studies, tens of millions of dollars, but you've already said on day one what you won't do. But then there's Dr. Berg, one of my favorites. He begins the first day. I don't know how long it will take us to figure out what the question is. I'm a veteran of one panel that took six days for the group to figure out what the question is. And that group was about the same size as ours. It can be a formidable issue to figure out what the question is. I don't know what the question is, whether it is MMR or whether it is measles.

And somebody answers that it's MMR. And then somebody says, are we going to look at mercury in vaccines? And one of the doctors says, no. And the guy says, wait a second. We're not going to look at mercury. If we're going to look at autism, we have to look at three candidates. Can we really fundamentally look at them in isolation? Because people get more than one vaccine at a time.

So that's very good point, right? Yeah. But the question guy, Dr. Berg, he can't let go. He's now continuing, excuse me, this is more important. We're going to have to have a method for how we focus the question. This is one of the questions we need to focus on. How are we going to define the question? In general terms, what process are we going to use to define the question?

How are we going to discuss it? I would like some reassurance about this before we begin talking about MMR. And then somebody says to him, why don't you make a proposal? Because they can see he's a jackass too. And he says, okay, do we look at just burden of suffering or do we look at squeaky wheels? And another doctor says, I don't understand what you just said. Are you asking whether we should collect the information in order to determine which question you address or is it the other way around? And Dr. Berg answers, yes.

Yes. It's one of those two. And by the way, I mean, I have fun reading this. You've got to stop me because it just keeps going. I mean, sometimes they say things like one of the guys says, if we were a group working for Philip Morris, we'd be saying that smoking, tobacco doesn't cause cancer because he says you can choose this study or that study you can always find a study he acknowledged a couple of times they slip into truth but boy do they get rescued in their hurry by the doctors who worked on Agent Orange they get into all sorts of crazy discussions like how do we

define it right do we say it's an association I don't know that word association they don't makes anyone feel like that there's a pot you know that it looks like it causes some damage and obviously it comes down to and you you know bring up Bernadine Healy who I've had you know, talked about on this show a lot in that incredible interview. This is the time when we do have the opportunity to understand whether or not there are susceptible children, perhaps genetically, perhaps they have a metabolic issue, mitochondrial disorder, immunological issue that makes them more susceptible to vaccines plural or to one particular

vaccine or to a component of a vaccine like mercury. The fact that there is concern that you don't want to know that susceptible group is a real disappointment to me. If you know that susceptible group, you can save those children. The reason why they didn't want to look for those susceptibility groups was because they're afraid that if they found them, however big or small they were, that that would scare the public away. And that's what you see in this conversation going on, and they address it all the time. You know, leading anywhere where it sounds like, yeah, there may be a side effect.

In fact, vaccines, you know, could they cause autism? Well, let's be very, very careful because if anything alludes to that, people are going to stop vaccinating. And then the big question about safety, which this is a section I want to read, because it really does get into the heart of one, because it's so critical to this issue that we're all dealing with. If you're, if you're daring to ask questions, you bring up Bobby Kennedy gets attacked for saying, I just want to look at the mercury in vaccine. I just want to ask some questions about how these safety studies were done. But this is an excerpt that I think really sort of points out what their real conversation is. I'll read this. This is Dr. Sheaowitz called it like it was.

I do think that we have to have a consistent story of our messages to be heard. I mean, we would like to separate the significance of our decision from the science. But people hear one thing. Is it safe or is it not? And if we waffle, they will say, well, let's do single dose instead of the combination vaccines like MMR. I mean, I love that you wrote this in here because obviously President Trump just last week was saying, break it apart, break up the MMR, single doses. I don't know if he knows it's not available in America and the moment,

but he's making this exact point, which all of these people in this panel are probably rolling over now. And everybody knows that this is going to reduce the vaccinating of children. This is their whole problem. Yes. We can't have any decision that reduces people vaccinating. But you're being tasked not with that question, but is it safe or not? Are these studies real?

So it goes on to say this, Dr. Kabak, I agree with you. I think what is badly need in this field is some communication mechanisms for healthcare professionals who are dealing with vaccinations. Now the suggestion has been made that anything you say about risk is going to decrease adoption of the procedure. That, of course, is the worry. This is what they're obsessed with. It goes on. Then you deal with lowering immunization rates and increasing disease, deaths, and problems associated with it. How do we ensure safety associated with the vaccinations?

I don't think that the notion is the right notion. We are not, this is it right here, we are not trying to ensure safety. We are trying to maximize safety. And there right there, I think that sentence, I've tried to explain it to people. You are not getting safety trials. They are not doing safety trials. They're doing assessments of the overall thing, and it always has a casualty they're willing to accept. And they're doing it right here.

We recognize that there may be some risks. This gets back to the probability issue. There are small risks associated with anything. The question is, how small are they? And finally, we've got a dragon by the tail here. At the end of the line, what we know is, and I agree that the more negative that presentation is, the less likely people are to use vaccination. Meaning, if we say anything that any of these studies are real or there's any issues that these people are complaining about, that there's some validity, people will stop vaccinating. And then we are caught in a kind of a trap.

How we work our way out of the trap, I think, is the charge, essentially is what we are here. decide. And this is, this ultimately ends up the profound statement, vaccines don't cause autism. Yeah. Right. This is, it's this discussion. And people go, they looked at the science. They were, you know, thorough about it. No, they were thorough about one thing. We've got to figure out how to talk about this in a way that doesn't scare people away. And then there's a whole section on all the different categories of, you know, which words they'll use. Which words they're going to use. This point you just made here, I think the thing they fear most of all is vaccine hesitancy. And the cause of vaccine hesitancy is known.

That you can identify. The cause of vaccine hesitancy is reality. Right. That's the problem. You give your baby an injection. That night your baby has seizures. You end up in the emergency room and they tell you, oh, seizures. Seizures.

Seizures is the most normal thing in the world for babies. babies, babies get it all the time. Now if there were an adult product that caused seizures, might be when you're driving, when you're standing in the kitchen, it would be a big deal. But a childhood product that causes seizures is apparently just fine, so it becomes normalized seizures. And the studies that have studied seizures that follow vaccination,

and they know which vaccines cause seizures more, they know all that stuff. It's written there in the side effects that you never see the vaccine insert you never get. That's right, that no doctor gives you. But the, what they say, What they say is this is a very serious matter. And if you keep reading, the reason those people in CDC and in the vaccine industry,

the reason they say this is a very serious matter is not because it's bad that your baby ended up in the emergency room with seizures. It's because this causes vaccine hesitancy. And this mother might be less likely to give this child the same vaccine product that just sent her to the emergency room at 2 in the morning. No, she will be less likely if she's got her head turned on. And yet this whole game with the Institute of Medicine involved no beakers, no lab coats, no blood tests, no autopsy reports. There was no science going on there. There was syntax, not science. They were just deciding, how shall we say it?

And in there, by the way, I don't know if you remember it, but there's a few sections where a guy says, one of the experts says, let's approach it the same way we did with Agent Orange. Let's say it this way. You know, with Agent Orange, we said no proof of an association, or no association of proof. Or, and they keep playing these word games. And it is, it's funny that they're doing it, but the end of the day is not funny. They come out and tell the United States, no problem. We don't see any connection between these two things.

Yeah, it's actually quite horrifying. It's disgusting. And, you know, as you worked on, you know, investigating and looking into this book, I mean, part of, your career is based around motive what motivates people to do things as you look at this as you read transcripts like this a lot of you know you know obviously i speak all over on this issue and i'll see people say it's greed it's just money um i don't i don't think greed or money really explains a huge part of this there's power there's maybe it's a religious belief but these people they sit around and clearly are manipulating words to try to make sure that you don't understand

that that what the try is here is what you get across and you see here we don't want to lie we don't want to be caught lying is there a way to say yes there is injury but in a way that your average person reading it what would be the best way to say it so that when they read it it doesn't sound like we say it causes injury like that's the entire discussion is it And there's a couple of times that somebody says quite literally, I don't want to take the time to find it now, but quite literally he says something like, we need to find a way to say this that is, and shows an emotional concern and yet does not communicate an association or relationship. And they're literally saying, can we find a way to say it that nobody will understand? And boy, government is expert at it. I want to just comment on what you're asking about in terms of motive, because putting vaccines aside, you've got the same structure.

strategy used for Agent Orange, the same strategy used for silicone breast implants, the same strategy used for baby powder, baby formula, which has got a lot of bad things in it that shouldn't have. And who makes it, by the way? A pharma company. Yeah. A pharma company makes that, and you've got no reason to distrust them, I say facetiously. So is it greed?

Is it money? I think it is many competing incentives, meaning if you go back to the COVID lockdowns, for example, If you used to make bumper stickers, now you make stickers that say Stan Seeks fit apart. If you used to make perfume atomizers, now you make hand sanitizer. So corporate, you know, the industry catches up with what's going on in the world. And hand sanitizer, which isn't good for you, by the way, alcohol in the skin all day, but hand sanitizer became a massive product obviously. And so any of these ways, these are the competing financial incentives.

But is it enough to say that these guys and that the pharmacists? companies do it just for financial and that the government does? No. Because that wouldn't explain Agent Orange, that wouldn't explain Burnpits, it wouldn't explain Gulf War Syndrome, for example. And all of these are such easy cases to make, by the way. And they get made later on after the media has died down some university study or some government study, Veterans Administration study comes around and says, oh, that was wrong. They debunk the debunkers, right? Almost every time. But the answer is. that governments don't want to be found to make mistakes. So government, it's about control.

Yeah. Right? And if you, the way governments, of course, do make mistakes, but what they say is, no, that wasn't a mistake. That was a, so we take one you're familiar with, you know, the definition of pandemic. Right. So pandemic used to mean a serious disease that causes serious injury and death, which is spreading around the world. Guess what it doesn't mean anymore. It no longer requires spreading around the world. It no longer requires making people sick. And it no longer requires people dying. So our use of pandemic in my life and yours was emergency.

Pandemic, holy shit, is a problem. The current use of pandemic is nothing more than a new virus. Right, a new virus. And no one's going back to see, did Webster's, is it changed this, right? We're all going on the assumption of what we knew it to be. And you get into definition of a vaccine. You know, it used to be stops transmission, stops disease, protects you. Now it's just, you know, you know.

Mounds an immune response is all it is today. Right. Which doesn't protect you, which doesn't stop you from getting it, doesn't stop you from spreading it. So these are the new definition. So staying with your question about motive. For governments to work well, they have to have people believe them. It's super important. Even the Soviet Union, which we would say, you know, under Stalin, for example, we'd say that's a terrible government and it's oppressive. They still had courts. And so you said, what happened to so-and-so? Oh, he went to court and he was found guilty, and he was sent to, you know, to Siberia.

Why did they have courts? Why even bother? They could just point a gun at you and say, because they want the narrative to work, because the method for controlling large populations is not gunfire. It doesn't work. Gunfire is, you know, far too limited to control large populations. What controls large populations is story. And the story is India, the story is this life doesn't matter so much.

I'm poor. I'm living on the street. Half the population of Mumbai is living on the street homeless. How does that work? Because the next life is better, right? The story of the United States is I'm having a real time in my life. I'm a black kid, 14 years old. I got nowhere to go.

But the story is, oh, I can become president. Or the story is, if I get into court, they'll treat me fair. These are narratives that are very important to how, and this isn't about America. It's about how all populations have been controlled throughout human history by small groups of people. Give you a quick example. The king and the queen, they look over the castle wall, and there's always a wall. Why is there always a wall? Because they don't want people coming over the wall.

They know that people will be angry and focus at them. And if they see their subjects down below fighting with each other, that's good news. Because it means they're fighting down there and they're not climbing over the wall. Is the U.S. government any different? Is the Russian government any different French, Chinese, et cetera? No. It has to be perceived as credible. So what we tell you has to be true.

So when you have masks, which was so clearly by any measure you can figure it out on your own, you're going to see pictures of Fauci, Biden, and Wienski, all wearing two masks, one black that's a little smaller and one white underneath so we can see it's two masks. Right. And they have to do that, and they have to show us if they're doing it, well, it must be. So the basic thing I'm trying to break in this book, and that is if you can believe they lied about Agent Orange, then would you just take a small step with me and accept that they lied about baby powder for 50 years? Would you take a small step with me and see that they were lying about vaccine safety? Let me take a real one, Tetanus.

Yeah. Right? So Tetanus vaccine, which is on the childhood vaccine schedule, I think it's five vaccines, several of them before 18 months. Well, you can't get tetanus in the United States. You'd need an army to try to find it. First of all, it's not transmissible. People often don't know that. And the number of tetanus deaths in the United States was 13 over 10 years.

Wow. And it was all elderly people. And so your kid getting tetanus. Yeah, you get a sense. This is the map you have in the book. Oh, there's the world. So everything orange on that map is less than one in a million. And the only place you can get tetanus is you go to Central Africa.

22 countries in Europe, zero. Russia, one case. Central America and Central America and South America, zero out of 100,000. So the point is you can't find tetanus, right? And yet the... Five shots, you're right. Like, you're giving these kids something that the odds of their coming in contact with this thing... You couldn't find it.

Astronomical. And you certainly couldn't get all the disease. Now I'll go real controversial for me. In this book, I look at each one of the diseases, because what's the question a parent should be asking? Are there any possible side effects from the intervention, the vaccine? Is my kid likely to get the disease?

Right. Does the vaccine work? And is the disease really bad, right? So if the disease is what they call every disease, they say it's fatal, right? Well, I want to tell you how many people on the planet Earth, all eight and a half billion people died from polio last day, from polio last year it is zero wow 540 people on the planet earth contracted

polio last year 94% of that was vaccine induced poliomyelitis right meaning it comes from the vaccine yeah so you know I to say that's that is a true forbidden fact why because polio is the greatest killer of all time no it's not the greatest killer of all time the biggest killer in the world today in terms of an infectious disease is the one we don't vaccinate for in them in America, tuberculosis. That's the one vaccine we don't give in the United States. That actually has hundreds of thousands of deaths, but go figure why that's the one we don't give. But my broad Well, I mean, you allude to the fact that there are many studies showing a beneficial, has some

beneficial, you know, unexpected benefit beyond. The BCG vaccine is far and away the best vaccine product there is. It's a hundred years old. It's given in almost every country in the world, but the United States. And it has all kinds of other benefits, reducing cancer of the bladder, reducing other respiratory diseases, and yet that's the one we don't give. And so all your left.

Just to put a light, I've covered this, and you don't get specifically in this, but they have done studies, very interesting studies. BCG vaccine, studies in Boston, where they give two in one month,

and it cures, maybe literally rids people of type one diabetes three years later, almost 100% success. Why that's not a treatment now? I don't know. And let me be clear because people freak out because I'm talking about vaccines. It's a treatment when it's used that way, not necessarily as a vaccine, but similar studies I believe in France, multiple sclerosis. They've two shots of BCG vaccine. And I had one of the scientists working on the study on Denise Faustman on the show years ago asking about this study. And I said to her, it was really

interesting. I said, don't you think that the fact that given this vaccine somehow the fact that it's curing diabetes three years later shows us there's a benefit to tuberculosis? And she says, oh, that's exactly what it shows. It used to it's ubiquitous. It was a bacteria that we all came in contact with. We've evolved with it and our immune system is primed by it. She says, I think many of our immune disease issues are the fact there was too much chlorinated, too much of all these things that have cleaned our environment so much. We're not coming in contact with it anymore and we're not developing that like that priming of the immune system. Super fascinating. By then, I think I'd lost three quarters my audience, as I had already said,

has Dell found a vaccine he likes, but it is. I mean, and that's what I love about how you're looking at this. It's super logical. Let's not, let's get rid of all of our ideology for a minute and just look at how is this study done. If it's debunked, do you know who was debunked by? How is it done? What were they saying? What do they look at and what did they actually determine? And when you start looking, you realize there's a formula here of misdirection, I think, at the very least. And so the reason I think vaccines, you know, I sort of say this a lot because I ended up, when I started this, I was a liberal progressive from Boulder, Colorado when I first, you know, started investing in vaccines. My politics started shifting around this. And I'd find myself speaking to conservative groups.

Well, why this issue? I said, you know, because the more I love. look at it, we're being lied to about a lot of things by our government. We're supposed to have a government of foreign by the people. We have the only constitution in the world that really celebrates the individual. And I think this may be the one issue that affects every single citizen in this country. We've all gone through this program. We've all been told it makes us healthier. It makes us safer. It makes us better than we were born, you know, if you believe in God, better than God created you, you'll never have disease. Of course, they've never.

overachieve that, but I've always thought if we can show that that was a lie, over banking, over, I mean, you know, Gulf War syndrome affects, you know, veterans doesn't affect me, so do I really care? You know, a lot of the things you point out, talk about it, I don't have a baby, I'm not using talcum powder, I don't really care. This is something we're all involved with, we're all giving it to our kids, and then with COVID, we all had to take this thing. It seems to me if you can show how the government

has been really, you know, manipulating the truth around this conversation, maybe a light bulb goes off and enough people where we say, maybe I need to get involved a little bit more. Maybe I need to take a look at politics. Maybe I shouldn't trust so completely government health agencies. But then that has a danger too, which you must be concerned about. You mean the danger that people won't listen when it matters? Yes.

Well, of course. I mean, nobody has hurt, you know, vaccine uptake more than the U.S. government through COVID. Right. I mean, they got to a place now where more than 90% of parents did not give this COVID vaccine to their six months old as they were supposed to. Yeah. So, you know, anytime I encounter anybody who's all gung-ho, listen to the CDC and who are you and you're not a doctor, et cetera, et cetera, they're not listening to the CDC either. The booster uptake, which would now be either nine or 11 by this point, if you follow the CDC schedule, and one a year for the rest of your life for your child. So we're talking about,

A child would get three at six months old and then would get one a year. So you're talking about 80 or so of these, or 90 or so of these vaccines in their lifetime. Hey, folks, you better be damn sure you want to be doing that if you're going to be sticking people with this particular MRNA product, which has some problems, obviously, and why wouldn't it? Yeah. I want to go back to Bernardine Healy for a second, who was the head of the NIH. Because she says that what she proposed was, let's study the kids who have autism. The reason that's so important is when you look at something, they say things like,

oh, this has been given tens of millions of times with no problem. But I have a very good analogy for this, which is airplane crashes. Most don't crash. Most make it just fine. And we all take a chance, and it's about, I can't remember what it is right now, but it's something like a thousand deaths per million or something like that. Per billion, sorry, a thousand per billion. But vaccines, just MRI, is about 34,000 deaths per million.

billion. So we ought to really be thinking about it. But here's the airplane analogy. An airplane crashes, we go crazy to figure everything out. We've got the two black boxes. We're reassembling the parts. We're really focusing on, not on the ones that don't crash. We're focusing on the ones that do crash. And that's what she recommended, which is focus on the kids who do have severe autism or brain inflammation or encephalitis. Everyone on this planet believes that. That is so obviously what should be done that everyone in this planet believes that is what was done. Of course, that's right. So that's what's so shocking when she says, we have never done that. The government of the United States of America, the National Institute

to help the most funded, you know, research facility in the world has never looked at the children who appear to have gotten autism and autism, a vaccine. We've never studied that group. Yeah, we never studied that group. Never studied all the vaccines together. Right. Which we would do with all kinds of other toxins. And if you're just going into, you know, you're making a recipe of spaghetti. It's a combination of all these things, and you don't just study one of them and say, I'm just going to have my spaghetti with just salt tonight.

That's all I want on it. Although it's not necessarily bad, by the way, pasta with just salt. You need olive oil. And it gets better with tomato sauce. The whole thing gets better. Well, they didn't say, what about the whole recipe? And the whole recipe is these, you know, it includes garticil for God's sake,

and garticil is for cervical cancer, and they want my nine-year-old son to take it. my nine-year-old son who doesn't have a cervix and isn't going to get one, I guess. I realize I'm in a time when, who knows, that'd be possible. Careful. It's a third rail. That's the, exactly. That's the third rail for sure.

So in the beginning, as you know, vaccines were cowpox, and they would assume that's close to smallpox. So they take the pus from the cow and rub it into a wound or cause you to ingest it some other way. Vaca means cow. That's the word vaccine, et cetera. Then they went to the heel around the hoof of a horse. If it had pus coming out, ooh, get that stuff. Let's put that in people. And they were doing all these experiments to create things.

So in the beginning, over time, vaccines evolved to include a lot of experiments, a lot of ingredients. Here they are. Dried rabbit spinal cords, duck embryo, chicken blood, human bile. You don't want to throw that out because that's obviously good. to inject people with ground up rat spleen and boiled pig skin but enough about the past that's all when we were crazy i want to talk about the modern ones because we've come a long way here are the modern ingredients in your current vaccines oh gelatin from boiled pig skin just like the old one chicken embryo protein blood from the hearts of cow fetuses human fetus DNA oil extracted from shark liver proteins from worm ovaries you don't want to

leave that out monkey kidney DNA fragments And when I think of this, I always think of that Macbeth play where the witches are stirring the brew and they're saying, I wrote it down, eye of new, toe of frog, lizard's leg, tongue of dog. And you say, well, that's an insane brew they're making. But that stuff I just read is in the vaccines that are given this morning in hospitals all over America to newborns and other people. Now, I'm not a scientist. They're going to say, oh, well, let me tell you why the monkey's tongue is in there. Let me tell you why the ovaries from the moth is in there.

And then real quick, there's the chemical ingredients. formaldehyde. Well, who doesn't already know that formaldehyde is not, hey, give me some formaldehyde. Everybody knows that's no good for you. Polysorbate 80, which causes infertility. And this is my favorite one, potassium chloride. Now, the reason that's my favorite one is that is the ingredient used as the third injection when we execute people by lethal injection, right?

Obviously, a smaller dose for infants. I'm not claiming it's the same dose. But all this stuff, phenyl borox, aluminum salts, mercury, Triton X100, which is used in spermicides. You really want to inject my baby with something that's used in spermicides? Okay, I'll do it, but tell me how it makes sense. Just give me a good argument. They gave no argument in the case of moving the COVID vaccine down to six months.

They didn't even make a case. And so what I'm hoping is if you can be skeptical about agents, orange, if you can be skeptical about baby powder, if you can accept the governments lie. And by the way, is this anti-American on my part? No, this is the most pro-American thing I can do because I believe in that constitution. And I know the idea is that we want senators and congressmen who represent us, presidents who represent us, and we want to be told the truth because that was the deal of the constitution. Before that, you couldn't say, you know, you couldn't say to the king, you can't come into

my house. What do you mean your house? You're my subject. I go anywhere I want. But the United States, this beautiful experiment, said we will have rights as individuals. And the COVID-19 mass vaccination program is the worst incursion we've had against that freedom because they weren't just saying you have to do what we say. We have to stick something in your body that you don't know what it is and you don't know how many times we're going to do it and you don't know if it works or not, you just have to listen to us. One last quick note. No parent. would let a stranger walk up to their kid and inject them with something they don't understand.

And yet millions of Americans do exactly that every time they go to CVS, every time they go to Long's drugs, a 23-year-old assistant pharmacist who doesn't know what he's mixing, doesn't know what questions he's supposed to ask, figures it out, and gives your baby an injection, and people go along with it. And I'm hoping this book says, not about vaccines, but about everything, be skeptical of what you're told to believe. and be particularly skeptical when you're told to be afraid of something. You know, one of the things I love, sometimes you'll write on the chapters, like how long it's going to take you to read it. You really understand, you know, the attention span.

It takes a couple hours to get through it. You have QR codes at the bottom of every page with the citations. So you don't have to type it in. I can just sit there and click and go and read on it. So it's just, it's a perfect manual for anyone that really wants to just enter in this conversation. I love this book. I really hope it does well. I think it's going to be a game changer. Thank you so much. Don't sign off because I want to tell you something. This book wouldn't exist and my interest in the criminology aspect of this and there's a lot of crime involved with pharma and with government agencies.

It wouldn't exist without you and starting with Vaxed. I remember seeing Vaxed and thinking who's this guy and then learning more about you and then seeing that the value of Vaxed had for me to show to other people. And that started an interest of mine that led to, at first, skepticism and then later to the actual criminality aspect, which is my area. And then ICANN, I mean, the work you're doing, it's absolutely remarkable. I'd say 40% of the stuff in that book, I would not have, if you hadn't squeezed it out of the U.S. government through all the legal actions that you and Aaron and ICANNNN have taken. So the thanks goes both ways. The book is Forbidden Facts. You've just seen how brilliantly Gavin talks about these issues.

I mean, the plane crash scenario in here, it's so effective. And I think it really is going to be effective for those friends of yours that you have out there, that love one that just can't hear it from you, can't hear it from Delibati, can't hear it from a doctor. How about the guy that protects presidential candidates and has just been investigating, a criminologist decided to look into it himself and makes these comparisons in a way that I've never seen it done before. Where do we find this book? Amazon, Amazon, Amazon. Amazon, check it out. Go get a copy for those loved ones. For many of you watching this show, you may say, well, I get this, but these are arguments, I think, that you know, you're always

asking me, how do I make the argument? These are arguments where you can meet people right where they're at at places they will totally understand. In some ways I told you, it's, I think it was called transverse theory and geometry of A equals B and B equals C, A must equal C. And that is what I think this book does so brilliantly. I wanted to talk to you. You brought up backstage about the Kissinger report, is that what we call it? And we are starting to look at eugenics and this moment where essentially America signed on to eugenics in that program. Let's move that to off the record. Why don't we get into that on off the record right after the show? So that's how good? All right. So that's what we'll do on off the record.

But right now I want to show you my favorite brick of the week. Take a look at this. Well, my favorite brick this week, and I think it's perfect for what's going on here. Think for yourself, do the research. Act, act, act, is exactly right. Thank you, I can, for empowering us. We definitely do the research, but there's people that are trying to tell us, don't act upon it.

We're not wired that way. This is the high wire, and this is a big one. Well, I want to thank everybody that has already bought a brick or a bench or a plaque. It's a very successful fundraising program right now, which is critical, as we've said, for all the work that we're doing. So this is another way that you can actually, you know, not only support us, but, you know, put your place in time. It'll be here forever on the campus of ICANN. When the aliens finally do come down and say what happened here, there'll see your brick. So I hope you'll take us up on it.

We are going to run out of bricks just like we did the last time. I'd hate to see that happen. So buy a brick, scan that. Go to I Can Decide.org and click buy a brick, some of different ways to do it. Super fun. And I really do read those. I mean, as we walk, it's the walkway we use every single day as we're here. It's inspiring.

It's awesome. And I love the one today, right? I mean, what good is information if you don't act upon it? That's what I think really not only just makes. the high wire so successful, but also all the people that come on the high wire is just saying to Gavin as he was walking off, you know, people really do buy books. You know, our audience does buy books. Our audience does reach out when we ask them reach out. You're probably, I think arguably, the most active audience anyone has. So many people say it when they, whether it's a fundraise

and they come on and they're trying to raise funds to, you know, save a state that's maybe underwater, you name it. You have stepped up and made a difference. I love. that about the show. I love that about this community. It's totally awesome and you're awesome. Okay, really quickly. Another book. Remember, I'm unvaccinated and it's okay by Shannon Kroner. It was huge. Massive hit. Well, guess what? She's got a brand new one. Let's be a critical thinkers. Let's be critical thinkers. And this one is awesome too. How about having your kids read about how awesome it is to challenge the status quo is what we're seeing on the news. really true. How about those lockdowns? Did they really work? All those things. Well, this is a nosy little

girl that knows how to make a difference with her life. And speaking of Shannon Croner, she joins me now. Honor and pleasure. Shannon, I love this approach, by the way. Thank you. It's good to see you too. Children's books. It's really such a beautiful way to inject wisdom. I think both into the child, but the parents are reading it. But why was this book number two in this series? Well, I love how you described her as a nosy little child because that's really kind of what she's, she's curious. Yeah. She's curious about the world around her and uses, you know, all the different policies that we were, that were imposed on all of us throughout the pandemic and teaches the reader how to do their own research and how to be a critical thinker, what propaganda is, how to spot propaganda. and really important what informed consent is because we saw zero informed consent throughout the pandemic.

Yeah. Well, I'll be honest. You know, you made her a girl, but I think this was me as a kid. I've said it before. You know, I've grown up being nosy. I've been asking questions. I was, I was that annoying four-year-old that refused to sit at the kiddie table. I wanted to sit at the adult table. I promised I'd be quiet. I would just listen in. Of course, I said, well, hold on a second. And then start asking. asking questions. You know, I love kids like that. I've been interviewing people my whole life. I've been questioning people my whole life. And I was lucky enough. I mean, I'll say this and I've said it so many times to have really dedicated parents that taught me to question authority, to trust my own judgment. If something didn't feel right or sound right, that it was my duty to challenge it, to ask questions. And that's what I think you're doing with this book,

whether or not this is what, you know, parents are doing with their kids. This is a great entry point to have this conversation with your children, wherever they're at. It's really, it's so critical. And when you think of the world, Shannon, that we are moving into where this is going. I mean, we think we've been victims of misinformation as I, you know, and disinformation that I, you know, spent the entire first 30 minutes of the show talking about. Can you imagine AI and where this is going, the manipulation of our children's minds. How much is that, you know, were you thinking about as you started thinking, what message do I want to get through to children?

Well, that's exactly right. And the thing is, is that now AI is in every classroom. More and more kids are using AI. And so there is this, you know, lack of critical thinking skills that's being taught in the classroom, this almost like an erosion of curiosity, stunted cognitive development, and intellectual laziness. And so I really wanted to give this, you know, book to the children to kind of just teach them how to think for themselves, how to be free thinkers, how to do their own research. There's actually some activities at the back of the book that allows them to do their own research on whatever topic it is that they want to explore.

And just really, they need to kids today need to know how to kind of challenge the narrative and ask their own questions. feel, you know, you have this motto of be brave that applies to children as well. And children need to be brave and be able to, you know, feel empowered to ask the right questions. I love that part of this book, you know, teaching kids how to ask questions, but how do the investigation? Because let's be honest. Like I've been watching my own family with my son, who's the only one that has a phone right now. He's 16. He's driving. I want to be able to get in touch with him. But, you know, we were talking the other night. Remember when we used to not know the answer. to something, like a couple people would be together, like, I don't know, I don't have that.

You'd have to go to a home. You'd have to, like, go to a library. There was this moment of anticipation of figuring out what it is, and then, you know, doing that research. Now, literally, as soon as you don't know something, everyone just picks up their phone and just ask, essentially, AI, to give them the answer, which is not going to get us there. If we're going to get outside of the system that is trying to make us think a certain way, you know, figuring out a problem is not typing the problem into Google and having Google tell you what the answer is, which is why I think this book is so important, Shannon. So lastly, is there an age? Is there an age limit? Is there someone too young? I just want to make sure that this hits the exact audience that you think should be

reading. Let's be critical thinkers. Yeah, I mean, it's really kind of for the older elementary school student. So, and then into middle school, kids who are already starting to do the research in school. You know, ages like 8 to 15 is really kind of where it's marketed for. The previous book that you and I did, I'm unvaccinated, is for a little bit of a younger child. And this is kind of the next step. They've already read, I'm unvaccinated, and that's okay. And so now they're moving into Let's Be Critical Thinkers and looking at how to critically think about the world around them. Fantastic. Are you getting any pushback on this book? I know you got a lot of pushback on I'm unvaccinated. They all kind of got silenced down when you had Donald Trump

holding your last book. Have we gotten this one to President Trump yet? You know, not yet. It will happen soon. But you know what? I haven't gotten the pushback yet, but I've got some really amazing endorsements. So like on the back of the book, I've got, it's endorsed by, you know, Dr. Peter McCullough, Roseanne Barr, Marla Maples, General Flynn, and then a whole bunch of doctors that you and I both know and love and, you know, they've been big voices. So, and I've actually have some of them illustrated in the book. So, for instance, Dr. Joe Latipo. He's illustrated in the book, the main character. Yeah, the main character actually interviews him in the book to talk about vaccines. Fantastic. Where do we find the book if you want to buy it right now? It's on Amazon,

on Amazon and Barnes & Noble. All right, Shannon, I'm proud of you. That last book was such a sensation and a hit. And I think really is helping transform the most important generation. The generation is going to inherit all of this insanity that we've built here. So everybody, go out, go to Amazon. Let's Be Critical Thinkers, a great new, added to the other books that you have. I wish you the best of luck, Shannon. Thank you for joining us today. Thank you so much, Del. All right. Take care. All right. You know, there's so much to the issues that we're dealing with here. Here at the High Wire, we are delivering, you know, everything that we can, wherever we can find the truth, wherever, you know, there's information that you need to have,

you're getting it here. You know you can trust it. I want to point out one of the things that many of you are excited about is the fact that we've been, you know, airing, you know, on the high wire when you know that there's going to be a hearing on health, a health committee, or Robert Kennedy Jr. or against Robert Kennedy Jr., but about health, we have been streaming that live here on the High Wire. So you don't have to figure out, wait, what's the health? You don't have to figure out, What government agency was it? What's going on? How do I get there? Always the high wire. But look, you're running around. You may not recognize or know that today I was supposed to be looking out for it so you wouldn't tune in. So one of the best things that we do here is we give you alerts and you only get those alerts if we have your email, which is super easy.

If you just go to the top of the screen where you're watching right now or thehighwire.com, just roll down, scroll down to where you see Brave, Bold News. type your email in there that makes a subscriber doesn't cost you a thing. Or you can text 72022 just right in there. Dell. Like, hey, Dell, 72022, and we will give you that link so that you are always there so that we will reach out to you, let you know, whatever's happening, whatever's streaming live on the highwire.

So many of you are thankful. But as we've been watching this incredible work that Robert Kennedy Jr. has been doing, some people like, oh, why was he standing there with Pfizer? Look, they're having to play all sides of this. They're having to reach out to those Americans that do use drugs and say, we're going to make those cheaper for you. But my favorite thing that happened this last week with Robert Kennedy Jr. And it's probably, I think, the most important statement that has ever been made by an HHS secretary was all about the history of vaccines and how they've saved the world.

Well, he had a little bit of a difference spin. Take a look at this. Hi, I'm Robert F. Kennedy Jr. your HHS secretary. At my recent Finance Committee hearing, Senator Cantwell showed us this chart to illustrate the decline in infectious disease during the 20th century.

The vaccine industry has long used this kind of chart as proof of the common claim that vaccines had saved hundreds of millions of American lives. The momentous 70% decline in mortalities in the United States and Western Europe from contagious diseases since 1900, one of the most monumental public health advances in all of human history. Was this really an achievement of mass vaccination programs,

as many people, including Senator Cantwell claim? The most comprehensive evidence-based study that rigorously examines this issue is a CDC-funded study. That was published in 2000 performed by a team of researchers from CDC and Johns Hopkins University, and led by Dr. Bernard Geyer. The scientists meticulously examined 100 years of government infectious disease mortality data, and they concluded that nearly all the mortality reductions occurred before the introduction of vaccines,

and that vaccinations could therefore claim little of the credit. For example, you can see from this graph that in 1900, some 13,000 Americans a year were dying of measles. By 1960, however, this number had dropped to a few hundred. But the measles vaccine was not introduced until three years later. Therefore, almost all the measles mortality had disappeared before the vaccine. So the measles vaccine can't really claim the credit for saving all those lives. Let's look at protasus, also known as Wooping cough. Again, we see the biggest drop in protocis deaths occurred before the introduction of the protesis vaccine.

The same is true for influenza. Massive flu mortality's had already disappeared by, the 1960s, but the vaccine was not widely disseminated until the 1980s. So once again, the vaccine cannot claim the credit. And look how tuberculosis deaths nearly disappeared along the exact same timeline as all those other infectious diseases. Even though there was no mass vaccination for TB in the United States, the mortalities disappeared without any help from a vaccine. Likewise, there was never a scurvy vaccine, but scurvy deaths also disappeared along the the exact same timeline. The same is true for scarlet fever, which I had as a boy.

Deaths from scarlet fever disappeared in lockstep alongside the drops and deaths from all those other contagions. So what actually did cause the decline in infectious disease mortality? A landmark 1977 study by McKinley and McKinley was required reading in most American medical schools during the 1970s and early 1980s. That study attributed the decline not to to medical advances or innovations, but almost exclusively to agricultural and engineering innovations that improved nutrition. These included better roads, air transport, and refrigeration, and superior sanitation. This was the same period that flush toilets and water chlorination became widespread. The McKinley's credited less than 3.5% of the mortality declines to all medical measures put together,

including antibiotics, surgeries, and vaccines. And here, for example, you see the introduction of chlorination correlates pretty perfectly with the decline in infectious disease mortality. Okay, so I have a question for you. Was that disinformation? It's the heart of all of these conversations. Was that Robert Kennedy Jr.'s opinion? Well, it's an opinion based on all of the different graphs that you could see were put out

over the years by HHS, by real CDC numbers. And that is what we have done here on the High Wire for years. It is also at the heart of when I made the documentary vaxed. From the moment I stepped into this conversation, everybody said you're going to be attacked. You're going to be ridiculed. My friends in Hollywood, where I was an Emmy Award-winning producer, said, Del, why would you do this?

I don't care how good the movie is. you're going to destroy your film and television career. Why do that? And then those that I started working with as Vax was touring the country said, I love this film, Dell, but you know, you're going to have to slow down a little bit. You know, these things move very slowly. There may be no change whatsoever. We've been at it for decades.

Or in fact, I want to, you know, give a shout out to one of my really good friends, Mark Blacksul, who is one of the most eloquent writers and speakers on the subject. I've learned so much for him. And Mark would say to me, you know, Del, this is a marathon, not a sprint. And I remember saying to him, Mark, we don't have time to be in a marathon any longer. I have a sense that we're at the end of this marathon, and therefore I'm taking the last leg and I'm going to sprint with everything I have. Now, I get that we were able to do what we've done with the highway. We've been able to do what we did with the documentary Vax because we stood on the shoulders of giants. Really, frankly, mostly parents who, you know, were dealing

with their vaccine injured children at home. And instead of just whining about or complaining about it or, you know, thinking how unfair the universe is, they spent whatever little time they had left to come out and shout to the rest of us, look out. This vaccine program is not as safe as they're telling you, you do not want to have to live this life the way that I'm living. So I get where the fear I get where the pessimism, and Mark is one of those brilliant parents that has done everything he could to make a difference. And so it is with just complete, you know, honor and joy that I get to say that he is now the head of autism.

He helped build the anti-vaccine. This is the article written against him. He helped build the anti-vaccine movement. Arachad just hired him. Neither a physician nor a scientist, new CDC senior advisor, Mark Blacksul, claims without evidence that every child who takes vaccine is. in some ways injured. He's going to be running the autism program at CDC. There is no one better. There is not a better. First of all, he's been running businesses his whole life. So talented,

but no one understands his subject better. You should check out his books, age of autism, denial, fantastic writer. Mark, we did it. And the other day when I called him to congratulate him, he said, I'm having a really good time. It's been, you know, nearly a decade. was waiting to hear those words come from his mouth. So from Mark Blacksul's mouth to all of you, go ahead and celebrate the moment that we're in. Sure, the attacks are still coming, but look at how many things are happening. Look how things are moving and recognize that those of us that have been a part of this and those that came before us, we're here because we never gave up. Do not give up. Do not stand down. The truth is too important. The future of our species,

and the future of our children and their children and the future grandchildren of the world are counting on us right now. That is why I do what I do. That is why I thank every one of you that supports us and makes this possible. This is why we were born. I'm going to continue to work and see it that way,

and I'll see you next week on the High Wire.