The Highwire with Del Bigtree - Episode 447: OUTSPOKEN

Episode Date: October 24, 2025

The tide is turning — globally. From the U.S. to Australia, legislators are questioning the missing safety science behind childhood vaccination. In a historic moment, South Australian Senator Alex Antic confronts top public health leaders demanding answers.Jefferey Jaxen reports on Big Pharma’s quiet pivot from doctors to pharmacists as the medical model of immunization collapses, and a massive lawsuit targets Pfizer’s top birth control drug amid growing fertility concerns. Then, Dr. Mary Talley Bowden joins Del in-studio with a powerful update on her ongoing battle against the Texas Medical Board — and her mission to expose the system that silenced her. Plus, Del shares the latest on An Inconvenient Study and more breaking updates from around the world.Guest: Mary Talley Bowden, MDBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

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

Action. Good morning, good afternoon, good evening. Wherever you are out there in the world, it's time to step out onto the high wire. Man, we've been having a good time watching all the social media blow up around our new film and inconvenient study. We're just getting in some of the stats, those that we can track, can't track it all, but 3.2 million views of the film, 37,000 downloads, 103,000 views on just YouTube,

22.3 million interactions on the film website, and we don't know what's happening in the watch parties, how many people were watching it all one time. I'm assuming 10 million, 20 million, but it's not enough. We want 100 million. We want a billion. This is a world-changing film,

which means we need your help to continue to share, share it with everyone you know. That's how we make change. We are really excited about what it's doing to the conversation around vaccine safety, especially the placebo study and this inconvenient study. As I was watching online, all this going on, something popped up in my feed and I just couldn't let it slide by. So I want to play a video because I think it plays into this. This is from one of my favorite Muppets at the W.E.F. Yuval Noah Harari. I think he says it all.

I think what he says in this clip is really the heart of why we made an inconvenience study. Take a look at this. In order to collaborate on a large scale, you need to convince everybody to believe in the same story. What's really the engine of history is stories. And they don't even need to be true. Some of the most powerful stories in history were fictions.

But you need to get everybody, or at least a significant part, of the population, to believe in the same story. Otherwise, it doesn't work. Science is not really, at least this is why we're as a historian. Science is not really about truth. It's about power. The real aim of science as an project, as an establishment, is not truth, it's power.

A particular individuals, particular scientists, may be very interested in the truth. personally, but as an institution, the real aim of science is power. Amazing, right? Those are two different clips, one from 2021 from 2015. Evolves just the gift that keeps on giving, but he makes a very important point here because it's what I've discovered as a journalist. I think he's nailing the, you know, the head of the nail exactly, which is this. It's not science, it's just a story. It's a story totally. told to create power, if I'm just sort of bring all of that together.

Forget about the truth. The truth doesn't actually matter. And I think this is interesting because when you look historically at science, the reason we got into science when we started being fascinated by science was we were tired with religion. We were tired of having faith in a God and a deity. We couldn't quite understand. We felt vulnerable.

We wanted to know the facts. We want to know the truth. We want to get to the heart of what was making everything tick. Only one problem eventually, as I've been saying in my talks as I travel around this country talking on this subject, is we essentially took science and then just turned it into a religion or even worse, really a cult that has no. It's exactly what you've all's saying. We just need you to all agree on a story. And many of the great stories of our time going back in history didn't have truth, but there were stories that shaped who we are. In this case, there's the story that vaccines are saved. and effective. And there's mountains of science that's been put behind vaccines to make sure that the safest product we have. And of course we've done placebo-based trials. It's crazy to think we would ever put a product out there that wasn't actually safe. This is given to our children, by the way, our infants. Do you think we would ever do something as outrageous as giving children a product

that's never been safety tested? How could you dare you? Well, it's all crashing down now. And it can study. Our film is a big part of that, also the work we've done at the Highwire. And I think that this recent hearing at a Senate hearing in Australia shows you how far reaching this truth is. People are finally asking the question. What happens when you just ask the most basic question? What you get is the longest, most outrageous, boring, ridiculous story of science you've ever Take a look at this. Of those vaccines, how many placebo-controlled studies have been done on vaccines on the childhood schedule? Senator, that would be a very difficult question to answer, and the TGA might be able to add to that,

who do the initial assessment on the safety and efficacy of the vaccines. Sure. Thanks very much. I'm just going to ask Dr. Nittenbergh, who's one of our senior medical officers to the table to respond, Senator. Can I please ask you to repeat the question? The question is, how many placebo-controlled studies have been done on vaccines on the childhood schedule? I can take that a question on notice. I don't have it in hand at the moment.

You need to take that on notice? Yes. I would just highlight, if I may, Senator, this is a question that's also been asked of other regulators. I think part of the challenge that we have is that while it is frequently held that placebo-controlled or double-blinded or randomized controlled trials are the gold standard in science, and certainly in the introduction of new medicines, particularly when there's no established standard of treatment, that is often the case.

There are fairly substantial ethical questions to be answered around introducing a placebo-controlled trial when there is a demonstrated effective medication that is used to either prevent or treatment. So, for instance, given that we do have demonstrable efficacy of vaccines for many vaccine-preventable diseases, it would be ethically not only questionable, but probably not arguable, that a placebo-controlled trial would be appropriate

given that you would actually have to specifically not vaccinate children, expose them to the disease that we know has serious morbidity when we also know we have an effect. So these are injections that we're giving to almost every child in the country at the moment, and we can't say at this stage you have to take on notice how many placebo-controlled studies have been done, which is the gold standard. No.

It's not the gold standard? So, yeah, I might just try and explain it in a different way, Senator. The gold standard for science is contextual. And so when there are new treatments to be determined, absolutely there is a preference for a placebo-controlled trial. So you can compare a control arm with an intervention arm. And that way you're able to remove a number of the confounding factors, but also able to demonstrate both the risk and the benefit of that treatment.

When there is an established treatment for which there is not only demonstrated efficacy in terms of preventing the vaccine, preventing the disease and the consequences of the disease, but also decades of real-world evidence on the safety and the positive risk benefit analysis, the lack of an ethical basis for a placebo-controlled trial, where, as I say, there is an accepted and efficacious treatment for a significant disease, with significant morbidity, that cannot be described as gold standard. How many are we talking about? Many of these cover multiple antigens, and I think in 1990 the full schedule was 21 antigens,

and now it's about 60. So with that in mind, what placebo-controlled safety studies have been done examining the combination of multiple antigens in these ejections? Yes, I thank you for that question as well, Senator. The growth or the evolution in the immunisation should, And again, it might be something that Dr. Pete might like to comment on, has been cited as a challenge. All of that to say, we've never done a placebo trial. That's it.

It's just that easy. See how quickly that comes out? We've never done a placebo trial. Look how hard that guy's got to work and passes it off first. Well, can I send it to you? Well, I can't answer that. And to you, I didn't come prepared. Well, let me take a crack at this.

Let me spin up the biggest story you've ever heard. You know, it reminds me of a child. It's got like the cake and icing dripping off their face and their little hands have got the cake and icy. Like, Johnny, did you eat the cake? No, I didn't eat the cake. Well, I would agree that there is a cake there and it clearly looks like somebody might have taken a bite out of it.

I can't imagine who that would be. And I think we have to assess the fact that it's a sweet cake and anyone would want the cake and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Making up excuse after excuse, but this is where we're at now. We're at a point now where the questions are being asked. and they are totally screwed. They're screwed because they don't have the answer anyone wants to hear.

Nobody wants to hear there was no placebo. So they're playing this game, and we pointed out in the movie, they play this game about, well, we can't have a placebo because we have vaccines that have already been approved. But they were approved without a placebo. And so this game keeps going, and I'm telling you, it's scary, it's daunting, it's why this film is so important, why this study is so important.

Since you skipped all the placebo trials, now we are having difficulty. But one of the things that you're all pointing out as you watch the film, there's a couple real highlights. I want to play one of them. This is an excerpt from the film that gets in exactly this, this bait and switch of, we can't do a placebo trial because we already have a product available, yada, yada, yada. This is the whiskey study from our film.

Are all vaccine trials placebo controlled? No, and nor should they be. So for example, when Previnar 13, so Previnar was a conjugate pneumococcal vaccine. The FDA has approved a new pneumococcal vaccine. It had to be tested in the phase three trial. And so the control group there was Prevnar 7 and had been shown to work. It will replace Prevnar, which was effective against seven serotypes. You can't ask parents to take, to put their children at risk of pneumococcal disease when

there existed on the market at the time, a vaccine to prevent that. And the World Health Organization has been very clear on this, that would have been considered an ethical trial. Dr. Paul Opp, it's one of the big proponents of vaccinations, probably because he's made a vaccine and made a killing off of it, the rhodovirus vaccines on the childhood schedule. It doesn't matter whether I financially benefited or not. He likes to go around and say, well, we can't always do placebo trials, especially if there's already a vaccine that covers that disease.

So he'll use an example like Prevnar 13. The Prevnar 13 in its safety trial was tested against Prevnar 7, the earlier version of the vaccine. And he'll say you cannot test Prevnar 13 against a saline placebo because it would be unethical. You'd be denying children access to a vaccine that is already on the market, and that's not fair to them. But what he leaves out is that Prevnar 7 was never tested against a saline placebo, so we don't know if it's safe. So we're testing one product we don't know the safety profile on with another product we don't know the safety profile on, and this is how the entire vaccine schedule works. I like to call this the Whiskey Study.

Let me explain. Let's say there's a group of people that are complaining that whiskey is making people drunk and they're crashing their cars and people are getting killed. Now in order to test, does whiskey cause car accidents? You would set up a double-blind placebo trial. One group, the test group, would get the 10 shots of whiskey. The other group, the placebo group, would get 10 shots of water. And then we'd have them both drive on a driving course and see who has more accidents.

It's obvious. But in this case, the whiskey company is the one doing the study. And what they say is, oh, we're going to do a placebo-based trial. But our placebo-based trial is not going to be water. It'll be vodka, another product already on the market. And so 10 people get the whiskey shots and 10 people get the the vodka shots and they had them all drive and guess what they had just as many car accidents therefore whiskey does not cause car accidents because it didn't cause any more than the vodka did

and so to take this all the way to the end of dr paul off its point if vodka had ever been tested against 10 shots of water and there was no car accidents in the vodka group then it would make sense to test the whiskey against the vodka but we all know that's the study was never done. Just like no vaccine placebo study was ever done. This reminds me of the moment we did the football analysis of the COVID vaccine and how it works. So many of you've been writing in saying, oh my God, I finally totally know how to explain this to somebody and how this game is played. I love that about this film. It's so straightforward, so clear. If you haven't seen it, I hope you will go to an inconvenience study.com and check it out. Share it with everyone you know. We've got it out there for free.

This is what we're all about with our nonprofit. Everybody that donates to us, I want to thank you for making this a worldwide sensation and allowing us to really push the envelope. We're reaching Australia. I guarantee these questions are going to be in our own Senate as we go into the midterms. These are the questions that need to be asked.

And anybody that is afraid to go near it or has been hiding or obfuscating, your days are numbered. This is over. This conversation is over. We now know the entire science around this vaccine program is a sham. Now we're going to figure out what we're going to do about and how we're going to get to the truth.

I got a great show coming up. I got Dr. Mary Talley Bowden was just in a hearing this week. They keep attacking her for things that she did during COVID, trying to, can you imagine? She tried to get ivermectin to a patient that was dying inside of a hospital that she didn't work at, had a court order and everything, but apparently that's not allowed. You're supposed to just be allowed to kill your patients on a ventilator. And with remdesivir and if any doctor tries to interfere with that very important problem, process, they've got hell to pay. I'm going to talk to what it's like to have been in the middle of this

controversy for this long. It's still dragging out. But first it's time for the Jackson Report. You know, Jeffrey, I think we cut like two minutes out of that drooling on and on. Like, you know, Jen, my executive producer, like, it's too long. I think that's the whole point. It's amazing how long this guy can put out words that don't say anything other than we've never done a placebo trial. It's incredible. And the hot potato from that question. No one wants to touch that question anymore because they realize, uh-oh, the public is aware. That's it.

And speaking of public conversations that are a little uncomfortable, Tony Fauci has popped up out of nowhere to give a medical talk at Harvard Medical School, and it went something like this. All right. When you're a scientist, it doesn't matter. I have advised George H.W. Bush. We developed the PEPFAR program with George W. Bush. I was very close with President Obama and President Clinton.

And it doesn't matter whether you're a Republican or a Democrat. I am not a political person. I'm a scientist. So you're asking the question, Bailey, how do you do that? Just remember who you are. You're a scientist. And scientists, science itself is not a political thing. It's facts and evidence and data.

So to be honest, you think it sounds tough, but it's easy to negotiate. All you have to do is remember who you are. And it doesn't matter whether you're dealing with a Republican or a Democrat or somebody else. Just remember who you are. And you'll be fine. Just remember who you are. Just tell them, I am the science. If you question me, you question the science.

And remember what you've all said. science is power and power is just a story. I mean, it's phenomenal, isn't it, that we live in such totally different worlds that there's our friends of ours that will go and pay to see Tony Fauci, I guess, spew this stuff. And the rest of us want him in a gulag somewhere paying for all the people. He destroyed both with his gain of function virus that was escaped to the world and the vaccine that destroyed God knows how many lives going into the future. Yet, You know, we know people like, oh my God, Tony Fauci, what a great man. I cannot believe the guy can show his face in public.

It's unbelievable. And these are tone-deaf words from someone whose words do not really match their actions. And I want to go, I mean, people know him really now for how he presided over the COVID vaccine rollout and how he really hit a lot of that. And like you said, also the gain of function, the origins of this virus, he actively worked to hide that and delete emails. But let's talk when you don't have facts, because this is what the whole idea is about, the vaccine industry and the paradigm it's based upon is missing some key facts. We know what facts.

You have persuasion and you have coercion. And this is what this study did. This laid the groundwork for this COVID vaccine over the last four years. This was a study that was published in 2021. And you can see here it's called persuasive messaging to increase COVID vaccine uptake. And this is behavior change. And they looked at what are the best sentences? What are the best ways we can get people to change their behavior that don't want

this experimental vaccine. And they tried everything. They tried community interests conversations, do it for, you know, community immunity. When I start reading these things, you can remember back to some of the messaging you heard from media, from Fauci himself. This is where they, this is where they received this advice. These are the facts they received. They had self-interest. But then they went into, there's one. It's called not brave. They're saying, well, first responders are taking this. Surely you must want to be brave, right? But here's a fun one. Trust the science. That's literally what the heading is. I'm going to read this. This is the messaging that they tried out in a controlled trial. They said this. The people who reject getting vaccinated are typically

ignorant or confused about the science. Not getting vaccinated will show people that you are probably the sort of person who doesn't understand how infection spreads and who ignores or are confused about science. Then they tried one called personal freedom. And they said this to people in the study. Remember, each person who gets vaccinated reduces the chance that we lose our freedoms or government lockdown's return. While you can't do it alone, we can all keep our freedoms by getting vaccinated. And the researchers concluded this. Not only does emphasizing that vaccination is a pro-social action increase uptake, but it also increases people's willingness to pressure others to do so, both by direct persuasion and negative judgment on non-vaccinators. The latter social pressures

affect may be enhanced by highlighting how embarrassing it would be to infect someone else after failing to vaccinate. Well, clearly they weren't watching our show. We were the first news outlet to show that it didn't stop transmission in the first place. But the craziest part of this study is when you go to clinical trials.gov, you see when it started. It started in July 3rd of 2020. That was five months before the vaccine was even given. I want to go into the NIH.

It shows that the third phase of the Pfizer trial, the Pfizer was the first vaccine given. in the United States. The third phase of the Pfizer trial started on July 27th, 2020. So this study was literally before, it was in the second phase, while this research was still going on, they didn't even know if the vaccine worked. And you have Yale University lining up to persuade people by shaming them, by embarrassing them,

by telling them they're going to lose their personal freedoms. Those are the facts that Anthony Fauci rests upon, and the vaccine industry for COVID rested upon. That's what we're talking about when we talk about this moment. There's a more important moment that's happening right now in this vaccine conversation in this industry. And it revolves around pharmacies. Just last year, 2024, you had this headline here.

We had CVS, Walgreens, Rite Aid. They're closing thousands of drug stores across America. Walgreens said about 25% of its stores weren't profitable. Well, that's a big deal. That's a huge sector of the population, the consumer population where this mix between consumer and healthcare meat. was going offline. And in 2020, something happened. We had the Prep Act. The Prep Act was created to basically shield countermeasures during COVID. So the vaccine would be shield anybody gives the

vaccine, would also be shielded from legal liability and also other countermeasures like ventilators Rendezevere, things like that. And this is for emergencies. The Prep Act is something happens, it's activated during emergencies. Something happened in 2020 that very few people saw. And this is the Federal Register, this is where the government has to legally post any changes to any types of acts. And it says this, the secretary at the time it was Javier Pocera, now amends Section 5 of the Declaration to identify as qualified persons. Those are people that are covered under the Prep Act authorizing, who are they authorizing state licensed pharmacists? And you can go down further pharmacy interns. And they're doing that to do what? To give the COVID vaccine. Now they're under

the big tent. But not only the COVID vaccine. You can read down to the bottom, it says, to administer any vaccine that the advisory committee on immunization practices ASIP recommends the person's ages 3 to 18. So now we have the COVID vaccine is being basically taken off the recommendations. The government's washing its hands of it saying, look, if you want this thing, you talk to your doctor, they'll give you a prescription, and then you can go get it, maybe at a pharmacy or something like that. But we're not going to mandate it. We're not going to coerce you into getting this thing. So now we see the handoff. So you have pharmacies now that just a couple headlines here. These headlines are everywhere now. This is one of West Virginia. Pharmacists in West Virginia can now

give COVID vaccine without prescriptions. Obviously, CVS, big problem with their business model. They've jumped in here to grab this market share. CVS pharmacy and Minute Clinic offer the 20, 25, 26 COVID vaccine. For this is, you go into this, read it, it's 18 months or older can get it. In Iowa, you have high V. That's their grocery store with a pharmacy chain attached to it. lifts restrictions on new COVID vaccine availability. So the pharmacists are all in. You go into this article here. It says, Hy-Vie has lifted its restrictions

on new COVID vaccine, making it available to anyone ages three and older with no prescription required. Previously, Hayvey, along with many other retail pharmacies, follow food, FDA, and state immunization guidelines, which vary by state. You get this. It says patients age 12 and older can get both their COVID-19 and flu shots in one visit to the pharmacy.

Now, that's conflicting. So you see the pharmacy are running kind of loose here because it looks like a 12-year-old can walk in there and get these shots, co-administered. First of all, in Iowa, a 12-year-old can't consent to the vaccination without their parents. So that's a little dubious when you read that. But also co-administration of the flu shot, COVID shot.

The FDA said, we need more studies on this. So the pharmacies are going for it. So what we're witnessing here is a major market move to bypass the doctor-patient relationship. So we have the vaccine hesitancy rates, as they say, are up after COVID. They're surging. You have this headline here.

Vaccine hesitancy rates rises highlighting a crucial role for pharmacists. Not because they promote science, not because they're good at facts. It's because this. You go look in the article. It says, pharmacists are among the most trusted sources for patients seeking health information and care,

largely due to their accessibility and location. So we're looking at now a consumer industry, pharmacies, grocery store chains. That I guess the word would be disintermediate intermediating pediatricians and doctors. The pediatrician and doctors have essentially failed. What you're looking at is they've failed to distribute drugs and vaccines. And you're looking at pharmacies stepping in here.

So when as a pediatrician saying, we have a hard time making a living, the market is passing you by. And it's clearly looks like it's been decided to move the vaccine industry into the pharmacies because they're protected until 2029. That's when the prep act was reuptil. Why is this a problem? Well, you can see here when it comes there's a survey in Washington Post Kaiser Foundation has done a survey and looked at

parents these are the polling insights of the Maha movement and I want to bring the attention there's a lot of great information in this but one of them is what Maha parents say is important for kids to be vaccinated and it talks about polio measles flu COVID but I want to bring people to the section here on COVID-19 and you look at the maha versus non-maha and all the way to the right the green you have Maha supporters saying 28 of them are saying it's important for kids to be vaccinated against COVID-19. Non-Maha supporters, they only got up to 52%. So you're not having this rush for the vaccine, but now the next slide is talking about vaccine safety.

So there's no rush for the vaccine, but how safe for the vaccines? And you can see here all the green, that's not confident, not very confident. Both Maha and Naha Maha supporters are saying childhood vaccine for the COVID, the childhood safety for the COVID-19 vaccine is they're not confident on the safety of this. So it's going to be very interesting when you don't have the doctors trying to coerce and persuade. You have, you're waiting for people to come off the streets because of marketing and advertisements to get their vaccines, but the population does not really want this vaccine, especially for the kids. So this COVID vaccine is the lowest hanging fruit

to really put this, put a stamp to move this vaccine paradigm more towards true. and facts. And if this thing goes down, which it really looks like it's going, I mean, they're scrambling. Their hands been forced to punt it really to the pharmacist. We're looking at a major, major upset here in the vaccinating industry with this COVID vaccine. I don't think it's going to work either. I don't think that educated people want to watch people, you know, waddling by with their groceries and, you know, stuffed animals while they're, you know, getting a vaccine in an open environment. I just don't see it happening. So I think, again, you're just seeing the collapse of the program, and they're eating their own and destroying the profession of, you know, the pediatricians by sending their business somewhere else.

It's a mess. They deserve it. They've put themselves in this position. It's going to be very interesting to see how this all starts to play out, though. But clearly, again, Jeffrey, we've got them on the ropes. They're on tilt now. That's what you're looking at. We're reading articles where the most powerful industry in the world is now on tilt.

grasping, grappling for some piece of relevance in your grocery stores and drug stores, I just don't think they're going to pull it off. And so we're watching a new paradigm, you know, being born right before our eyes. Yeah, absolutely, and being forced. And let's talk about another product of Pfizer. We have the COVID vaccine, but we also have a lot of products. Pfizer, one of the most sued companies in the history of pharmaceutical companies paying some of the biggest fines imaginable. Well, they have another legal fight on their hands. This is New York Post, popular birth control linked to brain tumors and new study as over 1,000 women, Sue Pfizer over health risk. That's 1,200 when you get into the article now. And I want to tip the hat to NBC News.

When they do great jobs, we will highlight them. And they jumped on this story and it looked like this. Right. Robin Phillips has been through two surgeries and months of radiation, all due to a tumor, she now believes was caused by her birth control injections. If I were new from the giggle, I wouldn't never took that shot. In 2018, doctors discovered a tumor called a meningioma pressing on Phillips' brain. This right here. Emergency surgery left her without vision in her left eye. She even had to relearn how to walk.

One in four women in the United States use it, with black women taking the shot at nearly doubled the national rate. Philip took it for nearly 30 years. The only time you stopped was when you had your two children. Yes. Multiple studies have found a potential link between Depo and meningioma, including one that found women who took the drug for more than a year, had five times the risk of developing the tumor. So overall, meningioma is not common. The likelihood of having a meningioma as a depot user is incredibly low. So what we're looking at here, this is a major deal because, as you saw, one in four women have taken this or are taking this. And you look over to the legal review. So the legal publications are jumping all over this because this has the potential to be a gigantic

lawsuit for Pfizer. One of the publication says this, Pfizer faces growing legal storm over Deppo Pereira. And you look into this and it says legal experts say Deppra pervero, this is a multi-district lawsuit could become one of the most consequential pharmaceutical mass torts since the Johnson & Johnson talc litigation. If Pfizer is preemption defense fails. The company may face mounting settlement pressure. Johnson & Johnson has been on the hook for billions and billions of dollars because of their cancer causing with that product, with the baby powder. So this outcome will hinge on whether Pfizer has the ability and the duty to warn. Did they do that? Did they do it in time? And so really, I mean, when you

look at this, when you step back and look at this, this Pfizer product, Pfizer was so excited to prevent women from having babies that it kept important information from them like it was causing brain tumors. That's how excited they were for this product to work. But we look into the studies here, and NBC News covered a little bit of it, but there was a JAMA study that was just published this year, 2025, actually last month, and it looked at this Deppropovera, and it's actually the scientific name or the medical name is Depo Medroxy progesterone acetate. Big mouthful there, But it's looking at the risk and it looked over at researchers here examined over 61 million female patient records huge study gigantic study and it looked at whether

this would cause this in these patients records and it found this basically they found a 2.43 times increased risk for the use of Depo Rivera or just this drug depo of metroxy progesterone compared to the controls and that's an increase in meningoma diagnosis so these are these these brain tumors, not a good thing. But it talks about this, in the conclusion of this study, it says in the study, women receiving depomodroxy progesterone acetate had a greater relative risk of subsequent meningioma diagnosis, especially with prolonged exposures and starting the medication at older ages.

So those are two really important points for our viewers out there. exposures, and this is an injectable hormone contraceptive. Every three months, the injection is re-upped by your doctor. So people, women using this for longer period of time, you know, it's showing that may not be the best thing. This builds on a BMJ study in 2024, which really raised the alarms. This looked at over 100,000 women to assess the risk. And it looked at a couple of these hormone birth controls. And it says this. Analysis showed excessive risk of men in genoma with use of medrogestrone, that's an oral pill, odds ratio 3.49, so 3.49 times the risk. And then you have the medroxy progesterone acetate. There's that 5.55 times the risk to placebo, and then pro-megastrone.

That's 2.39. And it says this excess risk was driven by prolonged use, just over or equal to one year. So that's even shorter in this study. And so you have the studies, you have the lawsuits, And it's up to leaders. It's up to governors, legislators, to really act on this. And that's not what's happening. Why? We look over again to Illinois, Governor J.B. Pritzer. He basically has just signed a law allowing over-the-counter hormonal birth control for universities.

It says, Governor J.B. Pritzker signed legislation Thursday morning at the UIC College of Pharmacy, allowing pharmacists to give out hormonal birth control to a patient who has not seen a doctor. So again, you have, I mean, are they giving out this birth control? Highly questionable if that's happening, and if it is, it's very difficult. It really needs to be looked at by the state there. But again, you have this surpassing of doctors. We want them out of the picture. We want to give pharmacists the job to basically just come in, get your shot, get your birth control,

get your vaccine, and be on your way. no conversations, just be done with it. But this brings up a greater conversation here of reproductive rights, of fertility, of population control. And something just happened out of the United Nations. And we know from our previous reporting, the United Nations has been highly suspect. They've run some of the sterilization campaigns over the decades in lower developed countries. A new report just came out by the United Nations Population Fund, which we had our eyes on here. And this is called the State of the World 2025 report. And they call it the real fertility crisis.

And it's very interesting here. They don't even mask their words. They say in this report, many leaders and advisors, especially those in developed countries, predicted a race to oblivion unless measures were implemented to control women's fertility. This is Ehrlich and Ehrlich, 1968. That's Paul Ehrlich.

And that's the overpopulation bomb. The population bomb is this book. And it says here in the UN, too often through practices such as coerce use of contraception forced sterilization or abortion, which the UN ran in a lot of cases. So they're saying that was wrong. And they're pivoting here, which, you know, hats off to them, but the pivot is kind of a symbolic win for this conversation. And they say this. And this is, should also parallel. It echoes what we're seeing with the vaccine paradigm. Informed consent is coming to the forefront, also happening in the

fertility crisis. So the UN population fund report it says this. Reproductive agency, that's what they're calling it, the capacity to exercise informed, empowered decision-making over one's reproduction. This capacity requires more than an ability to say yes or no. It requires an enabling environment in which individuals and couples can make choices unfettered by legal, political, economic, and normative constraints is a fundamental aspect of bodily autonomy, self-determination, and human rights. They're calling for international frameworks, recognize reproductive agency, essential for gender quality and empowerment of women and girls, but this also is a greater kind of bellwether for the entire medical industry when it comes

to anything from fertility drugs to contraception to the vaccine industry. And so why is this a big deal? Well, maybe the UN has been reading these headlines. This is just from last year. U.S. birth rate hits all-time low. CDC data shows at CBS News. And you can see these headlines all over the world. Japan, you're seeing them over in the UK are seeing them as well. there is a big fertility problem and the UN looks like it's pivoting majorly and i want to end on this fertility may not be about how many interventions the medical community can give maybe rather what we avoid or cultivate within ourselves that is the actual story two new studies just came out one of them shows organophosphate pesticide exposure and semen quality in healthy young men

it's a pilot study and it says a major strength this study is that it is the first to analyze associations between organophosphate pesticide exposure and semen quality and healthy young men from the general population and not infertile men or farm workers as well add that. And it says this, this is what they found. Specifically, we found that organophosphate pesticide exposure to be inversely associated with sperm motility, which many consider to be the parameter most predictive of successful fertilization. This is your glyphosate, this is your plirophose. A lot of things we covered on this show, as Zen Honeycutt talked about it as well. this is a major study and it's showing in the general population you really want to avoid this stuff

if you're trying to get pregnant have a baby but also we have another piece of research that's coming in the microbiome this is still sadly when it comes to the mainstream it's not well understood but it is becoming well understood this is another study just out last month hot off the presses from gut to gamut how the microbiome influences fertility and preconception health and they're calling to set standards and integrate this microbiome science into reproductive medicine to basically reconceptualize fertility. So these are these are big moves because it's not about again how much pharma can give you but it's maybe about how much can we detract from this, how much can we look at our own bodies and the actual living system as a whole of our own body when it comes to fertility

because there's some major problems that need to be solved. The fertility crisis is not going away anytime soon. Well, and it looks like the fertility crisis is on purpose, which is something that we've got to ask ourselves again as we led this show out on science's power, that power is derived not by truth, but by a story. The story that we're overpopulated is one that we've carried for, I think, far too long, and it's allowing us to make really bad decisions. When you look at Pritzker, I mean, I guess if you believe you've got to control population, then both stopping fertility, stopping birth, works with a product, and if that product happens to give you brain cancer and kills you off, that's a two-for-one, two-for-right there. We just reduced the population by several.

You know, I don't know if that's his thinking, but it certainly appears to be the outcome as we see more and more, these companies that were trusted for far too long. Pfizer. I mean, it's amazing that anyone buys any product from this company any longer, that they're allowed to have a business inside of this country when they murder as many people as they do knowingly, you know, when they hide all of the science that they have internally. It's just, but we keep telling the story and more and more people are listening. And I want to say, Jeffrey, as I sit here thinking, you know, so many young mothers are now watching this show and thinking about, like, what do I need to do?

How do I prepare for my birth? What do I do once I get there? There's so many ways to detoxify and things, but immediately, you know, looking at what products are using right now that maybe you shouldn't if, you know, giving birth is in your future. Jeffrey, great reporting. Appreciate it all. as always, and I'll see you next week. All right, thank you.

We're all about the truth here. The high wire is not a story. It's about truth. What you see is we're reading you the studies as they appear. It's why people that watched the high wire during COVID didn't get the COVID vaccine. Because while every television set in everyone's house was screaming 95% effective, this television set, this high wire program in everybody's house was saying it's not 95% effective. In fact, here's the emergency use authorization by the FDA themselves.

they don't know if this vaccine can stop transmission because they didn't even study it in the trials, which is crazy. We've said from the beginning, you're trusting a product that's never been through a placebo-based trial. They can't say it's safe. You even hear in the film an inconvenience study, Dr. Marcus Zervos, it's one of the first things he said to me when we sat down back in 2016, and he agrees and admits that he said this. I remember when Brett Weinstein came up to me as he was getting deep in his revelation on childhood vaccine programming. You know, I look, back on my assumptions and of course they were reasonable assumptions, but the system itself is not reasonable. That is the House of Sand that this vaccine program is built on. It's why it's a core

part of the work that we do here at the highway. Yes, we talk about food. We talk about chemicals in our food and pesticides and herbicides. We're doing a deep investigation on what is happening in our skies. More shows coming on that. But our jam, our focus is on vaccine. Our focus is on vaccines. How did you prove they're safe? That's what we've been suing about. We spent millions and millions and millions of dollars suing our government, suing agencies, suing Mississippi to give you back the right to choose. Currently about to win, I believe, was a lawsuit in West Virginia. We're almost through it, giving you back the right to choose so that you don't have to be vaccinated. But this film right now, an inconvenience study, is doing something so many of you writing in.

I had so many great texts this week saying, I've never been able to get my first. father to look at this issue at all. He's a science guy. It has to come from a doctor. I asked my mom, will you please see if you can get dad to watch this video? And he texted me and said, I just watched that movie. That is compelling science. I'm going to share it with everyone I know. I can't tell you how many people we're hearing that from. So if you're one of those people out there saying, acting like you've seen an inconvenience study, but you really haven't seen it yet, you really ought to see it. I know you think you know what's in it, but it's never been put together like this. So just to really get it into your bones.

Here's the trailer of an inconvenience study. The health of American children is in crisis. There is a study that could shed light on this chronic disease epidemic. Compare vaccinated children to unvaccinated children. This could be one of the most valuable studies in the field. 4.47 times the amount. Five and a half times risk. The study was a bombshell.

Only one problem. They're not going to publish it. What do you think about the study you guys are done? I think it's a good study. I'm not going to do it. Publishing something like that might be finished. It's really sick. I mean, obviously, like, really emotional.

This film really is a difference maker. I haven't been more proud of something we've done since I made vaxed, you know, almost 10 years ago. I watched how that changed this conversation. We want every senator, every politician asking, why are they not placebo trials and what are we going to do about it? That's at the heart of this film. And then we need more and more vaccinated versus unvaccinated studies to be happening all around the world. All around the world this needs to happen, which is why we're pushing it, all around the world. So I want to say to you, it's not easy to produce a high-end film like this

and then give it to the world. The only reason we're able to give it is because there's people out there that care enough to say, you know what, I want everyone that is not willing to look at this to be able to watch it for free, but I'm invested in that. I'm invested in the future, which is what is happening right now. And so I'm asking you, if you've watched this film and it moved you in any way, ask yourself, what value does that film have in the world? What value does it have when you share it? And we'd love to see a donation just based on that. Maybe it's just a $10 movie ticket. You know what? I watched it. It deserves $10. Maybe it's more. But right now, if you watch that film, I hope that you'll just type in 72022 on your phone and hit donate.

You just don't know how much we can do to promote it and push it out there. We are not getting any algorithmic free ride. Believe me, everyone's telling us how hard it is to share it on all the social media platforms, which is why we're sending most people to our own website. But YouTube and Inconvenience Studies is doing great there. And Inconvenience Study.com. It's free. It's easy. Share it with everyone you know. And tell that friend, hey, if it works for you, why don't you throw Ican a donation?

They're doing huge work, not just in this film, not just films in the future, not just the high wire, but they're suing on behalf of our children to change the laws around these conversations. So $25 a month for 2025 would be awesome. you become a recurring donor, it really helps us know, can we make another film? Can we bring another lawsuit? Those are the things that we're debating right now. We are really pushing full speed ahead. It would be really great to have your assistance right now. So everyone that's donated and made all of this happen, this brilliant film, thank you. You're the executive producers of one of the most important films in the world today, and we appreciate it.

All right, well, this movement, you know, medical freedom or maha, or whatever you want to call it, has always been, you know, built on the shoulders of warrior moms. And in this case, this is a warrior mom who is also a doctor that really just seem to say, I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore. This is Mary Talley Bowden. Take a look. Hello, I'm Mary Talley Bowden. Believe it or not, this is my first press conference. I'm a solo physician.

I've been here for two years. I started off with the attention of just doing ears and throat and sleep medicine and somehow stumbled into COVID. Over the span of the pandemic, I've been open seven days a week. I've tested over 80,000 people and I have treated about 2,000 people. I'm a good doctor. I fight for my patients. I treat my patients the way I would be. I want myself treated.

So it was quite a surprise to me last Friday when I got a text message from the Houston Chronicle telling me that my hospital privileges have been suspended. A local doctor's privileges pulled after a series of tweets about COVID-19 vaccines and treatments. Ear, nose and throat specialists, Dr. Mary Bowdoin resigned from Houston Methodist after having her privileges revoked.

Houston Methodist says Bowden tweeted about the drug ivermectin which the CDC advises against along with non-factual tweets about vaccines and the hospital's practices I have gone above and beyond I have helped people when their primary care doctors are telling them there's nothing you can do and all I've tried to do is help people as an ear and throat doctor I'm very used to and very comfortable seeing patients with respiratory tract infections so people started coming to see me and I basically just did what I thought I needed to do. So I've become the emergency room. I'm giving high-dose IV steroids. I'm giving, you know,

25 grams of IV vitamin C. But I am keeping people out of the hospital. And so I started using Ivermectin. And I found that ivermectin work. And, you know, I started speaking out. And, of course, I got, I got ridiculed, smeared, canceled. I'm still fighting for my medical license. So I put everything on the line to tell the truth. I think they're trying to make an example out of me. I think they're trying to show people you speak your mind. If you dare challenge the vaccine agenda, then this is what happened to you. I mean, any other product would have been pulled a long time ago. There's no other explanation than there's just there's fraud, there's corruption, there's

ego, there's money. But it's not science. Well, she's certainly one of the bold voices that came out of the COVID pandemic. If you had any issues there, then you probably know who Dr. Mary Taliburie. Boden is and it's my honor and pleasure to be joined by her now. Mary, thanks for joining us today. Thanks for having me, Del. We haven't had you on the highway to discuss. So just briefly, what's the moment you're a practicing physician? I'm assuming you sort of had a record of getting along with hospitals and boards and everything else prior to COVID. What's the moment?

What's that light bulb moment when you say something is wrong here? Well, the turning point for me, it came on the single day where three things happened. I had a surgery center reach out to me and say, you can no longer operate here if you don't get the COVID shot. I had a hospital in Fort Worth Texas Tech Hospital deny me privileges after a court ordered them to give them to me. And this was involving a patient who was dying in the hospital. the wife was suing to get an ivermectin. She recruited me as an expert witness. She recruited me as a doctor

that would prescribe the ivermectin. And the court ordered Texas Hugley Hospital to grant me emergency temporary privileges. The clean record, I've never been sued for malpractice. At that point, I still had a good reputation. And so they just denied my privileges. And then, you know, I had a patient come to me and say that her, her,

her oncologist at Houston Methodist Hospital was going to stop seeing her. She didn't get the COVID shot. She had history of bladder cancer and needed to be seen. And he called her and said, well, their department was discussing not letting the unvaccinated come in their clinic. So I sent out an email to my patients and I said, you know, this is my turning point as a physician. And going forward, I will only be treating the unvaccinated.

and that caused a lot of waves. And I never upheld the policy, but that email went viral. And I also at the same time, you know, in response to that, I got a lot of feedback both good and bad, but most of it was good. And so I posted it on Twitter.

And at the time, I really didn't have much of a following. I mean, I'd get like one like on a post. But I tweeted out the same message 25 times, and I just said vaccine mandates, are wrong and then I screenshoted testimonials from the feedback I got from that email. And that's where it all came to a head. A few days later, I got a text message from a reporter at the Houston Chronicle asking me to confirm, is it true that your privileges have been suspended at Houston Methodist Hospital?

And I did a double take. I'm like, I don't know what you're talking about. And that's how I found out that they were, you know, suspending my privileges and they tweeted it about it. And then, you know, next thing I know, I've got like CNN and Washington Post and all these people coming after me. It was, it was crazy. But, you know, and then they turned me in the medical board. And it's just been, you know, a big fight since then.

Was that, I mean, just your perspective on vaccines, since that's a big part of it, you know, ivermectin vaccines, prior to the COVID vaccine, had you pretty much, you know, gotten all the vaccines necessary to be, a medical professional. Oh, yeah. I was, I was, I fell in line. I have four kids. I was, you know, even upset if they couldn't get in, in time for their three, six, you know, nine month checkup because the doctor was backed up.

I was, you know, full on, very compliant, got my flu shot every year. I offered flu shots to my patients. I did not offer the COVID shots. So, and I did not get the COVID shot. And so that was a change. What was it about that shot that sort of changed your perspective? Well, I looked at the study and the design of the study, and I didn't like that. So people would get the shot or the placebo.

And instead of systematically testing everybody, you know, periodically, it was left up to the physician to decide whether or not to test the people. And that raised red flags for me. So that was my initial. And then, you know, I'm low risk. just didn't have risk factors. I got COVID very early on and I responded very well to hydroxychloroquine. So I had no fear of the disease.

And I was just, you know, it was rushed. And that just, I had seen other medications come and go. I'd seen antibiotics that were touted as safety and effective and then were pulled off the market. Biox. That was during my time as a resident, biax, we were prescribing left and right. And next thing you know, it's been shown to cause

major cardiac issues. So I was naturally suspicious just because it was so fresh and then just looking at the study. It's interesting because you said something that I almost hear, I'm almost never here a doctor say, which is I looked at the study. You looked at the study design, obviously, I'm assuming of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines and the trials, which we were doing here on the high wire, but so many doctors never took that step, and which I think puts you, you automatically in my mind in a different category. I've interviewed, you know, hundreds of doctors, if not more, the ones that went along with it. I mean, there's just this sort of culture of, I'm not an investigative scientist, I'm a doctor, I don't bother with looking at studies. Was that

normal for you? Because that's out of character from what I've seen in a lot of medicine. Yeah, I don't know what came over me. But I did the same thing for Iver Mech, I went to the FDA's website. I looked at the original study that Merck submitted to the FDA, and in that is all sorts of toxicity data. And people don't talk about this either, but there's something called the lethal dose 50, which is a benchmark number to indicate how toxic a medication is. So if the LD 50 is low, then it's pretty toxic, and LD 50 is high, then it's less toxic.

And the LD 50 of Ivermectin is about 100. times higher than what we use to prescribe for COVID. And people were upset about ivermectin because, you know, for parasites, you use three milligram dosage. And it's like a one and done thing. But for ivermectin, we use a lot higher doses. So that's where all the, I think people got nervous and excited about it. So I just, you know, before using it, I wanted to really make sure it was safe.

And then I did a literature search. And I tried to find accidental and intentional overdose with ivermectin. And if you do that search for Tylenol, you will find thousands of reports. Not so for ivermectin. I couldn't find a single report of either accidental or intentional overdose with ibermectin. And that's what prompted me to start using it. Which seems to me doctors all the time, you know, go outside, you know, repurposing, you know, repurposed

use of a drug is accepted across medicine and science. This one was so shocking to me because. it could be argued that Ivermectin is one of the safest drugs on the planet. So if safety, safety should have been the number one concern at a point where they're saying, we don't know how to treat this, we don't know what's going on. So if doctors want to try things, which, you know, certainly the PEP Act was making it possible for doctors to get outside the box, why this? Why did they go after both hydroxychloroquine incredibly safe used by millions of people around

the world even that are suffering? from malnutrition take hydroxychloroquine and then and then ultimately ivermectin which proved even more effective in all of your work looking at it and you know you've obviously done a bunch of podcasts you keep talking about it what happened what are you what is your theory on what happened here what was this about it was an orchestrated attack and it was all meant to promote the COVID shot so you look at March 2021, only 10% of the population had gotten these shots. Government was nervous about that. They put something, the FDA put something on their website,

telling people not to take ivermectin for COVID. April 1st, 2021, Houston Methodist Hospital becomes the first in the country to mandate the shots. That's five months before Biden. Same day, April 1st, 2021, Biden launches COVID-19 Community Corps, $10 billion propaganda program goes just boatloads of money going out to influencers, church groups, sports groups to promote the safe and effective narrative of the vaccine. August, late August, 2021, FDA puts out the horse tweet.

Again, they're frustrated. This is the third and largest surge of the pandemic. Clearly, the shots aren't working. They've been out for quite a while. and all of a sudden in the late summer, early fall, 2021, we see a huge spike in COVID patients. Government doubles down, puts out the horse tweet. And the horse tweet is the attractive healthcare worker. She's nuzzling a horse.

So seriously, y'all, you're not a horse. You're not a cow. Stop it. That tweet just goes viral. And at that point on, it became very hard for me to prescribe ivermectin. The medical boards started coming after doctors all over the, the country who are promoting ivermectin a couple weeks later Biden mandates the shots and takes away monoclonal antibodies if you look at the timeline it's very clear amazing and so our government then

was involved in promoting and rushing out a vaccine is there something about the technology you think that was necessary to get out there was it the adult mandate they wanted adults to get used to being vaccinated like why why you know i have my perspective but from you perspective because you're a doctor. I'm not. I'm just a journalist that's watched this crazy thing happen and watch doctors, you know, act in ways we didn't expect, like, blocking people from seeing their loved ones inside of a hospital when they were on their deathbed. I mean, literally being inhumane with people that, like, what do I care? I don't care if I'm at risk for getting sick inside your hospital. I want to see my loved one, you know, blocking use of a drug

that was so incredibly safe. Lots of studies, obviously, out there. You had Pierre and Corey speaking to the Senate saying this is a wonder drug. What was the agenda, though? Why this vaccine? Why this moment? What are your thoughts on that?

Well, I mean, I believe the virus is a bioweapon. I believe it was released on purpose. And the COVID shots was part of that. It was, you know, a countermeasure. And, yeah, I don't think there's a, a simple answer to that. I mean, I think that's part of it. I think part of it's the financial. I mean, imagine giving a shot that has to be injected to the entire world and you have no liability, if anything goes wrong. I mean, it's like the ideal product, right? I mean, and then there's a lot

of ego involved. There's, you know, there's, you know, medicine has become so centralized. you know the when I got out of medicine it wasn't that way well it was getting that way but now I mean so many doctors are just employees they don't my practice is set up differently and that was very purposeful and it served very well during the pandemic but if you are working for a third party whether it's the government or insurance companies or a hospital or even a big practice it's owned by private equity you've got a third party which is into your ear and influencing how you practice medicine. So you had another, there's another hearing this week here in Texas over your use of Ivermectin, I believe, taking into patients in hospitals that you weren't, I guess they're claiming that you didn't have the right to be in those hospitals. Let's just watch a clip. This is one of the people that you've been in tug of war with.

So let's take a look at this. Giving the attention to specific cases received over the past years, I would like to address the facts and clarify why this action against Dr. Bowden specifically was taken today. There's been considerable speculation and public statements about the alleged motives behind the board's decision. For the board, this complaint came down to whether the respondents attempt to treat a patient in a hospital without the necessary privileges constituted unprofessional conduct. This question was examined by two independent administrative law judges at the state office of administrative hearings.

After evaluating the evidence provided by both the board and the respondent, the judges determined that the respondent's actions were inappropriate and deliberate, thus constituting unprofessional conduct. And this is why we're here today. Despite claims to the contrary, the board has never, ever been concerned with the type of treatment the respondent was attempting to provide. And I believe I have made multiple, multiple statements to that effect. we do not care what type of treatment is being provided.

And that was never the case in this specific case also. TNB would have brought the same case against any other physician attempting to treat a patient in a hospital without privileges regardless of the circumstances or the treatment, even if it was to give a patient Tylenol in that hospital. Well, I just want to say from the get-go I watched during COVID, a death rate of about nine out of 10 on people that were being put on ventilators and remdesivir in hospitals all across the country. So any doctor that was trying to get Ivermectin or something else out there, you're an absolute hero. But what were the circumstances? What are they,

like you said you had a court order in one case to bring Ivermectin to a patient. Is that the same case that this is all about or is it multiple cases? And what is the accusation you're making? Yeah, it's this case. It's only, it was only one case. So it was actually four years ago, almost to the day, wife of Jason Jones calls me. The hospital, Texas Hugley Hospital is talking hospice. They've tried everything. They're giving up. She wants him to try ivermectin. They refuse. So she sues them. And in that lawsuit, I testified. Senator Bob Hall testified, and we won. And the hospital was ordered to grant me emergency temporary privileges. They were not given any discretion in that.

It was supposed to be immediate. I submitted an application and like I told you earlier, they denied my application. They said they weren't going to approve my privilege. So I just, I submit there was all this back and forth. And also keep in mind, this is like, I've never been so busy in my life because we are just slammed with COVID patients.

So I'm juggling all this and I'm basically just handing this off to the lawyer, right? The patient's lawyer, you know, tell me what to do. Where are we on this? Because it was pretty confusing because they had to go back to the judge. Anyway, I finally get, and I have text messages showing this from the lawyer saying, we're good to go. You can go to the hospital. It's all been sorted out.

Well, you know, the administrative hospital, administrative secretary told me you do not have privileges. So I had to choose between her, which we were suing her or the lawyer. And I listened to the lawyer. So I sent the nurse to the hospital, and they claim that it caused a big disruption. Well, the nurse videotaped the entire thing. It was super calm. There was no yelling, screaming, pushing when she was asked to leave. She left.

But they're claiming that me sending the nurse to the ICU waiting room, she didn't get into the ICU, was dangerous to other patients. And that I pose a threat in the future to patients if I don't get punished. did this patient ever get the ivermectin? No. So they appealed and they won on appeal. The patient's wife did rub ibermectin on him every day and he actually did make it out of the hospital.

Wow. But he was never able to make a full recovery. He lost half of his body weight in the hospital. And he did pass away in April of 2023. That's terrible. So now, you know, people want to just let COVID go. They say that was behind us.

That's obviously it's not behind us for you. You're still being dragged in these ridiculous, and it looks like it just to admonish you because they're even saying this isn't a fence that would warrant taking your license and that they've never been against the product that you were using. Is that all, is that Copa said,

is that what you believe to be true? My initial complaint that I received has his word ibermectin on it during my deposition they talked about ivermectin they mentioned it 86 times when they brought they didn't perform a preliminary investigation so before even putting me through any of this they're supposed to you know talk to the people the parties involved they didn't talk to the lawyer they didn't talk to the nurse they didn't talk to the patient's wife they just took the hospital's complaint at face value and initially they wanted me to pay five thousand dollars take eight hours of CME and retake the jurisprudence exam. And I just said, I mean, yeah, that's what they

give to sex offenders. I was like, no, that's ridiculous. Maybe if they had just given me a speech, as he referred to, you know, maybe I would have just taken that and gone. But it's a bad system because if they come after you like that and you choose to fight it, I mean, now I've spent over $250,000 fighting this four years, you know, it's a bad system because if you, if you, if you want to fight it, it is going to cost you a ton. And then, and then you go to this administrative court, which is not, I mean, yeah, maybe it's independent. It's biased. I mean, it is, you know, you look at in the federal system, if you go to an administrative court, odds are 90% of the time, the administrative court is going to win. So you're, you know, you've got that against you. So now it's going to go to the

district court, or it's going to go to the 15th court of a. heels, which will be slightly better, I hope, in terms of fairness. And why fight it? Why? I mean, it looks like it's a slap on the wrist and an eight-hour, you know, speeding ticket course in a way, but it sets a precedent, I guess, for other doctors. Is that what you're concerned about? Yeah. I mean, it's, I'm fighting on principle. And I'm not the only one that's been targeted by the medical board over things that happened during COVID. Stella Emmanuel, Richard Erso, Joe Verone.

I don't know if you know, Eric Henson, he lost his license because he would not wear a mask in his office. I mean, this is Texas. So it's just we need to bring awareness. Texas is not what people think. We have the largest medical center in the world in Houston, the Texas Medical Center. And I call it the medical mafia.

I mean, there is a reason that mandates started in Houston and started in Texas. They knew if they could get away with the mandates in Texas, they could get away with them anywhere. So now when you look at the vaccine program, when you look at drugs being approved, when you look at, you know, obviously there's been a huge shift in government, you know, I think because of this, I think people have reacted and said, you know, enough people in America said that just wasn't right. I was locked down. My child's education was destroyed. I, you know, as I drive through these no king's marches right now, I just think, I'm with you. I don't want a king. I don't want a king that, you know, locks me in my house. It doesn't allow me to go outside, arrest you for surfing in the bay all by yourself, you know, forces you to take a product that hasn't been properly tested. I mean, so, you know, but when we look at where we're at right now, what is your concern for medicine? I mean, you obviously studied this. This is what you do. I haven't seen. seen any apology, I don't think, from any major medical institution in America. Have we? As anyone said, our bad, we should have let you have ivermectin. It was wrong for us to block that, or we shouldn't have, you know, forced remdesivir or vaccines. Are we ever going to get an apology?

Yeah, I doubt it. I mean, the problem is the trust has been destroyed. I see it every day in my office. People are fearful of going to the hospital. I keep a list of trusted doctors, and it's like gold to my patients because they just don't trust anymore. And I don't blame them. I don't want to go to the hospital. And this is a festering wound, and it's huge. And it's not going to heal on its own.

We need, you know, the government could help with that with the messaging. We could, you know, Marty McCarrey, the FDA could come out and make a statement about FDA. I actually sued the FDA over that horse tweet and we won and they were forced to take it down. They were forced to take down the misinformation from their website. But it'd be nice to have some proactive measures where they could just say, hey, I still hear people saying, oh, I thought that was only for animals still. I know. And they could send some messaging out that, oh, yeah, Ivermectin is, you know, just a fax. It doesn't have to say, oh, take it for COVID, but just give some, you know, re-educate the public on how this drug actually works.

But yeah, you know, the thing that gives me hope though is that people are not taking these shots. There's this illusion of consensus. It is totally false. If you looked at that ASIP meeting in September, the CDC showed that only 10% of physicians or healthcare workers are getting these shots. Wow.

So we're getting the message out. It's just, we just, Unfortunately, the government is just not acknowledging what the rest of the country knows. So now stepping into where I'm at, we've just put out a film and inconvenient study. You had a very nice tweet about it. I appreciate that. This is hard to watch as a mother of four and a doctor who followed the CDC vaccine schedule. I would do things differently now. Please share with every young mother you know.

When you look at the childhood schedule, is this difficult? Is it difficult to move from COVID, which, you know, a lot of people, Dr. Peter McCullough, when he first came on to our show, the COVID vaccine is bad, the childhood vaccine program is great. I did this with Brett Weinstein. You know, almost everybody that first, you know, woke up around COVID just thought this was an anomaly. Now it's becoming more and more clear as, you know, we've been beating this drum. No placebo trials on any of the childhood vaccines. No ability to do a post-marketing placebo. trial because it's unethical. And when you watch this whole game being played as a position, as, you know, where are you at now when you look at, you know, this is a foundational principle of modern medicine is the childhood vaccine program. What would you tell your, you know, children or grandchildren if they were having kids now? Yeah. I mean, that, you're, that, that film rattled me.

I mean, I was crying. I was teary-eyed. It was really, because I have four kids, and I didn't even question it. And it's, yeah, I mean, definitely a wake-up call. And I, yeah, I, in terms of what I tell patients, I'm like, if it were me and my kids, I would hold off until we actually have real data. I mean, shocking, five, they studied hepatitis B for five days. They didn't teach us that in medical school, and shame on me for not looking into that.

But yeah, it was a blow. I don't know if you saw my post this morning, but I'm just rethinking all sorts of things now. We have it right here. Thanks to the pandemic, I'm now questioning all vaccines, Tylenol, psychiatric medications, organ donation, the definition of brain death, cholesterol, lower meds,

and the list will likely continue to grow. I had Dr. Paul Merrick on probably a year or so ago. He said exactly the same thing. Dell, I'm questioning everything I learned in med school now. I wonder how much of it was truly good science. Everywhere I look, it's just assumptions and bravado and a lot of funding and financing from the pharmaceutical industry. It's getting really, really hard to know what of medicine we can believe in anymore. I completely agree.

I completely agree. And I'm glad I don't have young children because that's a battle. I mean, you have to deal with the schools. And I love what Joe Latipo is doing because, and that's another thing. Like, I just never questioned the fact that in order for my kid to go to school, I had to inject him with, you know, multiple vaccines. And that, you know, just, oh, sure. Now, oh, my gosh.

Why should we force somebody to get anything injected in their body ever? We should never do that. So it's just, it's amazing. It's a wild time. How, you know, do you feel like doctors are waking up? I mean, is there, I mean, I know you have some sense of hope. Do you have doctors reaching? Because that's who I'm concerned about.

I feel like the population's moving very quickly, but 90% of doctors across America turning down the booster means 90% of the doctors in this country are now going against a CDC recommendation. Is that a good sign? Where are we at? How long will it take to get back to the scientific method? How long will it take before all medicine says we're going to ask harder, deeper questions? Yeah, I don't know.

I mean, it's almost like we need another pandemic to jumpstart this again because people have sort of let this go by and are complacent and no one's really talking about it anymore. So, yeah, I definitely have, I feel like there are more doctors out there. they're like-minded. At least I see them on X and every once in a while I'll get emails or calls from other doctors, which gives me hope. But I think by and large, the true believers are still out there and I don't know if we'll ever change their minds. How was this experience for your family, you know, your husband, your kids, you know, taking on the medical establishment there's no small task.

Were you afraid? Was there a conflict around that? Well, funny enough, I got a divorce six months before the pandemic. Okay. And if that hadn't happened, I probably would have been muzzled because my ex thinks quite differently than I do. It's very bizarre. But my kids, luckily, were in a school that was super supportive.

I did have one kid who was an eighth grade when everything hit the fan. You know, I got in the news and he was rejected from every private school we applied to, even though he had good grades and very well behaved. And I know for a fact that one of those schools admitted it was because of me. So that was the hardest part. But, you know, they are very supportive of me. and they're proud of me now. So it's been fine.

And luckily I was in a school that no mask, no shots, no lockdown. I mean, it was great. It was a wonderful school. That's wonderful. Well, Mary, you're a hero, I think, by, you know, our entire audiences in our book, watching you stand up for what's right. It's not easy.

You've taken a lot of slings and arrows. And I just want to thank you. You're still, I mean, while all of us get to sort of move on with our lives, you're still getting dragged through this conversation, but you're not giving up. I mean, in some ways, it seems like they want to wear you down and you're not letting that happen. So I think that's huge.

And I just want to thank you for your courage, because I think these are those things that are going to be written into the history books. When we look back at this horrific moment with COVID, I think it's a transformational moment, but only if we document it, only if we stand up and make sure that, and make sure that the courts and everybody recognize what happened there.

So without you, we have no history. And so I really want to thank you for taking that on. It's super important. Well, thank you for having me, Del, and helping me spread the word. Absolutely. Look, if you stick around for off the record after the show, you and I at times haven't been totally aligned on Robert Kennedy Jr. And the government, but I want to have a conversation about that.

Where you're at, what you think now, and what you'd like to see happen. So we'll have a quick conversation after the show about that. How's that sound? Sounds great. All right, good. Okay, well, there's so much work that we're doing here at ICANN. We've got an inconvenience study. We're pushing that all around the world.

I hope that you're helping with that, sharing it with everyone you know. We've got legal battles, 90 different legal cases going on. We really could use your support. One of the easy ways to do that is to get a brick, lay a foundation, right here on the campus of ICANN with our terrorist program. This is my favorite brick of the week. One of my favorite bricks really points to the fact that we don't just point out problems. We stop people from hurting themselves like this one.

My children are healthy because of honest and brave people like you. Thank you. That is a huge part of what we do here at the High Arts, why we made an inconvenient study to warn people. You may not want to do this. There may be a better way. I also think this speaks to all of our brilliant guests like today's guest, Dr. Mary Talley Bowden, who I'm sure has made a lot.

of children healthy with her words. Let's do this show. I certainly hope you'll take the opportunity to get a brick or a bench or one of the plaques that is available to be on this campus. We're going to be having fundraiser. And once you've bought a brick, by the way, you can come and visit, watch the show. There's going to be a lot of people watching the show over the next couple of weeks for exactly that reason.

So I hope you'll be a part of this community, the informed consent action network. Well, one of my favorite things that's happening with an inconvenience study is both in the film, but the study itself, right? We received a cease and desist letter from Henry Ford saying that, you know, that the study is not a good study, and that's why they didn't publish it, not because they didn't like the results. If you've watched the film, if you've watched even the trailer, you know that their head of infectious disease. Dr. Marcus Zervos is the one that's really making the statement. It's a good study. I would publish it just as it is. The only reason I'm not is, I'm afraid I would lose my career.

Well, it's created a debate online. There's people attacking the study. There's those defending the study. We read many of those things to you last week. But that's the scientific method at work. But really, someone weighed in this week that I think just shows how powerful this entire conversation is. I'm talking about Dr. Peter Gutcha. Professor Peter Gutcha is one of the co-founders of the Cochran Collaboration.

They're famous for testing science and making sure. good science is done around the world. He is a pioneer in science and highly revered. He weighed in this week. Here's a couple of his tweets. Professor Jeffrey S. Morris's valid criticism, the Henry Ford study. This is one of the people attacking the study. I agree that the study could have been done better, but its results are concerning and the study should be repeated by others. I couldn't agree more with that statement. That is what we do when we see a signal. retweet her about the Henry Ford study. Imagine if it was the other way around that the study had shown that those vaccinated become less chronically ill,

it would be running 24-7 on every news channel from here to Timbuktu. We need honesty and symmetry in reporting. Wow, that looks like it came right from my mouth. It goes on to say people have touted that vaccines are safe are becoming increasingly nervous and shrill. They fear what is coming. No drug is safe but for vaccines. We know next to nothing about their harms as they're wrong. We're no placebo controls in the big trials.

Folks, that's huge. That's the scientific community speaking. It's happening right now as we speak. So if you're donating to the high wire and I can, you have just brought the scientific method back from life support. We've given a shock. It's up. It's breathing.

It's working. We've got to do more. You've got to share this with everyone you know. This is how we change our politics. This is how we put pressure on our own government with Robert Kennedy Jr. and Donald Trump and everyone they're working for. We've got to say unanimously all together in a single voice, we want vaccinated versus unvaccinated studies done immediately. Not partially vaccinated, not looking at certain vaccines and other vaccines, which the FDA is saying it's doing. No, no, no.

The entire vaccine program is now at question against those that receive none. There's the heart of the question that we're putting out. It's the question of the year. It may be the question of our lifetime. I can, the Highwire's asking it, you're sharing it, and we appreciate you being a part of this incredible journey with us. This is what we do. This is truth. This isn't storytelling. These are facts. And we're cutting through the stories every single week. And I'll see you next week on the High Wire.