The Highwire with Del Bigtree - Episode 449: A SECOND OPINION

Episode Date: November 7, 2025

Filmed live before a studio audience, Del Bigtree and Jefferey Jaxen break down Bill Gates’ shocking reversal on climate change — signaling that the global narrative may finally be unraveling. Then, a new American Heart Association study reveals alarming data on the COVID vaccine’s impact on the heart — a discovery that could mark the final blow for mRNA technology. Plus, an unprecedented in-studio panel brings together Dr. Andrew Wakefield, Dr. Pierre Kory, and Dr. Suzanne Humphries — three medical truth-tellers confronting the biggest questions of our time: Are we witnessing the collapse of a system built on misinformation? Or the rebirth of true science and transparency?Watch this powerful new episode of The HighWire, where the truth always comes straight from the heart.Guests: Dr. Suzanne Humphries, Dr. Pierre Kory, Dr. Andrew WakefieldBecome 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 candecide.org and donate now. All right, everyone, we ready?

Yeah. Action. Fantastic. The world is time for us all to step out onto the high wire. Wow, as you can tell, it's electric in here. We're doing a very, very rare live broadcast here with a live audience of the high wire. Many of these brilliant folks make I can possible, or some of those sponsors like all of you out there

that make this show possible, all the work that we do, all the legal work, the legal wins, funding Aaron Siri to fight for medical freedom, the United States of America, taking on our government, winning back, religious exemption in Mississippi. We're on the verge, of course, in West Virginia. All of that made possible, and of course we'll be talking somewhat today about our new film, an inconvenient study, has swept the world by storm.

Well past 25 million views. We're losing track of where it's at. Causing a discussion, really a scientific conversation is happening around the world now. Should there be more vaccinated versus unvaccinated studies? Have we seen enough signals now? Have we got any evidence that vaccines are actually making our children healthier? That's going to be one of the topics with my esteemed, brilliant panel of superstars coming up later in the show. Of course, I've got Dr. Andrew Wake.

Well, no, I got Dr. Suzanne Humphrey, Pierre Corey. Let me follow the video. And Dr. Andrew Wakefield has come in in many ways, I think covering the generations that have shifted on this conversation, the newest entry being Dr. Pierre Corey and his incredible investigations, not just of the vaccine program, but also repurposed use of drugs. He was at the center of you know, the discovery of Ivermectin and how that works. We're going to talk about what about cancer with Ivermectin. A lot of those things that are in the news or in your social media that you have questions about. I have questions to do today to get into also.

But first, but first, it's time for a live Jeffrey Jackson Report. Let's get into it. Jeffrey, it's great to see you. It's a lot of fun having you here. Yeah. Now, of course, we have this amazing audience. We've got these amazing guests today, all because I forgot to mention, CHD has got a brilliant conference that is happening here in Austin, Texas, the Moment of Truth conference, which is now sold out. But I want to tell you that you can watch. Look at all. This lineups incredible. Many of the guests that are here today are here because they're going to be speaking at this event. But you can still get online tickets from wherever you're at. If we can just bring up that post for one more time. There it is Children's A&O. THD.org slash conf, HW. And there you can get, it's a virtual pass to watch the entire conference virtually. You should really, I mean, you know, get a hold of that.

These are going to be some of the most important conversations of our time. At, you know, I mean, just think about what's happening in the world. What a conference like this would have looked like 10 years ago compared to what's about to happen right now. And, you know, the energy around all of these conversations about medical freedom is just incredible. It's the hottest ticket in America right now next to what's going on right here. Yeah, absolutely. So what's happening in the world that you thought we should focus on? Yeah.

Well, one of the strongest regular voices in the climate conversation, scaring people about the impending climate doom, Bill Gates has just come out and said this. Take a look. Climate is a super important problem. There's enough innovation here to have. avoid super bad outcomes. We won't achieve our best goal, the 1.5 or even the 2 degrees. And as we go about trying to minimize that, we have to frame it in terms of overall human welfare, not just everything should be solely for climate. When the climate activists who have been very supportive of what you've done and you've been

very supportive of what they've done, read this. And if Greta Thunberg is reading this and saying to herself, my goodness, he seems like he is reversing himself, what would you tell her? I'd say wasn't the goal here to improve human lives. And shouldn't we, in our awareness of how little generosity there is to help measure, you know, should we get them a measles vaccine or should we do some climate-related activity? And if we could take, if we stop funding all vaccines and that, you know, saved you point one degree, would that be a smart tradeoff? That's the kind of question we have to ask.

So I'm a climate activist, but I'm also a child survival activist. If you think climate is the only problem and it's apocalyptic, or if you think climate's not a problem at all, my memo will make no sense to you. you'll be like, oh, no, it should all be climate, or you'll be like, why are you even still talking about this climate thing? Why do you invest billions of your money into these companies? The middle position that climate is super important, but has to be considered in terms of overall human welfare, I didn't pick that position because it's a, you know, everybody agrees with it.

it's, I think, intellectually, the right answer. Wow, I mean, first of all, I mean, we're between a rock and a hard place there. He's backing off of climate to get more into vaccines. If it's going to be a tradeoff, I don't want to let go of vaccines. But this is a huge backtrack. Yeah, yeah. It appears and is quite stunning, because I think of him as one of the great, you know, inciters of climate terror. Yeah, and just intuitively, the guy waves his arms around a lot when he's talking.

What is he trying to convey? What's he trying to convey? What's that message you're trying to convey that? He wants you to really listen to him by doing this, Del. And so when he's talking, he's talking about a memo. I just wrote this memo. So in this memo, and like you said, he's one of the strongest voices out there for this climate conversation over this past decade. And you go into the memo, and he says this, literally one of the first paragraphs, although climate change will have serious consequences, particularly for poor people in poorest countries, it will not lead to humanity's demise. People will be able to live and thrive in most places on earth for the foreseeable future. Well, this is interesting because we have a whole younger generation that is literally,

it has a mental health disorder and anxiety and having problems with depression because they think the world is going to end in five years. And why are they thinking that? Well, maybe it's because Bill Gates was talking like this up until now. Take a look. The consequences for human life will be catastrophic. Climate change is the biggest threat to our food supply since the invention of agriculture. The death hole would be even worse near the equator, and the unrest would be global in nature. The damage that will be done every year will be greater than what we've seen during this pandemic. CO2 is warming the planet. The natural ecosystems can't adjust to these rapid changes,

and so you get ecosystem collapses. And that leads to starvation. Deaths will just go up over time as you get more heat waves, forest fires, and most importantly, the inability to go outdoors and do farming. You go out to 2040, 2050, 2060, it gets substantially worse because even in the best case, temperature increases are continuing. If we're serious about aggressing climate change,

we have to invest aggressively in advancing the technology and policy, to get to net zero emissions by 2050. If you gave me only one wish for the next 50 years, I can pick who's president, I can pick a vaccine, which is something I love, or I could pick this zero emission technology. This is the wish I would pick. Avoiding a climate disaster

will be one of the greatest challenges humans have ever taken on. And now we're giving up. Biblical Armageddon, with every single thing, He can muster or where you can live and thrive for the foreseeable future. I don't know. Somewhere in between there.

I think destroying people's lives, you know, as it turns out, to achieve some goal that it doesn't look like we can get to. Right. I'm jumping ship. I'm going to get back to business. Yeah. Sounds like is what he's saying. In business, like you said, he's a business man.

So he's saying, we're going to back off climate a little bit and throw everything in new, vaccines, immunization. So you could see this coming in the headlines in the months. He's actually late to the party here. So when you look at these headlines, you're seeing a massive backaway by big business, banks. You can see your Wall Street Journal, Net Zero Banking Alliance suspends activities amid way of departure. They're talking to JP Morgan, Citibank, UBS. They're all ditching their green pledges.

But then also businesses were supposed to kind of, they had a report they had to give and say, how are you going to help not warm the plan at 1.5 degrees? We need your business plan. And these businesses all are ditching that as well. This was a financial times. Companies take step back from making climate target promises. About the hundreds, they're all taking a step back from here. So back to what Gates said initially.

There is this massive, massive pool of money that's been built up really since the late 60s, since this narrative started. We're going to talk about that in a second. But there's this massive climate funding. Where is this all going? He wants it to go to immunizations. And so does the entire culture. You're seeing this move.

And this is the Lancet. Just from less than two months ago, the Lancet posted this. This is a paper. Climate change and pandemics, a call for action. Well, interesting. And do they say in there, well, because of, you know, clearly because of Wuhan and that was because of climate change, and we need to make sure that never happens again. So we're having this thing called COP 30. This is the United Nations Climate Action Conference. That's coming up in November here at the end of November. It's in Brazil. And this is now the focus is immunization. It's not climate anymore. It's climate conference. But they're saying, we need to put is all into health because the WHO and all of their pushes trying to make these plans for health are just getting stopped at every corner. Kennedy is stopping it. So they're moving this now. So we see they're adding this, why yellow fever demands a seat at COP 30s climate negotiations. And you go into this article, it says integrating health into the plans at the heart of the Paris Agreement nationally determined contributions. Again, huge contributions and unlocking climate finance for immunization

campaigns and surveillance. That's what they want. And in Brazil, they have what's called a bellum action plan. So they're sidestepping, they're sidestepping the WHO, the international health regulations, and they're saying we need to integrate climate adaption and resilience into all levels of health care. How does that work? Well, they're saying health-specific programs, including immunization, disease elimination initiatives, expansion of diagnostic treatment, surveillance, all of this. They want this.

They're trying to sneak this in here through the climate conversation, because you're going to conversation because it's not working through the health conversations. They're trying the back door here and you can see gates. The pivot was right there in that in that article. What's so important about this, you know, there have been people that have asked why we got on to this climate issue, right? Isn't your mission statement dedicated to eradicating man-made disease? You know, we have been reporting on pesticides, herbicides on our crops. Make sense to people. We report on fluoride in our water and of course vaccines or drugs and all of the different ways that we're being poisoned. in our society, but people would say, but where does climate fit into that, right? Why are you getting into this environmental issue? Your show is not really on environmental. I'd argue the environment of your body is very important. But the reason, Jeffrey, and we've been reporting on this, we've been saying it is all going to come back to health.

It is all going to be used against us. This entire control, this authoritarian system that is using a warming planet that you could argue was warmer than this before they're ever human beings. had more CO2 before there was ever human beings, and was known to be lush like tropical jungle everywhere. So I don't understand what we're talking about. CO2 is going to make, you know, collapse of our farming abilities. None of it makes sense.

But we knew, Jeffrey, both you and the investigations and because of the international team we work with, that the underpinnings of this at the WHO and the UN was all to come back into authoritarian control over us, our food supply, and most importantly, our bodies, and now Bill Gates has got the big reveal. Yes. Right?

We've been collecting all of this money. There was no way we were ever going to actually stop this thing from the one or two degrees, which I think, I'll tell you, Jeffrey, from the beginning, that was a hard sell. It was a hard sell to make people panic over two degrees. Like, I just don't know how they thought, but it didn't matter. Now they have all of these billions of dollars of fear funds that they've raised. And what are they going to do? They're going to start using it to do what Joe Biden did, which is to promote, use every media source,

to try, is there going to be another pandemic? What's it going to be? But they are now extremely well-funded to work on their biggest goal, force-vaccinating, controlling you and how your body works in this world. And if people look at the top line of the climate change conversation, they may ask that question, why are you doing this? Why are you covering this? But you dig under that, which I'm going to do right here.

And you see the underpinnings of this is about human sovereignty, it's about how you move about this planet. Can you follow your soul's directive? Can you raise a family how you believe you want to raise that family? The government comes in here. So this all started in the late 60s with the MIT doomsday prediction. You had limits to growth, and you had the Club of Rome. Club of Rome came out, and I'm going to read some quotes here in a second.

But you had the Club of Rome come out and say, humanity is the enemy itself. And there's a New York Times article, 1976 here. You can see social programming starting to ramp up. A need for change is seen by the Club of Rome. And this is, again, the New York Times, people are being hit with this. They're not even knowing where it's coming because they're saying the carrying capacity of the planet, We don't have enough resources. There's too many people and the climate's going to be a disaster.

It says in this article, in the conditions of the coming times, the necessity of reestablishing a viable world balance between populations and resources if the present generation is not able to timely adopt the necessary corrective measures, we'll inevitably tend to bring about a technocratic version of Oriental depotism, of which Stalinism and Nazism has already given us an anticipated view. And that was a professor they quoted in that article. So imagine you open the New York Times newspaper and you see this, And you see limits to growth, and you see the planet's going to run out of resources.

Well, this came from the Club of Rome, Alexander King, Aurelio Pichai. This is their book in, it's called The First Global Revolution. They tell you in this book what they're going to do. They say, in searching for a new enemy, unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming water shortages, famine, and the like would fit the bill. Go to the bottom of this. It says all these threats are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changes, attributes, and behavior that they can be overcome.

The real enemy, then, he writes, is humanity itself. So it's a perfect... And so, yeah. I mean, it's incredible because what you see is this wasn't based on any science. They weren't like, oh, there's, you know, what they said is, how do we best control humanity? How do we best interfere with them having babies? How do we start controlling, how do we, it's eugenics? How do we, you know, bring about some, you know, happy-go-lucky sounding form of eugenics?

or how do we get people to do what's right and stop having babies? We make them hate themselves. We make them see themselves as a disease on this planet. And it's one of the things that I've said politically, having grown up as a liberal, I've said that. I'm politically marooned, although I'm pretty happy with a lot of what I see happening with Robert Kennedy Jr., of course, in this administration. But when I reflect back, what I would say is the primary, if I was going to say now what I believe it meant to, you know, when I consider myself a Democrat, was that people are a disease on this planet. That's in my culture. It was in Boulder, Colorado. It's how I was trained in school.

You know, and so that is, and I didn't know where it came from. Yeah. Right. It just seemed obvious. Like, we're the worst thing that's ever happened to the earth. You know, we're proliferating like bunny rabbits around the planet, and we're like this disease that's killing the planet. The animals are more important than we are. The trees are more important than we are. Of course, now, I mean, and when you look at that that goes against being created in the images of likeness of God, It moves us towards, you know, I would say, in an atheistic society. And then as, you know, I got in this vaccine issue and slowly you take a step back, you're like, what is it?

And here we have the roots of it. Yeah. Make them hate themselves. And then we can control them and tell them you're the reason the planet's warming. That's why we have to curb your food supply. That's why we have to take your car away. That's why we have to lock you in your house. That's why we control where you get to come and go because you are bad.

And essentially right there in the Club of Rome, they've decided you're going to be prisoners on this earth. Yeah. And who put that idea in your head? I'd suggest you start with the Club of Rome. So look at their own writings. And so when you pull that green mask, as it were, off, and you look behind that, you can see this. And then you start looking at the conversation that's out there publicly, and you can see it with different eyes. Here's John Kerry from just a couple years ago.

Watch him try to work through the logic here and fail. Okay. With a growing population on the planet, we just crossed the threshold of it. 8 billion fellow citizens around the world. We just crossed that in this last year. But emissions from the food system alone are projected to cause another half a degree of warming by mid-century on the current course that we are today.

A two-degree future could result in an additional 600 million people not getting enough to eat. And you just can't continue to both warm the planet, while also expecting to feed it. Doesn't work. So let me get this straight. In order to stop famine in the future and starvation caused by a two-degree rise in temperature, we need to stop making food now and starve people now.

Don't think about it too long. It's going to hurt the head. I think I got that. Great. Good plan. Right. So we have obviously a population that's getting larger on this planet and they need to be fed. And so one of the things you don't want to do is reduce the ability to feed them,

which he's trying to, he's trying to logically work that through. I don't know if he worked that through before he got on stage, but so you look at that and you say, oh, how would they ever do that? Here's the Netherlands. Here's a recent headline from the Netherlands. Netherlands ordered by court to slash nitrogen emissions by 2030. Nitrogen fertilizer, the Hyper Bosch method. You want a Nobel Prize for this. This is industrial production of fertilizers. that feeds the planet. It's why the population can be fed. Here's a graph just to put this idea into context.

If you take away one thing here, in that yellowish line, that Halloween-colored line, they're population fed by synthetic nitrogen fertilizers, and we're approaching $8 billion there. And then that green line is the population supported without synthetic nitrogen fertilizer. So if you cut the fertilizers on the planet, you can feed about 4 billion people,

if you're lucky, which is about half our population here. So that is what they're saying. That is what they're saying. They're trying to put this in really nice speak, but they're saying we just need to cut that. Because without that, you know, our goals will probably be taken care of there. It's really crazy if you think about it. You have $8 billion. Let's reduce the amount of, you know, nitrogen, the food you can grow down to where we only support $4 million and let the chips fall where they may.

I mean, can you imagine what that world looks like? I mean, and this in itself inflicted. They talk about Bill Gates in that, you know, when he used to say there's going to be wars over food. Yeah, if you cut like half of our farming across the world is going to be wars, they are self-inflicting the exact thing that they say that the the globe is going to do it to us on its own and our environment's going to do to us on its own. Right. And so let's talk about the ground levels, because these are big ideas. And people sitting at home or listening may go, what can I do here? I'm just along with the ride. But people can do things at home. So Bill Gates is saying we have all these great innovations, so climate change is not a problem anymore. Let's look at these great innovations that are happening. So one of the things that we were pushing and there was boycotts going on was this feed additive that are given to cows to reduce their methane called Beauvais. And what it does, you basically give it to cows, so they fart less. That's the five. And that seems like a great idea. Can't make it up. Can't imagine what the cost of reducing farts from cows is on a global scale right now.

And I got to sit here and I report this with a straight face. And so we have the cows. Now this is in the Netherlands, it's in Denmark, it's being mandated. Here's the headlines coming out. It's being given to the cows. Cows are collapsing, says farmers, suspecting statutory feed. And I want to go to now, this is a breaking news video out of Denmark. This is a farmer on the ground, shot the video herself.

Listen to what she had to say. It's the law since this year that we have to feed 80 days of Beauvais to our cows. It's a rule and if you don't do it, it's just like you can go to the prison or you get like a big fine, a really big fine. We started in the beginning of October with a low doses and we riced it up till the full doses around 20 of October. Little before. On the 30th of October, we really got problems. We have four groups of cows in our stable. in our stable, we have one group with 36 sick cows.

And the end of the day, it started also in two other groups. And at that point, we really thought it's Beauvais. We heard already earlier some problems about other farmers, and the signals were really the same. On Friday morning, we had like 70 cows on our health list. And on Saturday morning it was almost 90. We really don't want to feed it anymore. It's just poison for our cows.

They get sick from it. And this is not why we are a farmer. We are a farmer to, of course, produce milk, but also to have a good stable with healthy cows. And in this way, we cannot keep that up. And we expect, because a lot of farmers, a lot of countries are also busy with introducing Beauver in their country,

to feed by law to the farmers, by the farmers, to the cows. I would like to say to you guys, go against it. Because if you want to keep on staying a farmer, this is not it. This is really not the way to do it. This is grassroots call for action, journalism, whatever you want to. Just somebody is saying, stop this madness. And you can see what she said. It's mandated by the government.

started, she did the right thing. We started with just a little bit. So we have to give this. Let's just start with a little bit. We can ramp it up to the appropriate quantities the government wants us put in there. And this is what's going on. And you can see, she also put out videos of what happens to the cows. I don't know if we have B-roll that, but you can see here. The dragging this one out, this is one of her cows. Yeah, now that cow's alive, but it can't move. Yeah, it looks great. It looks really well. And it can't stand up. And that's what they're taking it to the sick bay there. And I mean, can we just take a second here and just take this in. I mean, this is again, the they that we always talk about, the, you know,

that have these great ideas. She's got 90 cows like this now, right? And I'm sure she's not alone. There's headlines. This is happening all over. And it just begs the question we ask every single week on this show, where was the safety studies on this product? Exactly, how did you determine? And I think most of the people watching in our audience recognize now that probably the biggest issue, as we look at health in our species is your gut biome. Yeah. Right?

More and more and more is becoming clear. Neurological disorders, let's look at your gut. Depression issues, let's look at your gut. You know, cancer, let's look at your gut. All, I mean, it's coming down to how are we processing food? What's going in? You know, do we have a leaky gut? And here you have a product where you're taking an animal and you're changing,

clearly changing their gut biomes so that they don't produce gas. Right, right. What is that doing to them? Right. You know? One of the most complicated aspects of a living organism. Right. Which really can't be modeled.

You're just throwing a drug in there because climate change. So you ask what's being done? Where the safety studies? This is not just a European Union problem. It's made his way over to the United States and it is in the market now. It's being given to cows here. It's not mandated, thank God, but it is being used here. And what does the FDA say about it?

Here's your 2024 letter to the makers, to the manufacturers of Beauvais. This is what they said. Based on a review of your data. of your data and the characteristics of your product. FDA has no questions at this time regarding whether Beauvaisetteau will achieve its intended effect and is expected to pose, expected to pose low risk to humans. And then you go to the bottom. It says, warning, by the way, not for human use.

Caution should be exercised when handling this product. Three nitrooxypropanol may damage male fertility and reproductive organs. It's potentially harmful when inhaled and is a skin and eye irritant. So when we ask about what does climate change have to do with what our show is doing here, This is what it has to do because it's working its way down to the food chain because of... And causing man-made disease. You cannot tell me when you're doing this to a cow that is not getting into their milk that we're drinking, the cheese that we're eating, the beef that we're eating. They are poisoning us.

And if they didn't do enough studies to see that it's going to just drop cows in the middle of pastures, clearly they haven't done the downstream effect of what is that cow now going to do to the human beings that are consuming the... product that comes from them. Right. And so I see here with you, this is a call to action, because that is the FDA. That was Biden's FDA. We have a new FDA now. That's the veterinary division of the FDA. They can change this. They can require further studies. They can stop this in our population of cows right now. Will they do it? Well, I'll tell you, I got some friends up there and Bobby, Marty. I'm going to send you a couple videos when we're done with the show today. Hopefully they'll take a look at it and maybe we can get something done. All right. Well, let's talk

about someone that's near and dear to this show, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., health secretary, HHS, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Any move he typically makes, whether it's the slightest move or whatever, he gets an onslaught of hit pieces by the corporate media, who really no one believes anymore, but they're still happening. There's a portion of the public that sees, that's the momentum guiding. So with the Tylenol move, he tried to move this space on Tylenol just a little bit with the evidence. And here's the hill. The hill throws this hit piece at him. RFK Jr. says no sufficient evidence. Tylenol definitively causes autism. What they left out was saying they also don't have evidence that it doesn't cause autism.

And so you have a, why is this hippies happening now? Well, you have the Texas AG right here, Ken Paxton. He is suing the Tylenol makers over the autism risks and the alleged deceptive marketing. So we've covered so much on this show on Tylenol for the first, this past month. And we covered the science. We covered the announcements. Why are we continuing to hammer this? Because we have to defend these positions,

because these are mild positions, and they're being built upon. They're looking at things in a way that no other administrations have ever done. So we have to defend this. So I wanna go now into a new aspect of this investigation. Let's look at the internal emails. Let's look at what the companies,

and let's look at what Johnson and Johnson and Kenview knew. Here's a 2018 email by the head of epidemiology at Johnson and Johnson, who actually went over to Kenview at that time. And she says this, the weight of evidence is starting to feel heavy to me. They're looking at the, basically, to see if there was any benefits of acetaminophen

and they went, oh, oh, we're finding there's prenatal exposure and neurodevelopmental outcome issues. She says, it looks like there are a bunch of papers from 2016 that we somehow missed. So she's saying, we were doing this deep dive around 2018 because we're seeing this link between neural development issues when you give a sedentininin to pregnant women. First of all, we missed all these papers,

and the stuff I'm seeing, The weight looks really heavy to me at this point. The director of epidemiology at this company. So let's go. I mean, I see an email like that. And after all, we've been through, I don't know where this person's career went. But you have to imagine the email gets read by the vampires and ghouls that run these companies. He said, who is this person?

How did she get this high up in this staff? Well, you don't ask questions like this. It looks like this girl has a heart. She actually cares about science. She's worried about studies that might have been skipped. You know what I mean? Like, where do they go? Yeah, we buried them, idiot.

Why are you sending this email? Do you realize this email can get out to the world? They did not realize that because lawsuits brought us these emails because of discovery. Right. By the way, lawsuits we cannot have on vaccines, which is one of our big beeps. Exactly. Would you love to see the emails they know about that? But, okay, let's focus on Tylenol.

The same year, 2018 of that email, Johnson & Johnson does an internal slide presentation. It said, uh-oh, we need to brief everybody on this. So the summary, the last slide, the entire summary of that presentation, this is a says a confidential, it was a confidential presentation. It says this. It says, individual observational studies show a somewhat consistent association of an increased occurrence of neurodevelopmental outcomes with prenatal exposure. Wow. That's of acetaminopin. They knew. They knew at that point. So when Ken Paxton comes out and says, we're suing you because we think you know what you did and you may have hit some stuff. And then Kenny comes out and

saying, look, we don't have the smoking gun that this causes autism, but we have a massive amount. about it and doing slideshows about it inside their own company and that's not good. And I mean, but it also gets to the heart of what do we think HHS secretaries are supposed to do? Exactly. What do we think attorney generals are supposed to do in the state of Texas? By the way, shout out to Ken Paxon. This guy has just been, you know, a warrior for medical freedom. Yeah, yeah.

Fantastic. But, you know, I'm assuming now there's deeper studies, you know, you've got to have your NIH, CDC, FDA, who have we got to start looking into this. Clearly we have signals. Clearly they are concerned about it themselves. But while we're doing that science now, should we just let people potentially we're leaning in the direction it sure looks like it's causing neural development disorders? Up until Robert Kennedy Jr., the idea has been don't tell the public. Let's do five to 10 years studies and let them keep destroying potentially the lives of their children until we're sure about this. You know, and you think to yourself, you know, what happened to potentially? protecting, you know, making the right choice, like the lesser of evils. With pregnant women. With pregnant women are children, right? Instead, what they protect is the corporate good.

Right, right. You know, there's plenty of other products. Without Tylenol, the world doesn't end. No one is dying because they didn't have Tylenol. Right. And all Kennedy is saying is pregnant women need informed consent. They need to know this. You, the manufacturer, know that.

The FDA has known this. The pregnant women, the end user needs to know this. So that's all he said. And so what we did at the Reform Consent Action Network is we wanted the ball pushed all the way over. We wanted this in black and white on the label of every single bottle that goes into the hands of a pregnant woman. We want them to have that. Whether Kennedy's in or not, we want that forever more on this product. And that's what we did.

ICANN submits petition. This was just last month to ensure we're holding FDA's feet to the fire. We trust but verify. We're not going to hope. We want to make them do it. The changes on this acetaminopin, they have this warning label. What is that? This is the new changes we want. This is the petition we put out there to the FDA. If you are pregnant or breastfeeding, ask your health professional. It goes on and talks about

if you use this product during pregnancy to treat pain or fever, use the lowest effective dose for the shortest possible time. That seems reasonable. And then it goes on, we want them to say on this on the label, pregnant women should only take acedaminopin if in consultation with her doctor, she determines it is strictly necessary. And then it talks about there is a risk of a neural developmental disorders. and ADHD, we have the, so if you're out there right now and you're seeing this, you can go to FDA.gov, that petition is now a citizen's petition up there. You click the comment button, and you can put your comment in, leave your mark, make FDA do this, make them put this on this label. Let's leave this up for a second. I want everyone out there in the audience. You guys have been

just really the greatest audience of any show. We hear over and over again how active you are. You really do something. Fill out this petition. This is one of those things. Like if you're waiting for Del Beatrice and Jeffrey Jackson to save the world. We're only two signatures in there. That's just two signatures. Aaron's probably throwing his in there at the bottom of this thing. But in the end, if we're going to make difference, we've got to show our strength in masses. And that is what media is about. That's why we do this show so that you can take action out there and make a difference on this topic. They should get pounded. There should be millions of signatures. Yes. And so I want to go to one more product that's out there. Some people may have heard of that.

It's called the COVID-19 vaccine. Yeah. And the reason I bring this up is right now, there seems to be two conversations at the top of, at the top of the heap here when it comes to HHS and what they're doing, what they're not doing. It's the COVID-19 vaccine and it's the childhood vaccinations. And the COVID-19 vaccine links intricately to the childhood vaccinations. If that goes and the people look at the science hard enough there, which they are, they're going to start looking really deeply into that childhood vaccination science. And also the market share. So no more mandates.

They said, HHS, Kennedy, FDA, McCarrie said, this is a decision between you and your doctor. We're not going to mandate this. You need full-informed consent. Go figure it out for yourselves. Well, because they said, basically, to the companies, go out there and see if you can make a product and be sustainable because of the product's merits. Let's see if that can happen. Well, here's the AP Associated Press. Here's the headline.

Pfizer-COVID-19 vaccine sales tumble after government guidance on the shots narrows. Basically just said we want informed consent. Here's how it's tumbled. The fall COVID-19 vaccine season is starting slowly for Pfizer, I bet, with U.S. sales of its commonarity shot sinking 25%. It goes on to say that sales have dropped to 870 million in the recently completed third quarter from $1.1.16 billion in the same time last year. But they also say Wall Street analysts also expect sales of the spike facts from a Moderna to tumble about 50-50 percent. You're talking. Yes.

People are waking up. We're getting it. Yeah, yeah. Never should have been here in the first place at this level in 2025. Right. This thing should, and why? Because we know the damage. In 2022, I'm going to nail this home for the last time, hopefully.

Yeah. In 2020, we had German scientists boldly at that time stepping out and saying, we're doing tests and we're showing that this heart damage caused by this product. We know for sure that this product can cause heart damage. And they look at this. This is the study here. They looked at endomyocardio biopsy, so the cells, the heart cells. And they looked and they said, from what we see in these heart cells, from the people that have myocarditis,

this damage after the shot, they said the cardiac detection of the spike protein we're finding, the CD4 plus T-cell-dominated inflammation, it looks to us like this is a vaccine-triggered autoimmune reaction. And at that point, you saw a lot of headlines come out and say, well, okay, maybe, but people get a lot more of that myocarditis if they get the infection naturally. So we have to prevent that. people can't get the infection, even though the shot never stopped transmission in the first place. Right. So then that same year, we had scientists come out and say, oh, that's interesting. Well, we have a study here of hundreds of thousands of people out of Israel from their health-managed system.

And they say this, in the current large population study of subjects who were not vaccinated against SARS-CoV, too we observed no increase in the incidence of myocarditis or pericarditis. They couldn't find any. And so that brings us to the new study now of the American Heart Association in the United States, the journal circulation. American Heart. American Heart Association. Not the disease. This isn't no, you know, we're not in Kansas anymore. Yeah, yeah. Okay. This isn't some, this isn't some fringe journal you can't trust. American Heart Association. And so we've had epidemiological studies. You're looking at surveillance. You're looking at, well, we'll compare this group with that

group. And it looks like there's some signals here. Well, these people in this study, they actually did the, they showed the mechanism. They're showing the mechanism now of how this happens. So there's no more excuse. And this was an experimental model they did with mice. So they induced a hypothesis. They induced this method in mice of this cardiac damage. Then they looked at people that had the same heart damage from the shot. And they said, let's see if it looks like the same model.

And it did. And this is what they said. I'm going to go through this because it's a little chunky in the speaking, but I can break it down. It says we show that T cells from patients with acute myocardio or myopperioditis, that's AMP, recognize vaccine encoded spike epitopes amalgous to those of cardiac self-proteins. So they're saying the T cells, these immune cells that go out there and attack invaders. Yeah, attack everything that's not self. That's right.

They're encoded spike protein epitopes. So this is the amino acid signatures on the spiked protein that it's encoded to attack. They also are attacking cardiac proteins. So they're saying that the spike protein is. is training the immune system to attack the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Hey, great. But then they go in there and they go, oh, yeah, those heart cells, those look like pretty bad guys, too.

We're going to attack those. And it goes on to say this. It says, when functional responses to the KV, these are potassium channels, were analyzed, patients with this mild pericarditis after MRNA vaccination, but not patients with COVID-19 displayed an expanded pattern of cytokine production. So right there, just to be clear, they're saying, we looked at both. This did not happen when you had the natural infection in COVID-19, only when you were vaccinated.

Yes, that's exactly what they're saying. It says they showed, they displayed an expanded pattern of cytokine production similar to that observed in the AMP mice, that's a myopiricarditis mice, and in autoimmune myocarditis. So they said, we're seeing this in the mice we induced. It's happening in the people, in their pathology. And then it says, what's the takeaways here in plainer speak? What are the clinical implications because they have a mechanism now, so they have to communicate this to the doctors and the scientists. And they say post-MRNA vaccine, mild pericoditis is driven by molecular mimicry. So the immune system cannot determine self from non-self. So it's attacking itself. And it says insusceptible patients. Well, what makes patients susceptible? It goes on in this next line,

MRI vaccine distribution. Well, the fact that this vaccine goes everywhere is what makes patient susceptible. It determines the occurrence of cardiac-selectable. It determines the occurrence of cardiac-selectable. of autoimmunity by favoring heart homing imprinting. So heat-seeking, basically a heat-seeking missile of immune response, an anti-heart autoimmune response is what's happening. And I want to tell you, this journal is not a fringe journal. We go to its impact rating. This is the number three journal in the world, 99 percent, over 99 percentile in the

cardiovascular medical journals. This is the big cahuna, and they're saying this. It's over. It's over at this point. Once you are the, you're now mainstream. Yeah. Now, we are no longer in fringe universities or somewhere around the world are coming out of Israel. This is one of the biggest journals for Heart Research, American Journal, you know, American Heart Association involved is saying, we stand by this.

I mean, it's an amazing moment. And frankly, I think, and we'll have a discussion a little bit later with our superstars that are coming in about this vaccine. But what's it going to take? I mean, and I think what we're really asking ourselves, what's Donald Trump going to need to have to see, right? that, you know, it was great that you had warp speed. You did your best, but this thing is an absolute disaster. And you have right now the East Coast and West Coast Alliance. They're making their own vaccination recommendations for the COVID vaccine saying,

everyone can take it. And that's all politics. There's not science behind that anymore. So a real change can happen right now. Amazing reporting. As always, Jeffrey, it's always fun to have you in studios. It's great to have the audience here, all these great reporters. Just fantastic.

I think as we send you off, I want to play, because we are in a better place in this world. We're in a better place because we've got guys like Dr. Marty McCarrie that is looking at this. This is him talking about this issue just recently on the news. Take a look at this. We should note that vaccine injury and, God forbid, vaccine deaths have been a very, very small minority of the tens, hundreds of millions of people who've taken this vaccine. Hundreds of thousands of Americans describe vaccine injury. 25% of clinicians know of somebody that's been significantly disabled or died from a vaccine. I know of three people who have died from the COVID vaccine, not personally, but through a physician or friend that has had a first-degree contact with someone who has had a vaccine complication.

We know there's a risk of myocarditis in young healthy men. that's one in 2,600 young boys. So when people use these blanket terms, they're ignoring the very nuanced question in medical science, and that is, do the benefits outweigh the risks? That is the question. Not, let's, you know, blindfold ourselves

and insist that everybody take this. Look at the last administration, rubber stamping COVID boosters every year with no updated clinical trial. And we said we're not gonna keep going down this road. I feel, I mean, I want to get into one of the most complicated things that I've tried to understand as we've had this conversation about vaccines. And it's what Jeffrey was just talking about called cell mimicry. This is something that I'm going to attempt, and I haven't practiced this, so we'll see how well this goes.

And these Barbies were way better looking than I wanted them to. So I had them muddying them up. Let's say that this is COVID virus over here. This is what you're afraid. This is what's going to attack, you know, this is the natural virus. You don't want it in your body, obviously. This is what escaped the Wuhan lab, okay? And then let's say that this is a cell.

I've got this gym sock. We'll say this is one of your cells in your body. And we have the COVID vaccine, okay? And so what happens when we inject the COVID vaccine and it goes into these cells, it goes in and tells the cell to start manufacturing spike protein, something that's supposed to look like the COVID virus there? Well, if we look, all of a sudden what they say is it'll present. It presents the virus on the outside.

And in order to represent that, I've got this little Tony Fauci elf right here. This is the Comarty vaccine version of the spike protein that's now standing on your cell. And so this is the spike protein version man made inside the vaccine. And obviously, he's green, he's yellow, and he looks a little bit like the virus. you're supposed to fight. Let's put him right here for a second. Will he sit up? Let's see. Just all right. You get it. Now this, this is your T-cells. This ugly monster is designed to kill any cell that has something that is not self. In this case, Tony Fauci, the elf, is not self. You don't want him in your body. This is a bad thing. And so when he attacks and gobbles this thing up,

he learns a memory. And the memory we're hoping he gets is that these guys, the green and yellow guys, your enemy. Now, not exactly close, but as close as the vaccine could get to the actual virus. So when the virus comes into your body, obviously the job of your T cells that come over and start gobbling all these guys up, right? Now, over here in the blue side, these are your heart cells. This is self. This is the team you, okay? You don't want your immune system, but while he's gobbling it up, he's kind of getting full, he looks up and he looks over. And he looks at the Fauci. you guys like well that wasn't exactly the same as this I had the green and yellow but hold on a second there's green and yellow on these guys see this is if we are making a vaccine and you're telling it

that this is the problem then this T cell has got to say well what part of it's not exact is it the green and yellow color I'm going after in this case or is it an epitope that's similar is there part of that heart cell that looks a little bit like this spike protein well in this case is like well look it's green and yellow too on those short and what happens if he starts attacking your heart cells? Because he had green and yellow shorts. Did that make any sense? I hope that it did.

I hope that it did because this is the colossal mistake that is now being printed in the journal circulation, one of the most important, you know, publications in the world. They are saying we've made a tragic mistake that this is teaching your... killer T cells to go and attack your heart cells because they look a little bit or enough like this. And that is the problem.

And that is why we should have had long-term trials with a placebo where we followed them for multiple years. So at the end of a multiple year trial, we say, how many people's hearts are being attacked in the vaccine group compared to those that never got the vaccine? As you know, at least they did a little bit, a couple weeks with the COVID vaccine, but they never did it with the childhood vaccine program. And since they haven't done this, and this carnage is what we're now seeing from our vaccine program and our children. Cell mimicry is something we've been explaining with childhood vaccines.

And I'm going to have an illustrious group of people to come in and explain that to you. But what happens if we're doing this to our children, that they now have T cells that don't know the difference? between self and not self. Totally confused. Attacking some heart muscles, attacking other parts. Sometimes a virus, sometimes your own body, sometimes your pancreas, you have diabetes, sometimes multiple sclerosis. This is what is going on. This is the autoimmune disease crisis of our lifetimes. And there's only one way now if we have not done the proper trials, the placebo-based trials, which we never did with any of the childhood vaccines, there'd be only one way to figure out if this is the exact problem that is actually happening to our children. Is this the reason our kids,

54% of them, are chronically ill across America, making us the sickest nation in the world and making us the sickest generation of children we've ever seen in this country? There's only one study left once you skipped the actual science you were supposed to do. And that is the retrospective vaccinated versus unvaccinated study that is at the heart of the Henry Ford Health Study and the heart of our movie an inconvenient study. This is that film. We are now the second country in the world. It is now believed that over 54% of our kids have a permanent chronic disease. Shouldn't we look closest at the one product designed to alter our immune system for life? There'd be one easy study to rule it out, the vaccinated versus unvaccinated study.

As fate would have it, Delmet, Marcuservos. He agreed to do a vaxed versus unvaxed study. Kids that are vaccinated, it doesn't look so good. 4.47 times the amount, five and a half times risk. Six times increase. Amongst the unvaccinated group, there were zero. Like if this is true, this is devastating. It needs to be published. This is information the public should have had in 2020, and I forced the issue. Do you see how Ford responded?

They said this report was not published because it did not meet the rigorous scientific standards we demand as a premier medical research institution. They have forced our hand. We're going to have to show them the footage. I'm going to bring hidden cameras and recording equipment so that no matter what happens at this dinner, I can prove it happened.

Because you don't know what do you think about the study you guys have done? I think it's a good study but it is it does have limitations. Do you find any clause in the study? I mean, it's a way they could do the study better? Not that I put it out just how it is. I don't want to say it's not the right thing to do, it's the right thing to do, but I just don't want to. Somebody's going to come back and they're going to say, you know, the study is flawed. The unpublished Henry Ford analysis is fundamentally flawed.

How about looking at this? This is important scientific information that can inform how the purpose of something to be done, won't be taken like that. And then I can say, because there's a political agenda. Is what your study shows, is it important? Yeah, it is important. I'm just not going to do it. If I can't get this study out, what hope is there for every kid in the future?

I said to you, if you do this study, you're going to come under fire. You said, I don't care about that. I'm all about the data and I'm about to retire anyway. That's literally what you said. Yeah. So your energy is definitely changed on that. Energy is changing. Publishing something like that,

you might as well retire. I'd be finished. This is an inconvenient study for the entire vaccine agenda. Well, thank you. There's a lot I want to talk about this film, obviously, and this study, this unpublished study. Let me make sure I say that right, since there is a cease and desist letter and threats of allegations of, you know, possibly defamation.

But we're trying to be as clear as we can. As I've said, this study, I think had the results been the exact opposite, had the vaccinated come out as being 2.5 times more likely to have a chronic disease, had the vaccinated, the unvaccinated come out and they were the ones that were more likely is what I mean, unvaccinated, were more likely to have six times a rate of neurodevelopment disorders. four times a rate of asthma. The unvaccinated were the ones that had nearly six times the rate of autoimmune disease. I think that this study would have been the headline across the world. But of course it was not because it's the vaccinated that are that sick. But I'm joined now to have this conversation, amongst others, with some of the greatest minds and science and some of the

bravest people I've ever known. To my right, I have Dr. Andrew Wakefield joining us. All right. Awesome. Suzanne Humphreys, Dissolving Luzins, Pierre Corey. To start out with, when we put out this film, I think my biggest hope was that somehow we could jumpstart the scientific method. And some of the things that have given me a lot of hope,

I want to bring up a tweet, and we can discuss this or an ex post. This is Dr. Peter Gutcha. I think you guys know who this guy is, one of the founders of Cochran. of Cochran. U.S. study shows that after 10 years, 50% of vaccinated children had developed at least one chronic condition compared with just 17% of the unvaccinated children. Confounders could not explain this. He's actually put out many posts like this. He, I mean, you know who

he is, Andy. You've been at this a long time. Have you ever seen Peter Gutsch agree with you? No. I think I'm one of his least favorite people in the whole world. So when you see him weighing in on that, and he's doubled down, he's saying, I think we need to do larger vaccinated versus unvaccinated studies immediately. This is very, very concerning. What does that say about the state of science now in the world? Well, I think he's very much part of the system. He's very much, he's a very conservative, mainstream scientist. But he's a critical thinker, and he's looked at this, and he's come to the conclusion that, you know, and he's moving what he,

what he really thinks is that, well, we were wrong all along. We didn't do the studies. And now we're going to have to make amends somehow. The state of the science is powerless. It's a disgrace. And we're in this invidious position, because those VACS-on-VAC studies were never done pre-licensure. And when they were done with COVID,

they were far too short and badly designed. But it's too late for that. And therefore, we are dependent on. on retrospective studies which have inherent problems. But in the end, you have to come down on a balance of the evidence argument, because you've got to make pragmatic decisions. What do we do for children?

What do we do? And now the time has come for action. It's no longer time. Well, let's do another study. Let's do another study. Yes, those need to be done. But the vaccine program is so complex now that you're not going to be able to decide whether it was

thimerosol or aluminum or MMR or any, because so many are given to the vaccine. so many children so frequently. Right. And I think that's partly that's a deliberate thing. It's confounded the ability to conduct the science is to make it as complicated as possible. So we are going to have to take action based upon the information we have at the moment, and that is going to have to be public health action.

That's going to have to be Bobby Kennedy. And it needs to happen now. And I'll finish, Phil, just by saying, part of that, and you've referred to it already, is absolutely no mandates. You cannot mandate a product when you cannot guarantee it. And the other one, finally, is that there is absolutely fully informed consent. All the risks, all the known risks, all the known benefits, including this Ford analysis and why he decided not to publish.

Yeah. Dr. Humphrey, is this something, I mean, like Andy, he was out. there, you decided to jump in this, you've taken a lot of heat, written one of the, I think, most important books on the subject in dissolving illusions, because you took on the what about polio, what about smallpox, like the biggest argument they have. You want to return of all of those things. You know, this Henry Ford study, and it's not the only one of its kind. I think it's now, you could say, the fifth study I say in the film, I've heard other people

say there's about 10 vaccinated versus unvaccinated studies, but never done by an establishment like Henry Ford, never done by people essentially setting out to prove us wrong. Were you shocked by the results of this and what it's now doing to this conversation? Probably no more shock than you were. I mean, it's kind of like saying those cows that are being dragged away. Well, we have to prove that it was this thing that we gave them. And to me, that's how the whole vaccination issue looked after I started to get into it. Like, unlike Andy, I got into it from a different perspective.

And I had to go back and learn all the pediatric vaccines and the infant immune system, how it worked, how vaccines impact that. What's actually in vaccines? Because, of course, we're not taught that in medical school at all. We're discouraged from even looking. And, you know, at the end of it, and I don't have children. I don't have anyone that I know that's vaccine injured. I had no skin in the game at all. I only had something to lose by concluding what I concluded.

And that is that it's a systematic poisoning of humanity. Vaccination has always been a systematic poisoning of humanity, even if you go back to the smallpox years. We've introduced animal infections because vaccines have long been made on sick animals, and we have introduced animal infections into humanity. There has been a barrier to doing that. God put a barrier between us and animals so that we shouldn't be mixing blood and we shouldn't be mixing pus. And even if we're eating them, that doesn't happen. when we inject them into muscles, the consequences are dire. And if you want to talk about the autoimmune situation,

I'd like to say that this is the first time this has ever come up, but there's a scientist named Daria Kanduk, D-A-K-A-N-D-U-C, who has for years been public, she's out of Italy, I believe, all the various vaccines, how there's this autoimmune phenomenon, because we are endowed with bacteria and our immune system are supposed to not recognize bacteria unless it invades. So we are supposed to tolerate that. And so if we go injecting viruses, particles, bacterial particles, along with adjuvants and things that cause

inflammation, it's inherent that we're going to have autoimmune reactions. Not all of us, but it's inherent that it's going to happen. Pierre, in some ways at this table, you're one of the newest, you know, experts in this field. COVID was sort of a wake-up moment. What's that transition like from, you know, I'm sure you had an opinion about Dr. Andrew Wakefield, many years as almost everyone in medicine is taught to have, then COVID hits. How hard was it to move beyond that COVID vaccine, which looks like it was rushed? You yourself were attacked, having what you called the wonder drug shut down by this country that could have saved 80, you know, 70 or 80 percent based on the studies that are out there. Yeah. Could have been saved from dying when they tout the numbers.

but then transferring when you're starting to look now at all vaccines, at children, at this pinnacle of, I mean, like a foundational principle of modern medicine is this vaccine program. Is that it's always been a myth. It's not built on sound science or knowledge of physiology. They've always failed. They've always caused more harm than benefit. But going to your question, you know, like, I don't think I knew who Andy was. I was unstudied on vaccines. So just wasn't your space? No, I had three daughters fully vaccinated. One of them had a horrific first year of colic, which I'm still traumatized by, and I look back, and I know what was the vaccine she was getting. And the pediatrician just reassuring us, oh, she's just a fussy baby, and she'll settle down. And I look back now, knowing what I know.

I was, you know, soothing, an enraged child that was clearly like inflamed and sick. You know, was it just colic? But, you know, that transition that you asked me about, you know, I was so hyperfocused in ICU. ICUs as an all-consuming specialty. I taught, I researched. And so I had a very narrow focus in science. But once COVID came and I started to look and kick the tires on everything that was coming at us, boy, I started to see that there was nothing really grounded.

The decisions were illogical, devoid of any sort of rational behavior, how natural immunity disappeared overnight because of a web page on the FDA saying, no, no, don't check antibodies. There's no evidence. There's insufficient evidence that checking an antibody to check for immunity is suddenly, and that, and everybody went along with it. So I saw these, this folly. And then when I came out with Ivermactin, knowing that that was an absolutely soundly effective therapy, in direct lived reality, the first patient I saw, right, who's sick for two weeks with fevers, resting heart rate of 120, she, on her second week of illness, she takes an Ivermectin that her pulmonologist gave her, based on my paper. and she like goes flushed, goes to bed. In the morning, she's a fibral, heart rate's 80, and she was transformed.

That's the first patient, and that just kept repeating and repeating. So my lived reality, now I look out at science, and I look at the newspaper, the media, and my lived reality is being refuted at every turn. I'm being called everything in the world. It's not even based on, you know, I had put together the studies, but now I'm a clinician seeing things on the front line. I'm observing this thing. and I'm just seeing lies, fraud, misdirections, distortions,

and not only was it transformed from me as a physician, but even just a citizen of society. That journey led me to a complete loss of trust in almost every institution of society. But I've found refuge. I found people in places and conversations where people are honest, open, objective, and studied and are not...

I'm not afraid to ask the tough questions or be faced with tough answers. And I like how you talked about Gocha. He's had quite a career. I actually have a favorable opinion. You know, that Cochran study, you know, he got kind of thrown out of Cochran because he started asking questions and he started showing concern about the pharmaceutical money. They were taking on money. They were supposed to be independent.

We should not be taking pharmaceutical money. This is the whole point of Cochran. And they're like, no, we want that money. Yeah. But, you know, we talked about one thing about your, the film. which is probably one of the best documentaries I've seen, but in that tweet by GoTo, right, he talks about how a confounder can't explain this. I would have been saying for years that I think the most important paper published in medicine

was in 2016 and it came out of the Cochrane Library. And this is what the study did, is they looked at every, they looked at numbers of disease models and all trials that were randomized versus those that were retrospective observation, right? Since I started medicine, I was trained in the era of this evidence-based medicine nonsense. Yeah. And you're trained that the RCT is the only thing that can do. Randomized control trial.

That's the only thing. It's the hegemony of evidence, right? However, in 2016, this paper in Cochran, they compared results from the two different trial designs in numbers of disease models. Guess what they found? They reach the same result all the time. So this nonsense about unmeasured confounders, that's why you can't try. Don't look at the ones that well-meaning clinicians can do. do on their nights and weekends and find out scientific truth.

No, no, you can't trust those. Only trust the big million dollar trials. The Cochrane Library refuted that. And you know what they said in their conclusion? They said, when differences appear between a randomized and observational, you need to look at other factors besides design. You know, how I interpret that, Dell? Money.

Where's the money? We know where everything leads. So like, when a randomized control trials tell you something safe and effective, and every observational trial is saying, no, it's toxic. and deadly. We're told we have to believe the randomized because it was rigorous and properly done by some big academic method. It's absolute nonsense. So I didn't know this. Before COVID, I venerated the journals. Newland Journal, it's in the New England Journal of Meadows, and that is true science, only the best science and scientists published there. That's not true. And so I woke up,

as you would say. Well, welcome. Thank you. Good to be here. You know, maybe the most important, I think we can call it an observational study that's come out, certainly on the topic of autism. You are an author on with Dr. Peter McCullough and many other scientists and doctors. McCullough Foundation Report, determinants of autism spectrum disorder. This study is blowing people's minds. In it, it shows that there's multifactorial, that there's many things that look like they're contributing. to autism, but the easiest one, what is it determined that the easiest one to handle? Most modifiable.

Most modifiable is vaccines, and what was the process? So you looked at studies all around the world just looking at autism, what is potentially causing it? Confession. So Peter McCullough called me and he said, we're doing this, we'd like to include you in it. Peter, are you sure you want to do that? He said, yeah.

Right. He said, yeah. And I said, let me send it to me and I'll see if I can contribute. And when it came to me, I thought this is a tremendous piece of scholarship. It's incredibly thorough. Most importantly, several of the senior authors were skeptical about the vaccine autism association or the vaccine injury association from the very outset. And that's important.

And the one thing I did contribute to it is this age of exposure phenomenon because we saw in the VAC study and the Thompson study that age of exposure is a very important. determinant of outcome. And we know this now with COVID. Right. It's people are well aware that the older you are when you get the infection, the greater the risk. With measles, in particular, it's under one and over, you know, when you're 50 and over. So there is an age-related susceptibility to adverse outcomes. When you don't adjust. That's right. So when you don't look at that, then what if you lump all exposures together of, say, MMR, then you may wash out the effect.

If you look at age of exposure, there's a very important the terms of that was my contribution to, but it was an outstanding bit of scholarship from several people who were skeptical about this association from the very- That signed their names onto it just as, what was it, was it a total of 12 doctors altogether that signed on the original Lancet study

that you're famous for? And the other, I just wanna say one more thing and picking up on what Peter said, is there was a document some years ago in the Federal Register, a government document, and it was in relation to the polio vaccine, But this really sort of summarizes the attitude to everything. And it said, whatever evidence is out there, whatever it's merits,

whether it's good or bad, it cannot be allowed to exist. It cannot be allowed to exist if it criticizes the vaccine. Wow. And that is the matrix. That's the matrix. That is the world they will allow you to see. It cannot be allowed to exist. It should turn people's blood to ice when you hear that as a scientist.

And that was one of the finding documents for me. Like Peter had his moments, and Suzanne had her moment of revelation. That, for me, was staggering. And I realized what we were up against. In the Henry Ford studies is something we've talked a little bit about. That's at the center of an in-communist study, our film, is autism. And obviously, you know, when I talked Dr. Marcus Zervos into it, I was on tour with Vax with our film. And I was thinking we're going to finally get an answer to that.

It's one of the only things in there that doesn't really end up not being statistically significant, very low numbers there. You know, I wonder if you would share sort of your theory on the 18,000 kids in the study, 2,000 ultimately unvaccinated. What happened with that autism number in there? I think, I mean, this is my thinking on it, if you go on current prevalence numbers in that age range, in that region at the time, then you would have expected there to be, it was about 1 in 100 children by the age of 8, and you would have expected therefore 1, 160 something children in that total cohort. Instead, there's only like 23. There were 24. 24, I think it's 24. Where were the missing children? It could be. that Michigan is simply different from the rest of America. That there's a very low prevalence for some reason.

There's nothing in the ADEM data to suggest that. It has the same prevalence as other states. What they did is they didn't follow children up for long enough. Now, the mean age of diagnosis of autism is five and a half years. They followed them up for a much shorter period. Right, three years old. And if you imagine there's a bell-shaped curve for the age of diagnosis and the mean age of diagnosis, the peak is at five and a half years,

you are going to miss all of those children who actually went on to have a diagnosis of autism. Moreover, because they do not have a diagnosis of autism, they will count against the hypothesis that autism is linked because they will sort of contribute to the denominator, if you like. So it's failure of ascertainment, in my opinion, is a major contribution. So that study had followed all of those kids for, let's say, eight years instead of four on three or four years on average.

those numbers, those kids that are there, we would then know they have autism and you would have a better way to determine what we're seeing. Yeah, and I think many of those with that five-fold risk for neurodevelopmental disorder may have translated into many children with autism. Because every other study that has been done, the ones you mentioned, the case, the VACS versus Unvax, have shown that autism is significant risk in the vaccinated. Suzanne, any thoughts on this, you know, sort of autism conversation? the Henry Ford study that's showing, you know, autoimmunity through the risk. We've got this McCullough study now. And both these things are really being debated now. I would say in mainstream science, when you see guts, we see people like that.

I actually had a friend that was doing a location scout in Hollywood just last week, and they recognized this mansion they were looking at for a film. There was a doctor working there. I said, did you see the Henry Ford study? Are you aware of it? And she said, yes, I am. It's being passed all around Kaiser right now. And it's very disturbing.

It has gotten many of us questioning what this is all about. Are we seeing a shift? Do you think, are we finally, are we getting through to scientists, doctors? Is there enough of a heart there is enough of a question? That's a really good question. See, I've kind of left centralized medicine, so I don't get to talk to them as much anymore. But I do think that there's a little bit of a wedge in the door, perhaps, as far as the science. I should say the doctors.

I think I've pretty much given up on the doctors. I know it's your job to get into the doctor heads. For me, I felt like I needed to save babies. That's always been what I've been about, not educating doctors, because you can't do everything. You can, but I can't. But I do think maybe there's some more insight, but I always feel like, and see it, people say I'm blackpilled,

maybe I am blackpilled. But I feel like as soon as we start to make some headway, they've got something 10 times bigger to come at us afterwards. And so, like, we can't relax on this. I know you know that, but I just want your audience to know, even if we are starting to make some headway, don't sit back and relax and say, okay, you know, they've got this, you know, Dell's got this, CHD's got this, no, we don't have this.

We're a long, long, long way from victory, from where I want to see the world, which is that with all the ingenuity we have on this planet, we shouldn't have, I shouldn't have to feel like people avoid doctors, they're healthier. We should be able to have a sane medical system where when people honestly need help because they can't manage it on their own, that they should be able to safely go in there and have their problem taken care of in an intellectually, evidence-backed way if you want that, but we should have access to anything that people want, and that's far from what we have right now. So, you know, that's kind of my vision of the future is that we should understand all the autoimmune diseases.

We should understand, why can't we work out thyroid? How come up so many people are dependent on thyroid medication for the rest of their lives, yet we can send people to outer space, supposedly? How does that work? We have such ingenuity on this planet. We should be able to feed the whole world without any problem at all with the scientists and the brains that we have. It's the people like Bill Gates who for some reason have been given authority over humanity. So that's what I would really like to see shift, is that having real scientists in charge of climate change.

Because when you talk to real scientists, that's what you get. And it's the same with vaccines. I want to shift this conversation. I want to watch a video. This is Dr. Robert Redfield, head of the CDC during the COVID outbreak. pandemic, plan-demic, whatever you want to call it. I thought this was really fascinating. And I think it's amazing that this conversation

isn't just more mainstream, but let's take a look at this. Bouchi was the father of Gain of Function Research. He really felt that we needed to do this research. I really felt we didn't need to do this. But they changed the definition, and you'll see this, you're a smart guy, that with a National Academy of Science, which unfortunately is a very political organization, okay, and they use this science politically, they made the definition that if you start with a pathogen that's pathogenic for humans and you make it more pathogenic or more transmissible, that's gain of function research.

But if you start with a pathogen that's not pathogenic for humans like COVID-19. But you weaponize it. But you make it pathogenic for humans, that's not gain of function. That's insane. It's insane. But if you look at a testimony of Rand Paul, he says, according to the definition of the National Academy, So as a purist, I would say he probably didn't lie. Did he misinformed the Congress?

Absolutely. Was he involved in gain of function research? Absolutely. Did NIH, but also unfortunately DOD and the State Department and USAID, those four agencies funded that Wuhan Lab? Yes. Why is USAID even involved in this? Because we gave them the baton to do all of this global health stuff. Pierre, it was an amazing statement that if you take a virus that affects human beings and you advance it, gain a function.

If you take it, can infect human beings and you teach it to infect human beings, not gain a function. Whether or not you want to address that, how is Fauci being celebrated in any way now that the majority of science around the world? CIA, FBI all say this is of lab origin? I think, I think, first of all, that's like a palm to forehead moment. moment, right? Which is what public, almost every action by public health since the, it was exposed during COVID is what I was referring to before. Nothing makes sense, right? It's all being deliberately manipulated. But, you know, you question about Fauci, you know, one of the other things, like about the studying, it's about censorship, right? So not only at the medical journal

level, but in the media, right, mainstream media, which most people consume, these truths are not being exposed, right? So he's managing to skate by under the cover. of massive censorship, right? If some of the major networks or media outlets really started asking these questions, you know, having honest conversations about, it's interesting, why did Fauci say this when this is happening? But that doesn't happen. And so I think they escape from what really should be condemnation, conviction, all of it.

And that's actually endlessly sad to watch. You watch what I would consider criminal behavior, not just scientific misconduct. I think it's almost criminal. They're taking risks and putting people at harm's way. And we know them. We know the carnage. You use the word before carnage, right? I mean, we've watched kids drop dead for years.

You know, this is going back to my point about lived reality. You know, those of us awake who are seeing this, you're seeing people drop dead who shouldn't be dropping dead. I used to be an expert at resuscitation of cardiac arrest. I've given lectures on cardiac arrest. to have what's called a sudden cardiac death in a young person is so exceedingly rare, right? And then a book comes out, you know, what is it, died suddenly, right? Which is just endless accounts of cheerleaders, athletes, going to ball fields. We're seeing Premier League football players collapsing in arrest, all subsequent to the vaccine campaign, but not talked about.

Oh, it's just a tragedy. It's just a tragedy over and over. And so I feel like I'm very disoriented in the world because the way I see the world and the way I see the rest of the world seeing the world, like we're not living in the same world. Like you talked about Matrix. Suzanne, what are your thoughts on being a function? I'm just thinking about this because I think part of it may be to cover over the sins of the past. I consider myself a bit of a medical historian. And I happen to know that there was a situation in the 1960s where Simeon virus 40, SB 40,

a cancer-promoting virus called the perfect war machine by one of the world's experts, that this virus was taken from the polio vaccine because that's where the scientists had to get it from, because humanity was being injected with it alongside a lot of other things. And they literally took this virus and they irradiated it in a gain of function experiment to make it more carcinogenic. And then they will put it in animals, take those tumors, put the tumors in a blender, take them to the lab, irradiate it with a linear particle accelerator to make it more aggressive. And they would keep going in a circle until they got the maximum killing capacity out of this virus.

So this was gain of function stuff going on in 1960s under the guise of killing Fidel Castro. Well, it was never used to kill Fidel Castro. It was turned over to M.D. Anderson, and the technology supposedly disappeared, and then, boom, we end up with SV40 in the plasmid in our vaccines in 2020, 2021. So it's like it's just been going on for a long time. And if we wouldn't know this, if there wasn't one survivor that is still around with us named Judith Barry Baker, who is able to tell the story because she was there. Everybody else was either killed. Actually, everybody was killed pretty much within a year of this, except for one guy, the guy at the head of it.

So anyway, it's an amazing story. That is an amazing story. One of the things I'll be talking about at CHD this weekend, but this whole gain of function thing is, again, it's not new. And if they were to admit that they took, you know, carcinogenic virus from the animal kingdom and then made it more aggressive and mass distributed it into humanity by accident

and then afterwards did this gain a function thing. And we watched the cancer rates rise at that point. You know, everybody knew somebody that got cancer, you know, within 20 years of the whole mass vaccination program of the 1950s and 60s. Right. Amazing. You know, and you've gotten into the media side of this. Obviously, starting out as, you know, from a famous family of doctors.

I think the media, as you said, if we don't get in the media, we're never going to change this. obviously you and I work together on Vaxed, which many people credit with igniting this medical freedom movement. It certainly has shifted the consciousness in some way. But when we look at this gain of function as media, and I think you're right, Pierre, the culpability of news and what it's done to us for not doing its job of asking the obvious questions, but in fact, and I love that you're calling them, they're censoring. Not only they're not giving us news, they're actually censoring. By not asking the right questions, by not bringing the truth, we are being put into the dark. And I always say, you know the world's gone crazy, especially when people don't act naturally. If you wanted to sell a headline, you want to sell a story, this COVID lab leak, this man-made virus that was led to believe killed millions and millions of people. We hold up heroes for having started a vaccine that they say helped us from being killed.

By the same people, same people making the vaccine, celebrating the virus that killed everybody. We're going to choose which part of that story we want to tell. But the next obvious question to me should have been once everyone said, all right, it's the lab. How do we know it was accidental? I mean, that is the, I mean, it's not even the discussion that we have to have, But why is that question never come up anywhere in media? We're afraid of terrorists. How do we know that it's not a terrorist?

Working the Wuhan lab that let this out on purpose. How do we know that China didn't do this to us? How do we know that we didn't, you know, never been asked. When you don't ask obvious questions, then you live in a dystopian nightmare where we're, as you said, the Matrix. We're in a Matrix. I think there are two elements to this. And one is, did they start out Abinissio to produce something? something to do harm to mankind, to decrease our reproductive ability?

Or did they find out that it did that and then continue? And when you have knowledge, then it becomes deliberate. So everything after that point would be deliberate. And this had happened with the Pfizer trials and this kind of thing. The question then is, did they set out from the very beginning? What a sinister situation that would be. And I was kind of, people would ask me this at conferences. you think this is deliberate and I really it seemed like an incredibly clumsy way of going

about culling mankind yeah of introducing what a molecular biologist and evolutionary biologists called a punctuated equilibrium into the human species speciation I wouldn't go into that but then I did a study I did a film with CHD with Bobby Kennedy on the use of a an altered tetanus fact in developing countries where they had integrated the human corionic gonadotrophin molecule into the vaccine so that when you gave the vaccine to women who were not told about this at all in developing countries, then what you saw was a rise in the immune response against HCG essential to maintenance of healthy pregnancy and women becoming infertile. This was a deliberate attempt including funding by funded by by the Gates Foundation to render women infertile with absolutely no informed consent whatsoever. And when I did that, I thought that is the most cynical thing

I could ever imagine. From that point forward, I began to believe that if they were capable of doing that, and that was deliberate, then all bets are on. My, while you bring that up, it wasn't planning to talk about, but one of the things I just, I've been doing a lot of podcasts talking about the film,

I think the vaccine program, I mean, what I say is take them for the word. When Bill Gates says his number one priority is to reduce the population that we are not going to survive. We don't reduce population. WeF makes that statement all the time. Many of the, you know, smaller cities, all of it is we need less people on this earth. And then the next thing he says is my favorite thing to do to work on that is vaccination. And, you know, modern health care.

It's not an accident. He's said it multiple times. And what I've said is this. Like, none of us want to come across as a conspiracy theorist. But what I say is this. I think it's natural that leaders of large nations have to think about resources and how many people are on this planet. That's a conversation you're going to have as intellectuals.

It may seem cold, but that's the type of conversation you have. And when you contemplate that thought at whatever time we reach a place where we are now overcoming the resources to take care of ourselves, how would we reduce that population in the most humane way? We know these conversations have come on. We've had videos and tapes going back 100 years. Eugenics has been a part of the conversation. But it seems to me the greatest delivery system for population control is a vaccine.

Because as you said, releasing a virus isn't good because I'm going to catch it. And if I want to be one of the world dominating smart people that lives, I don't want something that gets me. It's also my thing with chemtrails as I investigate it. But that's poisoning me. My diabolical plan is to dumb everybody down. How am I not dumbing myself down? But this vaccine program, especially with a vaccine passport where it has a QR code that probably has my socioeconomics in it, has, do I have a job? Am I a productive member of society?

I go in, beep. Oh, here comes your box of vaccines and just like Kenya. All of a sudden, people that don't have much money, they're having a lot of trouble with fertility. Those that are rich, they're not having an issue. I mean, it would be so easy. And I want to say this, we've seen it Kenya. We've seen deer populations in America are reduced through a vaccine program. Is that, I mean, whether or not that's why the vaccine's here, whether COVID was designed to reduce population, is there a greater delivery system than a species that walks up, never asks a question, gets injected with whatever you want to give me?

I don't ask you what the ingredients are. Most people don't even know how many I got. I walk out the door and then just suddenly the world, our ability, our health, our fertility's changing. Is that a conspiracy or is that a reality? Exactly. That's what we've witnessed. Like I said, direct lived experience. We saw it.

We saw people lining up for and ignoring, you know, there's like such dissonance, a cognitive dissonance amongst the population because they were being targeted with endless propaganda about how you're going to put your grandmother at risk, you know, do this for grandma and all sorts of nonsense. And then they went further in mandating. So, you know, there was some voluntary, propaganda was the easiest way to convince people, but then they turned the screws harder and harder. So you used the terms dystopian and diabolical. You know, for me, you know, going back to your original question, you know, reading Bobby's book,

is it Escape from Wuhan? I always get the title wrong. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. The history of bio-weapons. And going back almost 100 years. And it's so referenced all of the activities that various militaries, and researchers have done around bioweapons, I mean, they have been exposing populations

to poisons for decades in their research supposedly, right? And so when you said, like, is it an accident or deliberate? There's so much evidence that makes me question. First of all, there was certainly records of activities that they knew it was coming. Lots of preparation, different moves, right? Investments, vaccine research. No one's ever explained to me what the 2010 opening, I think it was 2010 or 2012, the London opening games.

You remember the ceremony where like it was literally, it was like a dramatic reputation of what would happen 10 years later. Yeah, exactly. And with syringes and all this stuff. But more like a scientific driven is, you know, one of the facets that I've never gone down much farther, but the transmission dynamics of this was very strange. you had these hot spots. So, like, I was in Wisconsin. We didn't get our first patient until, like, at least two months after New York, right?

But I had left Wisconsin. I went back to fight on the front lines, so to speak. I took over my old ICU, and what I saw was just carnage. I mean, I was walking into an ICU. I had 24 patients with the same x-ray. Never saw that in my career before. And that was happening in Detroit, New Orleans, but other cities, not so much. Seattle got hit real hard.

And I've never understood that why only certain cities were like disaster zones with COVID. That's what showed up on the TV. And then like across the river, New Jersey, which is really heavily populated, there's nothing going on. And so the whole thing is strange. And it didn't seem natural how that rolled out and how everyone had these varied experiences. And I wonder, I don't know if there's an appetite to look at that anymore. Does that make sense? And then learning what Bobby's book shows, it makes it completely.

plausible that these were releases, targeted releases. They've released stuff in subways before. And again, I don't want to go, by the way, I don't like the word conspiracy theory. I like inconvenient truths. That's generally what most of them are. Right. We should be allowed to look into them. Suzanne, your work, you know, a lot of it is some of the greatest historical investigation of vaccines, where it comes from how this started, whether it's Edward Jenner, One of the questions I get is we start sounding when we have this conversation like from the very beginning these vaccines were nefarious. They were meant for no good. Or are people evil?

Or why is this system? Why 72 vaccines that just seems criminal? Is there a good, was there a heart behind it? Did Edward Jenner mean well? Are there people that really meant well at the heart of this? What is this? Or has it been evil and dark from the beginning? when you look really closely at it.

I believe after reading what there is left to read of people from 200 years ago, doctors from 200 years ago, I have to only conclude that it was evil because you had doctors speaking up just like Andy, just like me and Pierre, saying we regret the day that we ever vaccinated anybody because we've seen the outcomes. We're talking to the families.

We've seen the vaccinated versus... They were saying that back then. And then any problem, any doubts whether or not well, founded about the safety of the vaccines must not be allowed to exist. That's 1974, I believe, because of all the craziness that happened with the polio vaccines that have been deified into the savior of humanity, when when you go down that trail, you come back a different person. And so here we have all the mythology about how wonderful vaccination is, how it's going

to save your child and parents putting their babies on the altar of vaccination, as it's not only a normal thing, but something that's going to save that child. And that's not how it works. It actually changes the child's immune system forever. And so because that's been allowed to exist is the reason we are today, line me up. I'm susceptible because vaccines are great, because polio, because smallpox, vaccines are great. And we're scared now because this thing is happening. And it's a lab leak.

Oh, my gosh, that's even worse. It's going to kill me. And we hear all the heads of state saying, you will die if you don't get this vaccine. They line up. And I think if we didn't have those shoulders to stand on and those stepping stones and those altars with blood all over them, then we couldn't be where we are today. And I like Dr. Wakefield's, you know, we must have informed consent and we must have ability to choose. They'll never let that happen without a really strong force behind it. Because if we're allowed to choose, just like a doctor told me in the hospital when we had mandates, his Nigerian doctor, and he said, I know why they make us give it because I otherwise.

wouldn't do it myself. So that's what keeps it going. If we were to focus somewhere else on actual health, on how infant immune systems actually work, on how we can deal with any virus that comes around, these companies would just have to fold. Will that be allowed to happen? Well, it's going to take a lot of force behind for that to happen. We're all in town, you're in town, a lot of the people in this audience for this incredible event that CHD is having the moment of truth, great speakers for the next several days. You can get tickets right now, the virtual tickets. It's totally sold out to be here in person. Children'shc.org slash the conference HW. You can go ahead and get those tickets there. These conferences, this is a huge one, and these

are conferences that you've all been to different times, whether it was on autism for years, autism won all of those. At these conferences, you know, there's discussions on how can you heal autism? How can we heal autoimmune disease? We have doctors that are working with all sorts of things. I want to move into a little bit of a different space because I think I'm troubled and I think we're living in a world where we don't know how to move forward. You've done a lot of work on the repurposed use of drugs. Ivermectin being one of them. Now I have ivermectin fenbendazole is a huge conversation about does it cure cancer or can it cure cancer? We've got things like Methylene Blue. We catch Robert Kennedy Jr. squirting what appears to be an industrial fabric

dye in his mouth and suddenly everyone's saying this is going to make you healthier. People are injecting stem cells into their eyeballs and their arms all over the place. And I'm like, I want to randomize control trial. You know what I mean? Like it just, I get it. I get you. Even last night I was in a conversation. I had just done a podcast at the table. Guys like, oh man, you just know once you take Methylene Blue, you just feel better, you know? And that's that's like I'm back to homeostasis or whatever. That's why I know it's great. I was like, all right, but hold on a second.

You know it was really amazing at removing any sort of rash from your body or, you know, pain if you had any teething issues? Mercury. That's why Mercury was so successful. It made you feel so great right at first when you rubbed it all over your body and took it. What are we going to do because in our space in this, you know, do I call it functional medicine space, this holistic space, there's all these products that will never, be able to afford the $100 million trial and it's being pushed and touted by everybody.

How do we move in that world? If we're leaving pharma that's lied to us, do we just jump into this other functional space because they're just a bunch of angels that are out to make me feel better? Yeah. You know, I just talked about this the other day. I was giving a talk or recorded talk for a conference on chlorine dioxide, actually, because that was one of those things. Bleach.

This is the product that parents will be arrested, having great success with autism. many ways, but if they have to, like, have an underground railroad for this stuff. 100%. So, but, yeah, according to dioxide. So it's really giving me a perspective on how to answer your question. Okay. It's like, here's, you know, talking about my journey. So I'm in academics, venerating journals, doing research, you know, controlled, usually

retrospective observational trials, studying evidence-based medicine and how you collect it. I'm used to relying on data to make decisions, although not knowing that much of it is manipulated and corrupted. So then I leave, right? I got cast out or I left. It was a push-pull thing, you know. And so I called it the Wild West, right? Because I leave, I start a practice that's totally focused on treating COVID-vaccine injury.

And I don't know how to treat this. A novel disease, new form of injury. And all I knew when I saw it in my practice that Ivermectin had some efficacy. Because I'd already seen some people who were injured take Ivermectin and feel better. It's about all I knew. Here I am three and a half years later and talking to different colleagues in this Wild West space, I'm recognizing what you just articulated, which is like, people are claiming things work, and you know what?

They are correct. They do work. I've seen them work. I don't know how much they work. I don't know if they're better or safer than other things. But they're just not publishing. They're not organizing. I'm not collecting organized data in a systematic way.

And even if they were to try to publish, I'm not sure where they could publish, but at least just give me some data that I can sit on instead of claims, right? And then probably the pinnacle example was chlorine dioxide. So early in my practice, my first year, I started hearing these whispers of this substance or this compound can cure basically everything. And when I read this book and it was really impressive what it said this thing can do in all the places around the world that we're using it. So then I go to PubMed, right, which is the medical database for papers.

Can't find anything. So there's like, I'm like, what is this? So everyone here is saying that it cures everything, but there's nothing published. And it wasn't until about a year ago when I started research on my book because I was invited to a Zoom conference with a network of colleagues.

And it was about chlorine dioxide. And I met a guy that I'd done work with from Brazil, PhD, MD, like really impressive guy. And he's in the Zoom. And I realized he's been using chlorine dioxide. So then I was like, oh, there's something here. And now I spent the last year writing this book, And what I have found is that, I'm going to say this, Del, it is the most suppressed medicine of modern times.

It has been globally coordinated by public health agencies and media around the world for decades. Thou shalt not bring up the topic of chloride dioxide. There are trails of deaths by advocates, proponents, research will never get published, although that changes. There's a couple of papers in COVID on chlorine dioxide. And then I found literally the exact repeat of Uttar Pradesh. You remember the story of Uttar Pradesh and COVID, which is Ivermacht. And it's a state in northern India where the chief minister put a systematic deployment program of Ivarmactan.

They literally hired 160,000 workers, 95,000 villages. Everybody, they tested, test it, test. You get positive, you get Avramactin. All the health care workers took Avivamacton. Anyone in the household of someone who testified about I've got Iverminton? And the papers literally in India were reporting in September of, I think, 21 or 22, that there was like 241 million people that was like 60 cases active and no new cases. They literally almost eradicated through this massively aggressive program on Ivory Macden.

Never showed up in the New York Times. We never heard about it here, right? But there was so much of it. And even in India it was censored. So when they said, like the miraculous success of Uttar Pradesh, Ivermectin didn't appear in the articles. It was just about quarantining and surveillance. They didn't mention they were giving everyone Ivermectin.

So guess what? I start to look into chlorine oxide, and I found the same thing. The entire country of Bolivia, early, Bolivia was doing really badly with COVID. Hammered, like Peru did at one point. Some well-meaning legislators got a law place on the urging of some well-meaning clinicians. They passed a law making it legal to manufacture and distribute chloride oxide. The military got into it.

The universities were manufacturing. People were lining up in streets all through Bolivia, taking their little drinks of chlorinoxide. Mortality and cases plummeted. And I was like, as I'm researching, I'm like, this is Uttar Pradesh all over again. But remember, this is not sufficient evidence still, the fact that a whole country's mortality rates. And there were mayors who were using it in the ICUs, and they were saying we were emptying ICUs of COVID patients. To be honest, what's interesting about this,

it's quite humbling, right? I'm supposedly Mr. Ivermectin. Based on all my research, what I know now, if I got COVID right now, that would probably be number one treatment. I would take that over Ivermectin any day, knowing what I know if it's efficacy. And so, and that goes to your point, right? All the things that we can do for viruses, right?

So there's a website called c19 early.org, probably the best science in all of COVID. Anonymous group. They decided to become anonymous, but the high-level statisticians, systematic reviewers, they did constantly updating on all data trials on all these medicines for COVID. So you had real time, you had all these options.

As of now, if you go to that website, and you look at the amount of therapies that have statistically significant benefits in COVID, based on four or more trials, it numbers 72 different ways to treat COVID. Ivory Mechon is actually at the top, interestingly, but there's 72 behind it, and when you use them in combination, but this is like real medicine and science, but it's not allowed to exist. How much does chlorine dioxide cost?

Oh, boy. On Amazon, it's literally you get two bottles. If you make your own. Well, it comes in two, I wouldn't know how to make it because you need the starting compounds, but on Amazon it's $28 for two bucks for two bottles. A huge amount. You could treat your family for probably a year or two with those two bottles. Yes, exactly. What do we do? Where is the future of health? Because it doesn't look like our government and media is still against us.

Nothing's getting published. If you do have something that's affordable, if it already exists, if it's off patent, forget it, you can't do. No one's going to fund the trial. So how do we live in a world? If we wanted to build a new health care system and not a sick care system like everyone dreams about, how do you do it? How does science work now? How would science have? How do we move forward right now? What does someone do right now? I think that I mean looking at this dispassionately from the perspective of someone with interest in evolutionary biology, we're in a really bad place. You know, you talked about the population explosion and the reasons that Gates and others got into reducing populations. Paradoxically now we're in an extinction event. We're in the sixth major extinction.

on this planet and it's the first one that's ever been man made. In other words, it's modifiable. We can alter the outcome. But if this continues where natality is exceeded by mortality, man will cease to exist on this planet. Now that probably won't happen because nature is self-correcting, but what is going on at the moment is we are being exposed to, and I talked about it earlier, punctuated equilibrium that evolutionary biologists see evolution occurring in a very slow trajectory over millions

of millions of years until some major cataclysmic event changes that and produces a rapid speciation so that some will survive, some will die, most will die out, but some will survive. And that's nature's way of dealing with the situation. The punctuated equilibrium is what we're doing to ourselves. giving highly toxic compounds to people that's affecting their fertility, the immune systems, their cognitive function, their survivability. And some, many, many, many will die out.

Many genetic pools will disappear. That's just the way, and we've done it to ourselves. It can be attenuated, it can be modified, it can be stopped, I don't know at this stage, but there will be survivors because that's what makes it. does. The way I've come to this now over the years is that I've come to trust more and more in natural processes, be it the microbiome in the field or in your gut, at the food we eat, natural healing, the ability of the body to self-correct when things go wrong if we allow it to, if we take the pressure off it. And far less, I have far less confidence in man's ability

to stop this because it's driven by ego and greed and those are almost insurmountable objects. You know, Peter was, Pierre was talking about the failure to publish this kind of evidence because it costs nothing and it's not going to make anyone anyone. What do you think? How do we stay healthy in this time? Do you agree we're in sort of a print die-off? Or we... Well, definitely we are and I think the lifespans of children are, we're will be probably less than their parents at this point unless something radical changes. But education is really key.

And even if you look at fertility, if you want to look at populations that are, if you want to call them out of control to what their resources are, education is what always helped that, in particular education of women. If you want to look at the general health, because I've had to think about this, obviously, as someone who stepped out of centralized medicine and had to rethink everything, it's not just about methylene blue or chlorine dioxide or what you're going to think about, what you You can take, first of all, we have to stop creating sick people. I think most of our lifestyles are very conducive to getting sick.

Technology has led us indoors. I saw a little baby not that long ago, and the siblings were flashing a cell phone in front of his face. Like all that blue light and all that EMF, the non-native EMF that that child is exposed to, is already putting it at a disadvantage, whether it's vaccinated or not. And so I think that, you know, as someone who left conventional medicine, I'm an educator. People will come and pay me to sit with me for two hours and get my knowledge as much as I can give to them about where they are on the continuum of health.

And that knowledge, they might not have to come back and see me. Now what would a medical system do if that's what doctors, how they were trained? So I would just like to put the message out to doctors who may be unhappy in their careers right now and to say that I think we can all three of us here agree that we have never been happier since leaving conventional medicine. and stop having that, you know, literally being breathed out. And that they want you to believe that you will die poor and hungry, but it's quite the opposite, that people will literally line up down the street

to talk to us just for a short amount of time because they know that there's knowledge that we can short, we can give them very quickly that could take them a lot longer. So become an educator, get yourself healthy first, learn about where real health comes from, and that you are clueless right now, but that you can pick it up because you're smart, and you have learned a lot of things really quickly in medical school.

You can do this. That's fantastic. I want to wrap this up with a final, I think, very difficult question. We've put a lot of faith in Robert Kennedy Jr. He's sat at this table. Every one of you has stood at a stage at one point. I would say in some ways he's one of us. You know, he's one of ours.

There's a lot of questions on, you know, how he's handling that job. I want to ask a very specific question because I think, you know, you know, you come in with COVID. There's a real intensity around the COVID vaccine, certainly the most studied. I mean, of all the vaccines, that one has so much bad, you know, powerful press around it we are seeing as we reported today. Maybe the most important study yet now that you have the American Heart of Socialists. in on it, the vaccine is causing pericarditis and people are saying, why isn't Robert Kennedy Jr. getting rid of that one, that science, it's written all over the walls. I want to ask you a very specific question, and this is hypothetical, I guess, in nature. If you had his job

and your boss is President Trump, and it appears to me that President Trump has a little soft spot for the COVID vaccine because, and look at this, you know, mad genius of offering him a Nobel Prize for the COVID-19 vaccine. I think they've played into the perfect way to get this guy. He's been open. We've watched him in, you know, over the years, really been open to looking at the childhood vaccine program, which is what brought us into this conversation. Do you risk messing with that COVID vaccine, which is a horrible, horrible product, but you could piss off your boss so bad you can't do the rest of the job you're there for. How do you sort of from, I mean, I'm putting you on the spot, but if you've got that job,

how do you move forward? I think what needs to happen, okay, politicians by and large who have no training in epidemiology or virology or science at all, in his case a businessman, are incredibly susceptible to the advice they get from their experts, Tony Fauci in this, who hates Trump and has his own agenda. Doesn't care what Trump's agenda is. He's going to tell him what he wants to tell Trump. And Trump is very vulnerable to that information because he's faced with a crisis, doesn't have a way of understanding or dealing with it other than the way that Tony Fauci tells him to deal with it and a host of other people who are all pro-vaxie. What he needs to be persuaded is that he was

misled. Tony Fauci needs to be bought before Conner. He needs to go to court. He needs to be prosecuted for what he did. And Trump needs to realize that he's been duped and he needs to have the temerity and the humility. And Bobby's the person to do this, is to persuade him that he took the wrong path, not because, you know, he acted on the advice he was given. Yeah. But, you know, they're undermining him from a different perspective. We've got to go about it the other way. Because if Bobby doesn't get back into that position

or isn't able to achieve in the next three years what we need him to achieve, we live in a very reactionary world, and the pendulum will swing back the other way, and it'll be worse than ever. And people need to realize that, that if their single most important concern is the health of their children,

the health of their grandchildren, then Bobby Kennedy has got to be allowed to do his job. I mean, I think the problem with being involved in any sort of side of the politics of health is, you know, the greater good. Right? This is the conversation that no matter how you try to avoid it, we demonize it, but it is a process. You know, you're in the position, Pierre. You've got his job. What do you do? What do you do? Do you say, I mean, this is the slippery slope every doctor's been on that knew that I'm watching vaccines and autism. But if I get public about it, my cancer research will stop. I'm saving lives with my other work. If I do this one thing, sure, I'll save those kids, but I will stop.

And this is the excuse. I think every doctor that knew better, they just say to themselves, Dr. Zervos, that the heart of our film and the heart of the Henry Ford study, if I do this, I will lose my career. And then what good work am I doing for anyone? is I think in this type of position. There's a lot of work I want to get done. I need to get to that work. And if I get fired here for making one move,

then what value is it? Is greater good acceptable? Is politics different than actual health? I do. So I'm not a politician, but I actually work closely with some colleagues who've spent their careers working on policy. And in a very simplistic view, it's been described to me, it's horse trading.

You don't just get what I'm doing. what you want because you make a good argument and it's for the greater good, right? To get there, it takes a lot of negotiation and tightrope walking. And you just brought in another variable. You have a president who has, you know, has this myopic view of the vaccines, either willful or deliberate. And so Bobby's sitting there upright. He knows where he wants to go. He knows how to accomplish the public good. Is it happening fast enough for everyone in the Maha movement? That was the whole thing. I know, Bobby. I've seen his work. He's been so consistent and morally upright, and he has a North Star,

and suddenly gets into office and people are like, how can he allow these things to keep going on? Like, they expect him to be granted a magic wand or a gavel when he gets in there? That's not how it works. He actually has limited power. He's a political appointee, and I think he's doing big things.

Look what he did to ASIP. Look what he did with the canceling 500 million of contracts, and he's not dead? I mean, that's not how it works. I mean, the amount of things that are going against him, that guy, he just killed. keeps going, right? He's got the media screaming in him for the last 20 years. Every time he opens his mouth, he's lampooned, made to look ridicule. I mean, he doesn't pay attention. He knows what he's about.

And so as soon as I heard, even amongst my colleagues and my network, these complaints about Bobby, I never had one. You know why? Because I know who he is. I know he's what he's trying to do. If we pretend, we think we could do better. Like, you ask me, what would I do? First of all, never. By the fact, I gave you a call. I know you called me. I know you called me. When you're not going to get in government, you're like, no, no, no, no. Love you, Del. Love this country, but that is not my calling.

You do you? I do me. But no, but I just want to say I don't know how, you know, what he should or should be doing, but he's still there. He's not even one year in, and he's made major things. Going back to the other thing about science, I thought I heard it, because every time I listen to Bobby, I learned something new, and he just makes more and more sense.

And at one point I heard him talk about, or maybe it was Bottacharya, An NIH journal. Right now, I don't know that government is going to stay free or this administration stays, but the problem with journals is that they're run by pharma. I mean, they're controlled completely by pharma. So you want to get good data published about a medicine or a therapy that makes no money. There's memos to all the journals, thou shalt not publish such science. If we had a journal that had some prominence,

which didn't have, you know, malevolent influences controlling and curating what gets published, that would be one way to break open the door into actually spurry, even these people in the Wild West that I call them, now they would be motivated to start collecting, publishing data on their different therapies. Now, would there be some corrupt studies there? Come on, money is the, you know, big incentive. But I just think it's just open it up. I mean, it's been closed.

I mean, medicine's so curated. The last I want to say is in that transformation, like the things that I've learned about the therapies, DMSO of Clarendoracide, I think back to my career. If anyone had, if I ever walked back into an ICU and was running an ICU, the stuff that I would be using, I mean, if I had the autonomy to do it, I mean, I would be kicking butt in the ICU like I'd never had before of what I learned. Even on therapies that don't have the rigorous studies, I've seen it, I've treated people, clinical observation still works.

It's gotten this four-letter word called anecdotal, right? Anytime I say, hey, I did this and it worked, suddenly I'm being screener. That's anecdotal data. That means nothing. What was the entire history of medicine built on? Right. Observations. And so, anyway, I just think Bobby's doing the best job he can in like the toughest job in the world.

I mean, he's got everything against them. And the last point is censorship, right? You talk about that. I want the entire country to realize that one of those devastating forms of censors, is character assassination. I've never seen someone's character been so vilified by the media for so long as Bobby Kennedy. And I've been, all of us here have been under the brunt of that. Like, they go after me because they need to damage my credibility, so no one listens to me. It's a way to silence me, you know? And, you know, the first time I read about myself in the paper, I was like, oh, man, I don't like that.

Oh, that's me. And so they do that all the time. When you read about it, when you read it, when you read it, when you read it, when you first read it it's a very thing it is you know the worst name it doesn't sink in it's not like you're driving like two hours later like wait a bit that was me you know just read about it's so bizarre i'm gonna say annie's number two after bobby in terms of the media and like really you know forged the trail suzanne politics is there any way to do that job well i have to admit that i have been guilty of criticizing um and i have had to kind of pull back and go I do remember him.

I remember him. I know what he's about. This doesn't make sense. It has to be bigger than this. And so I've kind of calmed down from criticizing him. And what I understand now is that it's not even Trump that's calling the shots here. I mean, we've got to go above Trump. We've got to go to Susie, you know, if we really want to know, have any effect whatsoever.

And who's she answering to? And so that's one of the reasons I left conventional medicine and left the hospital because I didn't want to take on a battle like that because I knew I would just be dogpiled. And in the end, all the work that I would do to try to prove that this vaccine was harming kidneys, my patients that I was actually watching, I didn't have the heart to do that. And it was that, and it was also that I felt that going to the people themselves, going to the parents. And if parents understood, you know, what's in vaccines, when they, it's just like any of us. When we first read it and you don't have any other nefarious interests, you just go, of course.

No, that, I don't want to do that to my child. And then you have to allay your fears as to, okay, well, what about polio? What about Hooping Cough? What about all this? There's answers to everything. So, yeah, I can't really, I can't put myself in his shoes. I wouldn't want to. I don't think I could withstand the criticism that he takes.

I couldn't have withstood the criticism that Dr. Wakefield has taken. Or any, actually, I've had it easy for the two of you pretty much, I think. Because I left. Like, they didn't kick me out. I was just like, this is not my party. I have to go. Yeah, so I had it much easier than the two of them. I want to thank you for joining us today.

What an amazing conversation. I know we can just go on and on. I do want you to stick around. We're going to do a little off the record after this show, and we're going to actually let the audience ask you some questions. Cool. I think it'll be a lot of fun. But for all of you that are out there and you're watching,

this is the high wire. These are the voices that we have brought attention to when we realize that no one in media was ever going to tell you the real story. No one in media was going to talk about Ivermectin. No one was going to talk about doctors and autism and studies that are now revealing what people this table have known for many, many years. You were getting it here and only here at times. That's who we are. That's what we do.

And if you're brand new, just take a look at all the great people have been on this show. The informed consent action network. You know them as I can. The high wire and I can fighting on your behalf. The high wire. You know Del Bigtree. Thank you to all the individuals who are watching on the high wire across the world. Without further ado from the Highwire, friend of mine, a friend of yours, Mr. Dell Victory.

We did it! Here we are! I'm just so proud of the High Wire. I'm so proud of Del. I'm so proud of the work that you guys have done because you guys are doing God's work. So wonderful to meet you in person. I thank you, of course, for all the work that you do and your consistency with pursuing truth. Thank you for that. I love the high wire, you guys. Thank you for what you're doing.

We need the truth. And you guys have been the brightest light in this movement. So proud of everybody at the high wire. This is the stuff that changes hearts and minds. I see Del Bigtree here who's done so much fabulous work and trying to raise public awareness. 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. Let's do this. Action. You guys are the mainstream media now. They're done. Dead. It's over. You said something that has really rocked me to the core. You said on all the childhood vaccines, what I was shocked to find is that there is no science at all. I want to tell you that a lot of what's in the book I learned from Jeffrey Jackson in his investigative reporting. You guys

taught me a lot during COVID. I want you to get that credit. And thank you so much, Doe. for your supporting the book and the information and all the kindness over the years. I can. I mean, the work you're doing is 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 US government through all the legal actions

that you and Aaron and I can have taken. You've been in a war zone of your own. It's a really lethal war zone, right? When you get into the realm of big farmer and all that money that is at stake there, all the power players, The ones of us who fight for truth and justice and righteousness to keep this country free for everyone, we are honest and upright and we're brave. I've been one of the silent people with injured children who have hidden behind you, rooting you on for years,

and it's time that I stand beside you. Thank you for spending your time in life, sharing these huge messages like you do with all of us and inspiring the heck out of us to keep going. I appreciate you and everything you've done for the world. This man is an indefatigable warrior behind the scenes. Anybody who knows Dell and knows his movement, the high wire, in the very beginning, is going to know this is the right place to come for the truth,

no matter what. You should be earning medals for the reporting that you've done over the years. Someday, you guys are going to deserve those Nobel Peace prizes and all those prizes someday because you are doing it. the greatest gift to humanity. I feel that this story has a happy ending. You've got parents, and they will never, ever be defeated, because they know the truth.

And that is why ultimately the mothers, the parents, the doctors who've aligned with them, and tried to understand the dilemma that they face will prevail. The truth is on our side. People need to decide which side you want to be on the losing side or the winning side. Amen to that. I want to thank this incredible.

audience that's joined us. Many of them have made a lot of what's happened here possible, just as you have out there in the audience. The high wire is an experiment. It was something many of us, many of the people on my team left CBS. We worked together on the doctor's television show. I got done touring with Vax, and I said, is it possible that we could do television quality reporting, but, you know, not bring in sponsors, not have the pharmaceutical industry telling us what we're going to say, not having oil and gas companies, you know, diapers, you name it, even, you know, food companies, because I want to report on all of them and they're getting in the way of us being able to tell the truth. It's why you're not hearing it

on the news. It's why Pierre Corrie is describing what that news is, is actual censorship. It is keeping you in the dark. The only way that we're able to do this show, that we're able to continue to bring on the heroes that are telling the truth, even though New York Times, Washington Post, you name it, are vilifying these people is because of your sponsorship, that no one tells us what we're allowed to report on. And your sponsorship has been so bold that we've been able to launch the most powerful legal campaign for medical freedom that has ever been, winning lawsuits against the FDA, the NIH, CDC, Health and Human Services, and then taking what we learned from those lawsuits, which had no money. When we won, no one pays us out,

pays us back, you know, but because you were there and you just kept saying, Dell, keep Aaron Siri in that courtroom, we are going to fund this. We were able to move on and take on larger and larger cases, bringing back the religious exemption to Mississippi. And now on the verge of bringing back the religious exemption to West Virginia. And as many of those, thank you, many who sat at this desk today said, you know what, really it's just about choice. If you want to inject your children with this, you know, witches brew of animal products as, you know,

and animal bacteria and viruses and blood products and even aborted fetal DNA and plasmids and all of this mess that, you know, Shakespeare writing Macbeth never imagined in this cauldron of witches. Look at it's a free country. But you do not get to force us. We certainly can't have a government that is no responsibility with a media that is not telling us to truth. We need to be free. We need to be free to make our own choices, which is the heart of the work that we do here. These are the five holdouts. We are working to free the five.

We're on the verge of West Virginia, which will drop to four. California, oh my God, that's going to be tough now. New York, Maine, Connecticut. And then we have a major case that we believe will go to the Supreme Court, and hopefully we will be able to undo the case from 1905 that has really helped. us back forever. We've got to get in and change the laws of this land. That is going to take work. And the film that we've put out an inconvenient study is a part of that work. So many people are now talking about where are the placebo trials because this film is getting to them, this study is getting to them. Why aren't we doing more studies? Why is there not a single nation

in the world that compare vaccinated to unvaccinated and show me that the vaccinated are healthier? your support of this work is making it possible to create a conversation. We started the highwire back in the beginning of 2017. No one could talk about vaccines. No one could talk about it in a mommy group. No one would allow you near it. Everyone was crazy. And I've been in podcasts all week talking about this film.

Mike Rose said just the other day, great podcast coming out with him. He said, I'm testing it on my 9 million audience. you know, my, you know, people that are following me and Dell, I'll tell you, it looks like it's 50-50 right now. I'm getting attacked by 50% of the people that usually love me and the other 50% are celebrating it. No one is in the middle. And I said, well, we're doing a lot better than when I started this just back in 2017, which is 10 to 90. We are now at 50-50, which means we are changing the world. And though this film is done and we're offering it for free, Don't you want everyone in the world to see it?

I'm traveling all over. We are going to start celebrating house parties. House parties are happening all over the world. If you're thinking about it, we will work with you to have a house party, get you the highest level quality. These are the house parties that have already been taking place all around the world. We want to cover that entire map. So when you donate to ICANN, you help us make that possible. And who knows, I might just show up one of your house parties, especially if it sounds like it's big enough.

For a big screening or in a theater, you know, we're going to make all of that possible, but it's only possible if you help us now. So please, if you're watching this show, make today to the day you decide to become a recurring donor to the news program that has been telling you the truth when no one else would. Just go to the top of the page, hit donate to ICANN. We'd love if you become a recurring donor. $25 a month for 2025 is the suggestion. But honestly, $1.

If I got $1 for all of you out there that are watching this all the time, you can't imagine what we could achieve. We'll make it easy. Just text the number 72022 and write in the word donate. And we'll send you a link right now so that you can become a donor and be able to say, hey, I was a part of that. I was a part of that movement that changed the world and fought to save our species. One of the easy ways to donate is to actually be a part of our terrorist program and buy a brick. This is a way that you can lay claim to this property that ICANN sits on. I'm just curious in this audience, how many of you guys have a brick?

That is awesome. Very, very cool. I hope you've all seen your brick out there because if you buy a brick, you can come and visit on a day like today and go out and see where it sits. Here's my favorite brick of the week. Hey, everybody. So my favorite brick of the week is this one. It sort of includes all of us, the ICAN Network.

I can decide to save our children. I can decide to defend our freedom. I can decide to change the world. I don't think you're going to say it any better than that. That's perfect. All right, let's go do this show. I want to thank my studio audience here today. I want to thank you for watching.

I want you to recognize, you know, take a moment to breathe in, you know, feel the sun shining down. We live in a different world now. This is a brand new conversation. We've got to retool and deal with it. where I believe we are now in the offensive position. We have shown our science. We have shown our work, and now the other side has none. They cannot show us a placebo trial.

They can't show us a study that shows that the vaccine are healthier. They are on the ropes and they are in desperate, desperate need for help. We're not going to give them that resuscitation. We're waiting for apologies. We're waiting for changes. But while that's happening, you need to tell everyone you know, which is a part of why there's such a vast group of people that are working here together. So many different organizations and this week,

CHD has got a conference that's come to Austin. I want to hit it one more time because all of the greatest speakers have come across this desk of the high wire. So many of them are going to be speaking at this event and you can still watch it online totally sold out here in town. There it is. Just type in there at the bottom childrenHD.org slash C-O-N-F-HW and take that in. These are the people that have risk their careers to bring you the truth and now they're standing up. They have suggestions and many of the questions we've asked here, how do you live a healthier life? How do we build a future? It is time to start thinking in terms of that. We know what we've run from. We've

run from the lives of government. We've run from the deceit of the pharmaceutical industry. It's time we all come together now. It's time to build a new system together. I think is the answer and that's what we're focused on. So go out there, celebrate where we are, but remember what Dr. Suzanne Humphrey said, we haven't won this yet. And it's only going to happen if you get brave enough to stand up and join us on the highwire. And I'll see you next week.