The Highwire with Del Bigtree - Episode 450: BROKEN FAITH

Episode Date: November 14, 2025

300+ ostriches were destroyed in Canada over a year-old PCR result. Del discusses what it means for farming, food security, independent science, and health freedom; Jefferey Jaxen breaks down a bombshell new study exposing major flaws in the PCR test that shaped global COVID policy and New details about the intelligence-linked “fact-checking” industry, including why President Trump is now threatening to deport one of its key players who once targeted ICAN; Aaron Siri, Esq., is put to the test to see if he can beat Elon Musk’s AI, Grok, in a vaccine quiz showdown.Guests: Katie Pasitney, Aaron Siri, Esq.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

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

Yeah! Let's do this. Action. Good morning, good afternoon, good evening. Wherever you are out there in the world, it's time for us all to step out onto the high wire. I've been having a lot of conversations lately, especially because there's been some, you know, great events. CHD had the Moment of Truth event. Maha just had a huge event in Washington, D.C., and there seems to be this momentum around this idea of medical freedom,

but even more specifically truth and science and transparency. I've been talking a lot about the, you know, COVID pandemic, which obviously we refer to a lot because it's a huge part of where we're at. But one of the things I keep getting asked is, you know, well, where do you think you're at? Where do you think the movement's at? What do you think is going on right now? And I've been saying, look, I'm singing in my car as I'm driving down the street because I believe in many ways we are at the beginning of the end of this entire regime and all of the insanity around it. partly in some ways due to the great work we've done here at the high wire and I can and other nonprofits like ours have been speaking truth and then I've always said built on the shoulders

this movement was built on the shoulders of you know parents that were telling their truth and talking about the injury to their children but as I've talked about it more and more I've said this statement Robert Kennedy Jr. is not HHS secretary for 50 more years. if it weren't for COVID. And what I mean by that is it was a huge awakening moment. Sure, because we had, you know, primed the pumps. We had all the information. And so many of you started tuning into the high wire during COVID and saying,

wait, I got to get my friends to watch this. Oh, my God. But they made a couple of critical, critical mistakes that they, meaning those who ever decided that they were going to try and take away all of our rights and get us to line up the vaccine aid and have vaccine passports, in this whole dystopian universe that was supposed to come to fruition. Number one mistake was we were all so busy up until COVID just trying to survive, working multiple jobs, you know, just trying to survive in the world.

We couldn't pay attention. No one at the time to read the vaccine insert. No one had the time to look at this issue. It was the one thing we were doing. We were already reading the labels on the food and we were testing the car seats and saying what crash tested it go through and really doing research on should I use stainless steel bottles for you know my baby or plastic or glass and all that but when it came to vaccines we just handed our babies over and said i got to be able to trust this part of it but then what happened is they

took these busy people and decided you know what let's lock them in their homes that's how we're going to finally get to the bottom is let's lock this locked them in their homes so they can't do anything at all huge mistake suddenly everybody's like well i got nothing to do um i used to have a short attention span. I used to only be able to hear a headline, but let me check out Robert Kennedy Jr. on Joe Rogan and watch that for three hours. And suddenly we had all of this time to start taking in all of this new information. Massive mistake. You know what the other major mistake was? The powers that be, the CDC and the FDA totally undermined the credibility, the doctors that trusted them, that believed them, their own foot soldiers. They said,

tell everybody the vaccine is 95% effective. Tell everybody that it's going to stop transmission. If they don't do it, they're not doing the right thing in the world. And so they did. They forced us to take the vaccine. They stood stalwart side by side, dancing and videos with each other because it was so important that we got this vaccine. And now, now they live in a world of shame, where they know it never could stop transmission,

where they know they're seeing blood clots and heart attacks and all sorts of issues. And yet, they're like, why did you do this to us? No one trusts me now. What's going on now? You see, the government so totally overstepped its bounds. Then the pharmaceutical industry, so marionetted, the WHO and all the world powers, so controlled them, that became obvious they were there. We suddenly said, normal governments don't do this. Normal people don't do this.

This isn't how science is supposed to work. You're not supposed to tell me something that's absolutely not true. what happened to the scientific method. Well, there's been another event that's happened just this last week up in Canada that I think may be the absolute death nail to authoritarian governments and the pharmaceutical control over the world as we know it. It happened up in Canada. One of the most outrageous, unbelievable, sad, horrific, tragic stories that we've ever seen,

especially for those of us that care about animals. This is what happened in an ostrich farm just this last week. Take a look at this. Breaking news out of British Columbia. The remote community of Edgewood, BC, finds itself at the heart of a dispute. Here at Universal Ostrich Farm, these roughly 400 ostriches have made headlines. They are supposed to be killed. For nearly 10 months, owners of the Universal Ostrich Farm have been fighting to save their birds.

after two tested positive for avian flu and dozens died. The CFAA's argument essentially has always been once birds test positive, positive for avian flu, that entire flocks be killed to prevent the spread of the virus. The remaining flock of 3 to 400 ostriches has been healthy for more than 250 days since then. And they claim the birds now have herd immunity to the disease. We've been fighting for retesting.

We just want an opportunity to re-testing. test these animals. American radio host and billionaire John Katzmatidis, along with Dr. Mehmet Oz, now the U.S. Medicare administrator held a news conference Monday, asking that the FDA be allowed to test the birds. People have traveled from around BC and across the country. They say they're here to protect the animals. A nearly year-long legal battle finally ended on Thursday, allowing the agency to proceed. The agency concluded the most. appropriate and humane option was to use professional marksman. 8, 59.

Supporters of the farm could be heard yelling, condemning the call. The farm owners say some of the birds have been with them for decades. This whole thing has been a master class and how not to handle conflict. They come here, make a massacre of healthy animals. What a lot of Canadians now see is they see it as government overreach. They see it as something that should never have happened. This is one of the biggest crimes in Canadian history. I'm joined now by Katie Pasitney, who works at the farm. Your mother, my understanding, owns the farm, so this is very close to you. Obviously, you're emotional.

I can't even imagine watching this. What are your thoughts right now as you reflect on this horrific event? On November 6th, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency waged war on our family. And they waged war on our farm in a peaceful valley with over 300 healthy, prehistoric, sentient beings that had names. They had personalities. They had been in our family for decades. They were our identity. And not one of those animals were ever tested.

Not one of those ostriches that got gunned down by cowards in the middle of the night. Not one of those animals had ever been tested. So you tell me how we had a head doing something like this. You tell me how does a family or a country country come back from a massacre, a barbaric massacre like this. Treating life like it doesn't matter, like heartbeats don't exist, that emotions and livelihoods of farmers that have dedicated their lives to some of them nutritional food supply, some of them science and innovation, some of them they're just their pets and in Canada it's like we've lost all meaning for what life

means for what life is these animals were tortured by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency our family has been terrorized by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency for over almost 11 months terrorized there's been no transparency there's been no innovation there's been no willingness to cooperate or collaborate with us and work with us. A simple test could have stopped one of the most heinous barbaric acts against animals in Canadian history. A simple test. And worse, there's no going back from this,

but the one thing Canadian Food Inspection Agency did, they exposed themselves. On November 6th, Canada woke up the world, some behind TV screens and computer screens, But there were hundreds here that they will never ever, we'll have PTSD for the rest of our lives, for that gunfire, that rapid gunfire, taking away lives of animals that were put in a killpin and made to watch each other die, tripping over each other's bodies from the people they trusted humans. We made them trust humans because we love them. And we taught them to trust humans. They were designed to run away from predators,

running 45 miles an hour out of when they were afraid. And they would have been running in that pen, hitting and bouncing off each other. And instead of running from predators, they got killed by, I guess, one of the biggest predators right now is humans. And there was no, it was a barbaric needless act. And as this story goes, we're getting people that are even phoning truckers that were bringing hay in our farm and finding out that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency was having such a hard time even finding that hay to build that kill pen, that they used my name. They used my name to buy that hay to build that kill pen, tricking people into thinking they were trucking hay that I ordered for bedding.

And then that truck driver got here and he saw what the bales were being used for and as trucking company said to get out of here. And the RC&P held him hostage here until he unloaded his hay. Wow. They say that this is about virus. If you watch every video for the past month, you will see that this has nothing to do about a virus. Well, I mean, that's something that we talk a lot about on this show. And I think is what this story is really about is what they've just. exposed this, you know, what it's not, what's it called, it's not the FDA and the CDC. It's the name of

the group that did this. Canadian food inspection agency. So the Canadian food inspection agency essentially just showed the world that they are not a scientific organization. They use science to bring authoritarian, you know, pressure and power upon innocent people. But it is clear. Let's go back to when this started. 11 months ago, my understanding is a few of your flock, you know, contracted avian flu, which they've been trying to hype the fear of bird flu around the world is the next big pandemic. But you had a couple of birds get sick. Is that correct? Yeah, we actually had 69 die. Okay. We were a flock well over 400, almost 500. Right. Yeah. And then so what happened was,

more than three-quarters of our farm never got sick. And through our legal advancement that we've done, we found out that it started to make sense because more than half of our farm experienced these same symptoms in 2020. But those ostriches, we lost 10 at the time. We got a vet to come on board. And obviously, we did our due diligence as a farm. And those tests came back positive for pseudonymous bacteria.

and that was done off our proper tissue sample test, not a PCR test. Now, speed up to 2024, we start seeing some of these same symptoms that presented themselves in 2020, but they were only identifiable and only in the ostriches that have been on our farm from 2020 after. Okay. So that makes sense because our ostriches from 2020 prior had immunity. Right. So they weren't sick. Their firewall was active.

It was working and they weren't getting sick. So again, we contacted our vet at the time. It was holidays, so it was really hard to get a hold of him. And we were just waiting a call back, but we did our own quarantining, our own cleaning of the dishes. You start your own process being a farmer. And then an anonymous call went into Canadian Food Inspection Agency saying they were sure we had avian influenza. And then that's where this all started was we allowed them into our farm. We allowed them to take those two PCR tests and run them at 39 cycles.

We allowed them to take our tests and go to the Abbotsford Lab unknowingly that that was an unaccredited lab to test for H5N1. And 41 minutes after that test result came back from a non-accredited lab, they signed our kill order. Courtney Fulneringham signed our kill order, yeah, knowing that we had science, knowing that we had research, knowing that these animals were hit hurt immunity, knowing that we were doing a great job here. We were isolated. We're not in a city or a major center. We were no threat. They don't fly. And we had, so they also had a five and a half hour Zoom call with us, which was more like an interrogation. They wanted all of our science. all of our research they wanted our business plan they wanted all of our bets we've spoke to they wanted to know everything and after they knew everything they still decided no we're not yeah no we're not interested um they got all die we went through exemption packages we tried to do everything but again the c fia was giving us exemption packages based on poultry a commercial poultry facility which were not the exemption packages listed turkeys geese ducks and chickens not one

mention of an emu aria an ostrich and so we kept saying we cannot work with these questions they they don't pertain to our farm yeah and they kept threatening if you don't answer these questions then you're in non-compliance and they all die anyway on january second we got a letter that said we qualify for special rare genetics in eight days somehow we lost the qualification for that by just them deciding that they're understaffed and they don't want to take the tests. So January 10th, we were given a notice that by February 1st, we were supposed to kill every one of these animals ourselves and bury them in our dayfield.

So from January 10th to February 1st, we were the experts in handling a virus, a supposed virus. Wow. But then February 1st, when we became non-compliant, then it became that we were not compliant and you know comply or die and that's what the race that we've been in since January since January 10th it's been comply or die up to this point and you've been fighting it and fighting it for obviously months and months we're 11 months out so any any issue that would have existed is gone now if anyone

knows anything about the science and you would think we want to live in a world where, you know, we've built herd immunity, where those that have immunity, which your flock clearly does now. And, you know, if the thought was it was a wild bird, a duck or something that came in and infected your ostriches, it had its effect, but now you are holding down the future of health, which is all of your birds, you know,

if science works the way it has since the dawn of man and everything we now know to be true, these beautiful birds are holding down health. There's not another wild bird that can probably infect them for quite some time until a real, you know, evolution happens with that virus. So none of this is scientific. So do you feel like they're just following through because they don't want anyone like you to ever resist again?

Like it won't matter if you ride us out. It won't matter if we lose to the science and the timing we need. Do you feel like you're being made an example of here? Oh, yeah. They wanted to say that we were setting a dangerous precedent that farmers would now start to fight their culls. Ah. But they were setting the most dangerous precedent of all,

and you've just nailed it, is that antibodies don't exist, that natural immunity doesn't exist, herd immunity doesn't exist, and that is what they're teaching the world. And that is the most dangerous precedent of all, because by stamping out, it sounds really strong,

but when you pair it out with stamping out natural immunity and humanity is at risk, it doesn't sound so pretty. And that's what we're doing is we're losing our generational farmers, our lineage, we're losing our genetics, we're losing our biodiversity in all of our livestock and our animals. And that is going to lead to a catastrophic failure of a chain of events. And that will put humanity at risk and it will make you and me and my kids and my grandkids fully reliant on vaccinations for survival because there is no more natural immunity. You know, they want to say that this was about virus. This was not about virus.

This is about a family that had a therapeutic advantage in the industry that would have made, put, you know, big pharma. We would have put them at risk of losing money and holding onto that tight threshold of vaccines for health. Therapeutics are just, it's a natural way of using the antibodies out of the ostrich eggs. we have big scientific proof that their antibodies are so robust and we have a hundred chicken eggs worth of antibodies in one ostrich egg. They're prehistoric by need for for a reason. They have such an amazing immune system. So you were actually working just because I read this in the article and I saw one of the

last sentences of one of the articles talked about how you were actually looking into the therapeutic value of these antibodies and these birds that are now totally. immune. They're producing animals that are in the egg yolks of these ostriches. And so you were starting to look at is there a natural way we can use this, you know, where obviously drugs wouldn't be involved, vaccines. I mean, I immediately just thought, uh-oh, this is where you've stepped into a danger zone with pharma, right? Now you're competing. Now I have a natural way that maybe we could look at, are there in these egg yolks and these birds that have gotten through this Is our future? Is there a way to bring immunity through these antibodies that are now

being found prolific inside of the egg yolks of your healthy ostriches? Yeah, and there was. We were at the usable stages of science. We were offering the Canadian government stockpiles of avian influenza H5N1 antibodies to begin to start to mitigate the risk that we've been seeing across the world across Canada first but to start to use these antibodies and they said there was a no uh so one where we go along the further though there is so many things that don't make sense i found that in march so this was happening in january february we're disclosing all of our details our research or information um the importance of our antibodies and these eggs and showing them our test results from a clinic in Quebec called Immune Biosolutions.

Now, in March, while they're trying to still to fight to kill every one of our animals rather than keep them for research and collaboration and work with us, they gave almost a million dollar grant to a lab in, was this one in Quebec, named LaFont Medical, to create one of the products that we said we were creating, which was a diagnostic test kit for farmers to use using antibodies. So while we were offering the collaborative innovation and the science for free, they went and gave a grant for almost a million dollars to LaFont Medical, a private lab.

So, you know, here again, so now we're looking at our research, going to be used somewhere. Again, I can't say that it's our, you know, this is in our opinion, but at the same time, we're noticing while we were under a state order of the Supreme Court, we were watching the numbers of our animals decrease in our fields and we didn't know why. Now, some people think we're crazy. Canadian food inspection agency said nothing left here dead. So the one thing that we can hypothetically guess at is where did they take?

some of our older ostriches did they steal them and are they in Ontario or Quebec and do they have our lineage and our genetics from our decades old strong robust beautiful ostriches from around the world do they have those birds still alive because they wouldn't they would never we even opened up an investigation to look we wanted to count our ostriches that's it we just wanted to be able to go in with a vet and count how many ostriches were there Canadian food inspection agency would not allow us. So we started doing aerial shots. So they were blocking you from contact like you were like you weren't able to get into your own flocks at a certain point?

No. No. September 22nd they came in with these warrants to search and when they gave those to us, they they took over a complete seizure of our whole property and our animals. However on the 22nd, We've received an email from Courtney Fulteringham from Canadian Food Inspection Agency asking as farm as a farm to continue to feed and water the animals to support them because then they and they would just continue on with preparing for the worst outcome. Now we never challenged, we never fought them setting up. We were waiting for a Supreme Court answer. And so we were staying in the pens to feed them.

But we were being told to get out. So my mom and I decided to stay in there and fight for the right to feed them and keep them calm while their world was going to turn upside down. And we said, just please let us feed them. And they finally agreed. We told them about that email. They agreed we could feed them. We go off in our farm truck and we are feeding for about a half an hour. And then our farm truck is surrounded by four police cop cars and a van.

And they tell us that we're under arrest. So my mom and I were arrested for feeding our animals. Wow. And now they're trying to charge us with a criminal act under the Section 35, paragraph 2 of the Animal Health Act. Get this one. Charge us criminally under the Animal Health Act that we were impeding an officer from doing their duties. Wow. It's absolutely just, you can't.

It's horrible. I mean, I don't want to make it political. but, you know, I went to film school up in Vancouver, and I remember years and years ago just thinking, wow, you know, it's beautiful. Socialism looks like it works. And now I will say we are seeing, and all through COVID we saw this, how few rights you have in Canada, when an authoritarian government decides it's right, it can take two PCR tests and destroy a livelihood, a living, a family,

and perhaps even the future of science, as we know it, an investigation. and that's what's happened here. So take me to November 3rd, I think you said it is. What was that day like? As it's become clear, I mean, were you aware that there's just no stopping? At what point did you know we've lost this? They're coming in. They're going to kill our birds.

It was November 6th morning. Oh, number 6th, okay. And we got a decision from Supreme Court that they decided to not hear our case. and at that moment we knew we knew that we knew that there was no stopping we asked them if we could say goodbye to our animals and they said no we asked them after they barbarically gunned them down if we could pray over them and they said no um their reason being they said that they were scared they were scared from us and we said could you imagine How every one of these animals felt in the middle of the night when the gunshot started in the dark, they were supposed to be resting.

And instead they were running into one another, watching their brothers and sisters die that they've been with for 30 years. And they were looking for humans to protect them because, like I said, we taught them that humans were safe. And we taught them that they could trust us. And they murdered my mom's identity that night. They murdered our family's identity that night. And they've scarred a world forever. We have calls coming from all over the world that watched that. And everybody agrees that maybe God just needed to take home.

One of the biggest sacrifices to make one of the biggest, biggest changes in the world because we need to start to lead this world by compassion we need to start to bring back conscience and we have to bring back unity and the one best thing to do that is animals because I think everybody can agree that no animal deserves to be or get barbarically gunned down in the middle of the night and we can be their voices and by their by their heinous this act as murder that happened to on our farm with those bullets ringing out in the middle of the night 900 to a thousand gunshots

will never sleep without thinking of what that sounded like so they didn't even warn us the rcmp didn't warn us it was going to start they trapped our supporters up on the highway wouldn't let them back down our road to get to their motor home so that they could go and they didn't have to listen to it they trapped them for hours on the highway to the birds running and gunshots. This is something that will never go away. And I pray that the world never forgets about what happened November 6th because this has to change how we see leadership,

how we display humanity. And we have such a big opportunity here with the world. world be such a vulnerable space to create true leadership and bring true leadership forward. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency had to come back in the morning, those professional marksmen, they call themselves. They had to come back in the morning and finish shooting a couple of our ostriches that laid there in pain all night. We heard the gunshots ourselves. They're lying and they say that they didn't. They lie. That's what they do the best. they lie and kill Canadian food inspection agency lies and kills they do not tell the truth

they are not transparent they do not heal they do not protect they do not preserve they lie and they kill that is what their job is and we need a new agency that knows how to protect life preserve life and support our agricultural sector as well as as you know I have empathy empathy for Well, you know, we won't forget the story. I think the images of those ostriches being mass secured, perfectly healthy, as you pointed out, hadn't had any illness from the original situation to PCR tests. You were never allowed to test any of the healthy animals as they were there. And, you know, and now what we're looking at is an anti-science regime that uses science as a weapon

but won't actually produce science. courtrooms that don't care about actually the science, and we are all being governed by these things. It's around the world. I do want to recognize that Dr. Oz, the head of CMS, reached out. I know that he had offered to take the ostriches on his own property. Robert Kennedy, Jr., the head of HHS in America, wrote a letter to the agricultural minister saying, please don't do this. their science will do the testing for you. America offered our regulatory agencies offered to go in and test every bird. What, you know, what would that cost?

Nothing. And instead, none of that happened. And so I think this is a face of socialism. I think it's the face of authoritarianism. And I think it's the face of things to come in the future if we do not stand up together as people and share this very important story. I'm so sorry to you and your family. But I, you know, I have the same prayer that you do that somehow I hope that this horrific incident, you know, wakes us up to, you know, the cruelty and the lack of science that these regulatory agencies are running by.

It's not science, it's control. And that control must be broken or we're going to be broken as a people, this species. Such a sad story. please give your best to your mother and everyone there that had to go through this and know that we support you we're praying for you if there's anything we can do the website for anyone that wants to get involved in this conversation save our ostriches.com I just think this is it is it's it's something that we've got to be aware of because it can affect us in so many different ways and the next

pandemic, this fear, this disease driving burden of how they want to control us. It's so obvious here. The story makes it so obvious. One last thing. I mean, they didn't follow any of their policy here. They were in hazmat suits, not in hazmat suits. People with regular clothes on in the hot zone taking hay from the hot zone, filling holes for police officers to drive their cars on. They were, they've exploded all the bales that they trapped all the ostriches in to kill them. They're all exploded over our hayfield right now with hundreds of ducks in it. So now you have your, there's your real risk is the migratory birds. It's not the flightless animals and the animals on people's farms that are the risk. And again, you know, so they haven't even followed any of

their protocol. And it just goes to show you that one more layer of why this had nothing to do with the virus, but ultimately control. You're so right. Katie, thank you for sharing your story with us. As I said before, our prayers are with you. Take care. Thank you. Thank you very much. Yep. Well, I mean, we've watched this time and time again, and I know we don't want to reflect on COVID and we don't want to look at the fact that we were all locked down with no science

and you've got Tony Fauci questioning me, you're questioning the science, obviously that'd be the same situation of their question, you know, their food inspection agency, you're questioning the science. There's no science. There's no science in PCR tests or anything. In fact, it's a lot of what we're going to get in today with Jeffrey Jackson, so let's get to it. It's time for the Jackson Report. Hey, Jeffrey. Well, that's an incredibly sad story, but it exemplifies just how insane these government

officials are, these regulatory agencies, supposed health departments are around the world. And you're going to get into some of that, so let's get into it. Yeah, you know, that brought up some uncomfortable memories of the pandemic. I should say the failed pandemic response. And one by one, we're knocking these planks out. And let's knock out the PCR. So she mentioned that that PCR test was ramped up. Cycle threshold was ramped up.

We know that's a problem. And this PCR test, it's essentially for COVID and Albert flu, it's maybe the best that governments have, but it's a failed technology. And what was that used for? Let's look at Germany. Now, Germany was an example, but this was happening in Canada, in the United States. Here's the headlines in 2021 and 2022. Germany to extend lockdown until mid-February, mall's curfew. Here's another one. Schools will close in Germany as cases

surge. Just to remember what that was like. You wake up and you're locked down. And the primary technology to use, the government is used to lock people down, keep them locked down, keep them in, you know, when they fly into an airport, they have to be in a quarantine hotel, was the PCR test. And we tried to warn people in 2021. This is what it sounds. sounded like. All right. So in January, a German virologist named Christian Drozden, he created a new laboratory assay to detect the coronavirus from the German Center for Infection Research. Now, the breaking news on this is this paper is being contested, and by extension, so is this new assay PCR test that is being used. And that's the PCR test that's being used really everywhere throughout the world.

This is what's driving the lockdown, right? I just saw, you know, California, you're not allowed out of your house. You can't get in a car. It can't get on a bicycle. Can't do anything because the PCR tests are showing that there's this dramatic increase in cases. So the PCR is being contested by 22. These are credible health professionals. They've done an external peer review because they're basically stating the first one was not peer reviewed. They sent it to you. Euro surveillance editorial board asking for a retraction. This is something that's very interesting and it speaks to the cycling. And this is directly from the paper. We've talked about the cycling. They go right in. This is probably the most concise description I've ever seen. And they say about the cycling, if someone is tested by PCR as

positive when a threshold of 35 cycles or higher is used, as is the case in most laboratories in Europe and the US, the probability that said person is actually infected is less than 3%. Whoa. The probability that said result is false positive is 97%. I have to say it's weird to watch that. I don't know why in this clip I'm just thinking, as I'm describing all the way back in 2020, California's lockdown, no one can leave their house. There's something chilling about remembering

that that actually happened to us. We're so good as human beings is just like putting in the past, compartmentalizing it and moving on. But right as that was happening, 3% accuracy with a study. And she, you know, that was 35 percent. I think she just described the PCR test, the two tests on her birds at 39, I think, cycle instead of the 30, the 35 that was described as being so inaccurate.

But just, I mean, it was obvious then. It's obvious now will be obvious forever. They were trying to inflate these numbers to create a fear. It had nothing to do with science because the science absolutely sucked on these things. Sorry for any children watching, but I just have no other way to describe it. And now we have the science from Germany, not strangely enough, but ironically enough, where the PCR test came from, Christian Drozden in the German virologist lab. So we have this study now looking at the PCR test, looking back at the PCR test that was used during COVID.

And this is a calibration of nucleic acid PCR by antibody IgG tests. So what they were doing was they were looking at the PCR tests, who is testing positive, who is testing negative, and they have a blood banks, and they were checking their antibodies, their IGG antibodies, to see who is actually positive or negative. And so the researchers say this. The principal finding from our analysis of ALM, ALM data, that's the consortium of accredited laboratories. About 90% are, they did about 90% of the testing in Germany, these consortium of laboratories. They have access to all that data.

And they said this. We've got to fast forward right down to the bottom. It's this. This is the principal finding, 14% and possibly even fewer, down to 10% of individuals. individuals identified as SARS-CoV-2 positive via PCR testing were actually infected as evidenced by detectable IgG antibodies. 10%. So that report that we did said about 3%, 97% inaccurate. Pretty close. Yeah, 90% inaccurate. And in the final details. I mean, that was saying it could be as inaccurate as 3%, which I'm sure some of them were. But now we find out because they went and

test the actual blood that matched the samples that had said they were positive, took all those positive samples then, went down their real blood and said they weren't positive. 90% of them weren't positive. What does that mean for the world? I mean, it's mind-blowing when you think what we went through and all of it based on like the worst science of all time. Yeah, think about this, lockdowns, nursing homes. PCR was used to test infections for the vaccine studies. And so let's go to these researchers again, because they do brilliantly push back here, and they say this. The proportion of the German population with a detectable immune response to SARS-CoV-2 was already substantial by the end of 2020. Approximately one quarter of the population

carried IGG antibodies at that point, following a trajectory determined almost exclusively by natural infections. By the end of 2021, practically the whole German population could be considered IGG-positive. But then they wanted to say this. In consequence, German authorities had timely and reliable access to this data, tracking the course of IgG seropositivity, data that were in fact close to being population representative. These data could have served as an objective metric for monitoring the proclaimed epidemic situation

of national significance. But they didn't do it. They had access to this. They could have checked. All they cared about is how many tests can you do? And that's all they cared about here in the US. Just get more tests, more tests. They'd never decided to check it with,

let's look at the blood and see who's actually IGG positive and see how actually, accurate these tests are. They could have done that at any time and they did not. But we don't know much about this virus. It's very little. We know. What we know is we're not going to look at anything that would give us any information. I want to point out to Jeffrey and I've said it. It's a really good time to say this again for everyone that's watching new. In America, using the same PCR test, just as diabolically, horrifically, horrifically, inaccurate. But you know where you needed to be where you don't want to have that happening,

where they're scrubbing your brain with this stupid, you know, 12 inch long cue tip. only place in America that you were guaranteed to never have to stick that swab. No, not preschool. They'll do it to your preschool kid in order to go to preschool. And not in a holiday. I mean, everybody were like, we were doing it once, twice a week. Many people were doing it. There was jobs.

I had friends in Hollywood had to do it in the morning and in the afternoon just to stay on the job. Totally insane. But there was one place. There was a sanctuary for people that didn't want to ever get tested with a PCR test. You know where that was? it was in all the trials for the COVID vaccine. The only place they couldn't afford to test anybody

was to see if the vaccine actually stopped transmission. They never did PCR tests on anyone in the trial when the entire point was, can we stop this? You know, why? Because they know they would have tested positive. It'd probably been inaccurate, right? But the one place when you were like making a product was going to suddenly stop this pandemic,

the only place they weren't testing to see if you were infected was on the people that were getting the test that was supposed to be able to prove it could stop infection. The whole thing is just, it's gross to go back to it hurts my brain to think about the fact that we went through this and that most of these people, like

Tony Fauci and Deborah Burks and everyone involved around the world, they're still walking around with smiles and scarves instead of in jail. It's outrageous. Let's keep knocking out these planks, since we're talking about the science that supposedly saved us from a pandemic,

a once-in-a-century pandemic, a lot of the information we look at regarding the COVID vaccine shows that this didn't save millions of lives. There's mounting issues from immune system to myocarditis and everything in between, and we're still finding this out, yet we see headlines like this from the independent. COVID-Jab presents less harm for patients than the virus itself. Study reveals. When I see this, I go, what study are they talking about? Because there's literally a robust mountain of science showing the opposite of that.

So let's break this study down a little bit. It's in the Lancet. And this is the study right here. It's called vascular and inflammatory diseases after COVID-19 infection, looking at children and young people in England. First thing you want to notice, this is how you break down a study. We define, they say, an infection cohort following individuals' outcomes associated with COVID-19 diagnosis from January 1, 2020. That's the study start date to March 31st, 2022. So let me just say this. January 2020. So the vaccine didn't come out for another

until end of December. So you took a look at about a year there. And also January 2020, you're talking about no natural immunity, lockdowns, no early treatment. Stay at home until you need to be put on a ventilator. Literally the height of the failed pandemic policy, hell on earth when it comes to that. And that's when they're saying, we're going to test those people And we're going to test them against people who receive the vaccine starting in, if you go back to that, starting in August 6th, 2021 to December 31st, 2022. That's where we're going to test them against. So the study group on the unvaccinated is right at the height where all the elderly are dying in old folks' homes, all of that sort of dry grass, if you will, the people that were very, very susceptible to the virus that had weakened immune systems, they're all dying. That's the group we look at in the unvaccinated.

group. Then we wait all the way to August, did you say, of 2021 to finally start looking at how the vaccine was working. Okay, got it. Continue on. I'm tracking that. Yep, yep. And so the research are using this natural momentum in this study. I mean, you could look at driving a car during those two times and it would show you were immune to COVID and you had better outcomes. I mean, really, this is just natural momentum. But don't take my word. Look with the German study. we just said what they showed is by the prevalence by the middle of 2020 you know one there you have they believe Germany was already immune so you're going to a group that are already immune by the time they're receiving the vaccine they're not even at a risk by the time you're testing their success rate

okay exactly yeah so let's let's take a little side trail here to another study just to drive this point home so it's not just you and I saying this was a bad time this is the infection dynamic in England for those 23 months, and this is what it talks about. In IFR, it says during 2020, we estimated the IFR, the infection fatality ratio to be 0.67 and the IHR, the infection hospitalization ratio, basically who gets hospitalized when they have COVID, to be 2.6%. But by late 2021 and early 2022, the IFR and IHR and IHR had both decreased to 0.097% and 0.76% respectively. So you're talking orders of magnitude smaller during that time.

Massive momentum for this study. So let's go back to the Lancet study that they're telling us the infection is so, so dangerous compared to the vaccine. And they produce, with all that data, they produce this graph, this buff. And this is what's making the headlines here. So when you look at this, you see the red and the green. These are the natural infection, the just natural diagnosis that they're saying so bad for us compared to that blue, which is the vaccination.

And you're looking on the left side, you're looking at, myocarditis, pericidias, inflammatory conditions, thrombocytopinia. And you can see, according to their chart, that blue line there looks like the vaccine isn't having any issues. In fact, there's some negative efficacy, according to them for inflammatory conditions. So it's actually helping you, but you don't think you look at the bottom of that chart, and it says outcomes after six months of either COVID-19 diagnosis or vaccination. So not only did they not choose that basically year and a half window at the beginning, They chose literally the first six months of the pandemic for the infection cohort,

and then the first six months in 2021 for the vaccination cohort. So they even narrowed that focus even smaller to get this effect. But our data team, our international researchers, took all the data in this study. We didn't look at time windows. We took it all, and we compared the vaccination versus COVID infection rate. We came up with this graph, which looks a little different. You're not going to make those headlines from the independent with this graph. You see the orange is the vaccinated groups and the natural infection is the blue.

And you can see here the orange is really leaps and bounds for myocarditis. You see for inflammatory issues, pulmonary embolism, venous thrombotic event, stroke. I mean, you have some major issues there for vaccinated group, but you don't hear that too much. So let's talk about the vaccinated group because what is the vaccinated group? Define, you know, you want to ask these researchers from the Lancet define your definition in the vaccinated group. Well, it says right here in the paper, COVID-19 vaccination was defined as a record of the first dose of Pfizer's vaccine. Period. Wow. That's it. Just one dose. One dose. And so what do we know about one dose of vaccination? Well, we know one dose

of vaccination. I'm sure the researchers knew this too. It shows not much myocarditis. In fact, I want to take another side conversation to this study just to nail this home. this study here looked at the millions of people, it took millions of people, looked at acute myocarditis following the third dose of the vaccine. It says this, the incident rate ratio for myocarditis for the first shot was 0.86% looking at background basis. I remember reporting on this, Jeffrey. Remember saying it's not that first shot.

It's the second one and it's the third one. There's something that's priming you, but you take that second one and you really have an issue. And by the way, they know that. And then so I'll let you continue on. But remember everybody, they're doing a study. And this is the, this is the, you know, the diary of how to fix a study. This is how you do it. This is how you get it to say what you want to say.

By the way, Jeffrey, can you imagine how many different ways they did this study before they finally got the one we get to see published? Oh, no, no, no. Back up. How about just the first six months after they get the infection? No, no, move it back to make sure the unvaccinated right at the height of COVID. And then let's make sure everyone's immune by the time we test the vaccine. Oh, that those numbers are looking better. Now we're getting somewhere.

Oh, you know what we should do? Instead of having the actual, you know, mandate, which was two FISA vaccines, let's just start right after the first one. When all was happening was priming, it was the second one did all the difference. So don't even show any of the data after the second one. Woo-hoo! Now this study's looking good. Unbelievable.

They went so out of their way. It's almost as if they started with, we want this headline from the independent. That's exactly what they started with. And this is how they came to that conclusion. So we look at this study, looking at millions of people with myocarditis, and it shows that second dose is over four times more likely to get myocarditis in that second dose. And by the third dose, you're 2.61 times more likely to get myocarditis. They knew that. They did it anyway. And this, like you said, is how to cook that study.

Wow. That is amazing, Jeffrey. I mean, I hope, you know, I know we get in the weeds here sometimes, but I felt like you really laid that out. When people go, I don't understand how does this study just say it's going against the mountains? of study we've been hearing about. This is how they do it. This is how the CDC had been doing their studies prior to Robert Kennedy Jr. Why do you think Farm is so pissed he's there? Because the days of the cook, the book, studies are over. They're over. All right? We're going to do real science now, right? We're going to be not objective. We're just going to like open up, be totally objective and say we're not choosing sides. We're putting it all on the table.

And we still have a lot of people to wake up because independent media is now surging. People are still waking up. And the reason we have been behind is because of the censorship. It's really a military-style censorship that we have been facing, and so many others like us have been facing to get this information out. So there's a reason you need to hear about that 2020 report about the PCR testing and about the cycle thresholds and how inaccurate it was because we were being censored and so many other people were.

And this is the breakdown of how that happened. I want to just paint a picture here in the United States, but this is not just in the U.S. This is in other countries as well. In 2007, you had the Department of Defense. They had a policy memo, a memorandum, and they outlined how to control the internet, internet activity, news. And you can see in this memo, you take this line, it says this policy applies to public affairs, activities, and programs, products, and actions that shape emotions, motives, reasoning, and behaviors of selected foreign entities.

And it goes on to say, it is the responsibility of all combatant commanders, that's what they call it, to determine when the internet communications of specific individuals and websites rise to the level equivalent to a news organization, that's us. And so the military says, we wanna control your reasoning, your behaviors, your motives, and shape your emotions. So this doesn't just talk about COVID.

Think about all the other headlines you're seeing that are emotive, that are shaping people's emotions. Think about this as you go into this. So luckily, that's just for foreign entities, right? Well, in 2013, you had the Obama White House signed the Smith-Mund Modernization Act. So what does that mean? Since 1948, the United States and its military

could not use money, taxpayer money, to propagandize American citizens. Well, in 2013, that was reversed. And it was go time. And that's that headline here, 2013, US repeals propaganda ban spreads government-made news to Americans. Just in time for COVID. But our military and our news and our government

weren't the only ones doing this. You can see it right, bold-faced in the UK in 2020. They put it right on the open for everyone to see. They said this, the British Army's information warfare unit is helping combat coronavirus misinformation. Great idea. And by 2023, Army's information warfare unit monitored COVID lockdown credit.

So they had dossier on people. They were monitoring journalists, monitoring government officials about what they said, trying to censor them. And at the same time, you had fear being pushed into the populations, are being monitored and they say, well, you know, our use of fear here in this headline and control behavior, remember that military document, fear to control behavior in COVID crisis was totalitarian

amidst scientists, of course it was. Because all we heard during the COVID crisis was we're going to war with a virus. Misinformation is killing people. This is military talk. And in the middle of that dropped in a gentleman named Imran Ahmed. He led the Center for Connering Digital Hate. This is a foreign censorship operation and it reached into the United States and it tried to destroy people's livelihoods and it also tried to stop our free speech during COVID in fact a lot of people remember this headline majority of COVID misinformation came from 12 people report fines that was ccdh's report and they use that report to pressure people like facebook and instagram to take accounts down and they did and the censor websites the again UK operative pressure in tech companies this is what

happen. At the same time, you have NewsGuard pop up, our friends at NewsGuard. These are fact checkers that were just built in to every single website. And you can see NewsGuard's own publications here. They were complaining that to the WHO and the Facebook and Instagram was allowing anti-vaccine super spreaders to flourish is what they said. And you go into this article and says, I can, our very own ICANN has been identified as spreading health care misinformation and four of NewsGuard's reports to the WHO. They even started a coronavirus. Miss Info Tracking Center. And they said, among the myths, let's look at their track record.

You know ours. The NewsGuard says, among the myths, published by the websites, are false claims that methods like masks and social distancing are ineffective in slowing the spread of the virus. I love how that is like stood up in history. Fantastic. Yeah. Didn't age well.

Just made up. That was admitted. So we even have a NewsGuard email here. We get these regularly. Yes, we do. We get these regularly. Newsguard says, explain this, explain your legal letter, explain why you're suing CDC for asking for the science to show that vaccines don't cause autism and why isn't CDC finding these? So you're seeing that, but you're, let's go back. So you have these fact checkers, you have NewsGuard, you have CCDH, and you have this overarching kind of military response, trying to censor everybody.

And the reason we're bringing this up is these things are still happening right now. They're just a little slicker. They're not so overt because they can't use COVID as an excuse. But I seem to remember that you had a run-in with Mr. Ahmed on a news organization due to some bad switching. Yeah, every once in a while when tech goes wrong, something crazy happens. I was actually doing an interview with a local journalist who I guess was going to be interviewing Imran a little bit after me. And I was already challenging her saying your science is all along. Well, let's take a look at what happened here. It was life.

What have I not asked you? asked you, you know, about you guys receiving these PPP funds that you want me, you know, you want people to take away from our conversation today. I don't think that I have any questions about what you're asking about PPP. What I would say is I hope the doctor you're interviewing, I want you to ask a very specific question of them. Does this vaccine eliminate the infection known as SARS-CoVit? and does it stop transmission of SARS-CoV-2?

As a reporter, if you ask that question, that accurately, and they say, well, it gets rid of the COVID-19, you will recognize that I have been telling the truth. Nothing I've said is wrong, and your doctor, if they know what they're talking about, will admit that the WHO and Tony Fauci and everyone at Pfizer and Moderna admit in their own paperwork, We have not proven that this vaccine can stop the infection known as SARS-CoV-2, nor can it stop transmission. That is a fact.

Okay. Like I said, we don't have any questions about the effectiveness of vaccines. My understanding is that I do have another interview to get to, as you can see. I would understand as we see them, I would like you to ask that question right now because right there, the Center for Digital Hate, Am I incorrect about the statement I'm making, please ask them in front of me. This actually isn't a group interview, so if you could, please hop off. I know, but I would love to hear you ask that question. And who is your funding?

Because that group is attacking me, and they're saying we're spreading misinformation when if you actually do your research, you will find out that everything I have said is backed up by science, and you should really ask this next interview if I'm wrong and prove that I'm wrong. can prove that I'm wrong, which is why we are very happy with the position we find ourselves in and all the attention we're getting around this discussion. Hey, I really appreciate your time. Thank you so much. Thank you. And be a better reporter. Please do your research. Don't spread misinformation. It's really important. Thank you. I appreciate that. Thank you. Okay. Bye.

That's fun. That really happened. Every once in a while you get a little gem like that. I used to record every single interview I did just because they would just, you know, split up what you said. But obviously, it's wild again, right, to be reflecting this middle of COVID. Everything I'm standing there was being called misinformation. That guy, Imran Ahmed, was like trying to take me. He was successfully taking away, you know, looking at NewsGuard and all the different organizations to get our YouTube taken away. Our Facebook was taken away. We're being censored.

And you can see there, we're the ones that were getting it right, Jeffrey. We were getting it right the whole time. But the military-backed, you know, and I remember I still think about Joe Biden saying, we're going to put $10 billion towards, you know, basically convincing everybody to take the vaccine. So propaganda, you didn't use the word propaganda, but $10 billion. I wonder how much that funding went to groups like the Center for Countering Digital Hate and these groups that came into censor American citizens that were trying, like we were, trying to get through to our own constituents and our people,

saying they're lying to us. This thing is not stopping transmission. And as you can see, their open debate is literally like kryptonite to these people, to Imran. He wanted nothing to do with the conversation. It could have opened up everything right there if he would have said, you know what, this is a group conversation. Let's all have this conversation right now. Yep. And so unfortunately, that didn't happen. But we have internal policy documents that were released. And this is what CCDH, Center for Counterint Digital Hate, this is what is at the top of their priorities list. And let's look at this. This is the same for every month.

But they have their annual priorities. And number one, it's Kill Musk's Twitter, because that was a free speech platform, still is. X, and then you go down to the bottom, progress towards change in USA. So again, this is a foreign adversary, foreign UK NGO, better said. There's progress towards change in the USA. Why are they trying to change USA? Why are they trying to censor speech in the U.S.? Well, that's what's going on right now.

And then you go down further in this document, it gets crazier. This is Imran Ahmed. This is what he said. RFK, he has some words for him. He said, Black Ops, excuse me, being set up to look at RFK, nervousness about the impact of him on the election. We may be asked to comment, particularly from anti-VACs. Black ops, you know, I thought you were an NGO.

And this goes back to that military we have been. Why are you using those words? What does Black Ops mean? No one ever explained that. But since this foreign operative is trying to censor speech at best in the U.S. and setting up Black Ops against a potential presidential candidate in RFK, now he has been basically tagged to be deported, if you will. Trump to deport boss of Starmer Link Charity.

That's fun, charity. That's one way to put it. They're still even lying in these headlines. But Imran Ahmed has now been placed at the top of the list of being considered for visa restrictions. He's being looked at by the State Department right now to be Numero Uno for cancellation of his U.S. visa because of the actions that he's done against free speech in the United States. I hope they give us a day we can show up and just wave goodbye as he leaves our country. country, having come and literally, you know, been a part of trying to suppress our First

Amendment rights as an outsider from the UK. Go back to the UK where you're getting away with it, where they're destroying the rights. They're so sad what's happening in the UK. Jeffrey, what an amazing report you had today. I mean, the way it tied in, you know, we only realized we were going to be, you know, able to talk about this ostrich story the last minute. But, you know, it's one of those beautiful flows where it all comes together, all the lines, the deceit, all what they call science that proves to be anything but the way they manipulate

us, the way they manipulate the story, the way behind the scenes are taking out those of us that they're telling the correct story, really showing the science. Folks, it's just we've got to know that they're going to do this again. You've got to know that they haven't changed their playbook, that they're, they're stymied at the moment, distalled at the moment, they're trying to figure out what to do. They're certainly trying to wait out Donald Trump and Robert Kennedy Jr. right now. what's on the other side of that horizon. But Jeffrey, that was great reporting today.

Thank you very much. I'll see you new. Actually, yeah, I'll see you next week. All right. Sounds good. Great. I mean, look, you know, if you're sitting there saying, you know, I like the high wire, I tune in, it's awesome that it's free. It's awesome that they would just, like, that you think I'm the one, you think I'm the one paying for this, you know, myself. We're dedicating our lives here to bring you the truth.

I mean, literally every single week, trying to really help you understand what's going on in our world that's lying to you within bunch of news agencies out there that are still telling you half truths at best but you're paying that cable bill right you're going to pay that cable bill and they're getting more and more expensive it's kind of crazy what it costs to watch TV these days like every channel is like a minimum of like 20 or 40 dollars you used to get them all for $40 now each one and you do it you're paying it but then you're sitting there and you're watching the only show that had it right by the way we were all alone in the beginning those first days those weeks, those first months during COVID, there wasn't even a podcaster out there touching it.

It was all the high wire. We led the way and made sure that people started being inspired. Other podcasts started watching. They said, oh, my God, I'm going to jump on that. But still, we never took on sponsors. We never even, you're not watching ads pop up. We're not taking ads and raising money. We said, no, we only want to be funded by those of you that care to hear the truth. That is still how this works here at the high wire. We only want to be funded. We only want to be funded by those. want those of you because we want the funding of truth, people that care about truth. We want that energy to be the blood that moves through this organization. So if it matters to you, and if you have any concern at all that another ostrich farm could

happen down here in America, that another COVID pandemic could hit when they're clearly losing. By the way, look how bad they're losing. What do you think they're planning on? You think they have a talking point they think is going to make us all go back to sleep? or they're going to actually use something to inject us with us back to sleep. You ask yourself that and ask yourself who's going to be there when they try to do it. Who are you going to be able to go to? Where are you going to get the truth?

And by the way, is our website strong enough? Is it robust enough when the bad actors get back into the leadership of this country? I know I'm being negative, but you know it's going to happen someday. Hopefully not for another like eight or 12 or whatever years. But somewhere on the other side of this could be as soon as the, three years away, we could see a total shift, people that are back to believing that the truth should be stopped and calling it misinformation and disinformation. And then they're going to censor us.

They'll bring back Imran Ahmed, say, come back to America, we need you again, and you need to shut down the high wire. Will we have a strong enough, robust enough, safe enough website to get to you? Will we have the technologies? We'll be on top of it. We'll be modern enough to stand our ground. you are the ones deciding that right now. Yes, we could all go to sleep.

It's a beautiful day. The sun's shining. The clouds are parted. We're starting to see movement. We feel the wind at our backs. This is the moment we need to double down. This is the moment we need to be out in that sunshine, building our new infrastructure, building the future,

so that when it gets dark, if it gets dark again, we can stand our ground this time and never let it happen. You can help do that by donating today. Just go to the top of the page. hit that button. Donate to I can, the ones that never got it wrong, become a recurring donor. Try to match, how do you match one of those other stations like Paramount Plus or Netflix? Do we deserve that for what we've done, for what we're doing here, our international team of science? Just funding Aaron Siri alone, who's coming up here in just a couple of seconds.

Just funding the work that he's doing to win back your right to opt out of any vaccine program in the state. country. That's our track record right there. No one has that track record right there. Bringing back Mississippi's religious exemption, we're about to win it for West Virginia, and we're going to keep pressure on those remaining four states while we look to get into the Supreme Court to make sure that we change the entire system as we've known it that allowed us to be censored and lied to and injected without any rights. It's the work that we're doing. You want to keep us doing it at the top level, take on every case. that we think sets precedents so that they can never do this again,

then please become a recurring donor. It's really easy. Just text us. Text number 72022, write in the word donate. And I think you'll be a part of a nonprofit that delivers more wins that you'll be able to brag to your children and your grandchildren and your great-grandchildren should you be so lucky and say, I was there when they tried to take our freedom. And there was just a few groups that never got it wrong, never gave up, charged into danger. I supported them and we're here and we have freedom because of it. Thank you to all of you that make this show possible, that make the great work by Aaron

Siri possible, that allow us to talk to legislators and ship this conversation and actually see a new health department here in the United States of America. You actually can lay claim to that because you were a part of our network, the informed consent action network. Well, speaking of, I don't know, maybe one. One of the greatest minds, certainly in my lifetime, one of the most effective tools that got us through the COVID pandemic and then started pushing back, changing laws, winning in courtrooms.

Of course, I'm talking about my good friend and our ally in this battle, one of the great warriors of our time, Aaron Siri. He's got a brand new book right here, Vaccines, Amen. He had an amazing book launch party recently. Won't we just take a look at what that was like? I was blown away by this brilliant attorney. And I said we have one champion on our side. One champion who is fearless and an incredible man of logic and courage.

And I'm honored to be on the same stage as this man, Aaron Sir. Those are very kind words. I appreciate that. So I want to ask, what was the first court case that you got involved in because you did change things and in a way that I felt like we can't maybe we can win this thing. The first case that I ever did actually involved a nurse that ended up with a disautonomia after a flu shot.

And it was in the Vaccinjury Conversation Program with my first entree into this this world. When I think of winning, I mean, I think about making sure that everybody has a choice, right? They're just prod them, right? And that's, as anybody who's read my book knows, trying to get people to think about it that way. So you want to make sure that everybody can have a choice. There's always going to be stuff that hurts people. The question is, can you avoid it if you want to? I've got to tell you, there's no attorneys in the country.

There's literally no law firms that are doing what this man is doing. Literally. None of them. If anybody was going to change the world, I have every confidence it will be Aaron Siri. It's a pleasure and an honor to be here celebrating a man that's a, standing for something that's of such great value in today's landscape. Aaron, thank you so much for having bravery, passion, and wild intelligence to be able to take this information to the American people.

He's one of the best and most zealous advocates for vaccine safety in the United States. The new book is fantastic. Let's get to some questions you guys. How do we add an amendment to the Constitution for medical freedom? Most requirements when it comes to medical liberty happen at the state level. And so the place to start of the state constitutions. And you can do them by referendum in a lot of states. On ICANL legislate.org, there's actually a state constitutional amendment that I wrote.

And I know that there's some initiatives in some states to try and get that passed. And so to have that enshrined. I was injured by the COVID vaccine in the clinical trials and I had no idea that the information that I needed to prevent me from making the worst mistake of my life was right here. Just so much information packed in not very many pages, such an easy read. He's pointing out, vaccines are an ideology. It's not an evidence-based belief system like we think the courts and the science should be.

And I don't want that religion in my veins, in my workplace, or in the courts. my government. If anybody says I believe in the vaccine, you've got to stop and say, listen, stop believing, man. Start thinking, okay? And, you know, you can read this book or you can go to ICANDecide.org, go to get informed. But really, that is the tipping point. Thank you for standing up for all of us. There's really nothing more baseline than these rights to our own body and what we put in it.

I just want to thank everybody for coming out and supporting this work. This book is for you, and for everybody out there is trying to protect your children. For all you parents and for all the parents of vaccine and your children, you are finally believed. And God bless all of you. I got one final word to say to that. Amen. Well, the book is Vaccines Amen. The first book, Aaron's series written, I believe, ever. really gets into all the legal wins, why we're winning, what the science is.

This has everything you ever want to know, especially we've been watching the Highwire for some time. But it is my honor and my pleasure to be joined now by Aaron Siri. Aaron, what a long, strange trip this has been. And you capture that, especially in the start of the book. First of all, you get into something we've talked about a lot. like this isn't science. Science can be proven. It's not based on faith and things like that. And I love the way you sort of work that storyline. I also love some of the behind the scenes to set up what it takes to be a lawyer to step in going up against Dr. Stanley Plotkin, you know, that moment where obviously like the greatest scientists in the world, this man should know, you know, does know more about vaccines than anyone alive ever. I mean, has all of the body, everyone bows down to him. He's on every board almost of every pharmacy. industry in the world. I remember when we were talking about it. You had like a what was it like

two or three weeks to prepare for that? It was like a few weeks. It was a few weeks. It's a few weeks to go and like read Plotula vaccines this thick. I mean, what was that? I mean, do you get intimidated? Do you get intimidated in those moments? Is there ever a I might just fail here? Do you ever, is failure ever an option? Well, I mean, you never want to underestimate whoever you're going up against. That's always a big mistake. right so it's important to remain objective in that regard but I think the chance favors are prepared and you know you know I may not be or one may not be or you know a group may not be the smartest at something or whatnot but the

person who works the hardest and who's who never gives up often ends of winning as others around them give up over time you know when it comes to Plot and I can't say I You know, the night before I took that deposition, I was expecting some twists and turns. I didn't think I was going to go in there, and it was just going to be nine hours of just, you know, what it ended up being. Him conceding at almost every major point he had nothing. Like, you were thinking, there's something I missed. Right. Like, so, I mean, like, using Hep B, for example, right?

Yeah. We, you know, you looked at the clinical trial data on the FDA website, and it just seems incredible. How could it be they license this product? based on this ridiculous clinical trial. And you're thinking, okay, he's got to know something. Five days, only five days long, 147 kids. There's no way. Five days of safety of monitoring after injection,

147 kids, no control. And you licensed that in a brand new technology, the very first recombinant DNA technology vaccine in the world ever. That's what they licensed it on for children for millions of babies. Yeah, every baby in America on the first day of life. So you've got to go, nah, it can't be.

Come on. It cannot be. and you're assuming when you're sitting across from the world's leading vaccinologists, he's going to tell you, no, no counselor, you're wrong, or you're missing, or there's some other mountain of, you know, clinical trial data that exists, but he didn't have any of that. And in fact, as you know, we gave him a second chance after the deposition. We subpoenaed him to provide all the data to support the safety of all the vaccines,

the clinical trial data, post-licensure safety data, ingredient safety, all of it. And instead of responding with, here's the amount of science, he responded by getting a lawyer and moving in a separate court to squash that subpoena has never produced a single document. And obviously, in the almost eight years since, as we've continued to press the FDA, get those documents, we know why. He can't support vaccine safety. Nobody can. I mean, think about that, right?

because this is Dr. Stanley Plotkin, the greatest authority in the world. It's not like he has to go home and do the homework. He can call up Paul Offit. He can call up all these experts. He can call every, he can call Pfizer and, you know, Sinoffi and Glaxo-SmithKline, who he works with all the time, says, hey, I got an issue. We've got to show our science now.

So I want your best team. This is our moment. I want your best team to put that mountain together in a way that's understandable. And let's flatten this lawyer, let's flatten this. nonprofit, this fun. I mean, that's what you would have done to say, I'm getting, I got to get to a different court, and I got to shut this down right away. It's amazing that that's your response. Yeah, well, he did try, as we've, you know, over the years put out in ICAN legal updates. What did he do after that deposition? Okay, let's, let's count the, let's count the things he tried

to do. One, he went on a tirade trying to get the FDA to amend the package inserts to include more clinical trial data. Did they do it? No, because you can't, you can't put in there what doesn't exist. Right. Two, he got the CDC to amend, he wanted them to amend the vaccine information statements. Now, you can't put in data that doesn't exist, but you could take stuff out. Yeah. And so what he got, for example, the vaccine information statement that the CDC puts out for the

MMR vaccine used to say that one of the things it can cause, not related, can cause, is, quote, brain damage. It said that. Those exact words. He didn't like that in his deposition. He got them to remove that. He saw that and then he went and he went and he got that out of there. He was also instrumental in, I believe, in getting the WHO to then declare vaccine hesitancy, one of the global threats that anybody who dares question his beliefs.

You're going to get us all killed. That's right. He also went and created, and I consider this one of the honors of my life, a whole library. At the Children's Hospital, Philadelphia, specifically to address folks like me, that if you're going to, you're a vaccinologist and you're going to encounter a lawyer who's going to question you about vaccine safety, he created this entire online library to help you prepare for that deposition. But I'll tell you what that library actually does. It's a gift to humanity in the following way. Yeah, absolutely. Because if that's the best they have, if that's the best science they have.

Mountain. That's the, that's their Everest. Here it is. Oh, man, it shows exactly why everybody should be critically and petrified concern about vaccine safety. First of all, it fails to address some of the most key vaccine safety concerns, just entirely. And two, when you look at the studies it does cite there, you know, take the time to read them and look at them. It's, you know, junk sciences, it would be giving it a compliment. I mean, they just doesn't support vaccine safety. So, yeah, he did. Those were his efforts. He could have just responded to that subpoena, but he did. He could have just provided the actual evidence, but he didn't. He went and tried to do basically a worldwide cover-up. One final thing he did, and we've revealed this in an ICANM legal

update too, he arranged what's supposed to have been a confidential meeting over in England where he flew in, like, the world's leading vaccinologists to talk about vaccine safety and what they could do. And we only got it because we FOIA, the CDC, and we have it. And he made the mistake of emailing the agenda and some of that information to some folks within the CDC. So we were able to get copies of it. Wow. Others we have no idea this thing happened. Anyways, when you look through the agenda and you look through what they were trying to address, to me, that wasn't an attempt to start.

study vaccine safety, that was an attempt to validate vaccines are safe. And even that effort didn't really work out. So he, I mean, you know, take him at his word in the article he published in the American Catapediatrics also about that deposition, he talks about, and in internal emails, a traumatic experience he had with a lawyer. They don't like to say my name, but a lawyer. I'll just, I'll say this one thing and I'll stop, which is. Oh, I love it.

Look, this is what makes this book great. It's always great to hear from you because we're all, the world is sitting in awe going, why, you know, for decades, has no one been able to achieve what Aaron's Siri has achieved? What you've done in courtrooms has never happened before, how you've pushed the science board, how you've demanded the science, how you've moved legislation, it's absolutely astounding. So I know people like, I could do this all day, but go ahead. Sure, sure. I'll tell you one last bit of it.

But, yeah, I mean, look, that work's been a privilege and an honor. I love doing it, and, you know, but I actually just got a letter from Dr. Santa Plotkin. Really? Yeah, just got it in the mail like two, three days, a few days ago. The birthday card? Yeah, it starts to something to the effect of I heard you wrote a book and you addressed me. And it was a one-page letter. And so I'll be responding to it.

And I'm going to be releasing his letter in my response as soon as I get it done. I got to get to it. I got a few other things on the to-do list. So he's obviously a little upset that he appears in this book and some of the stories around that deposition, which is massive. It was a game changer. You know, one of the things that I think people have sort of recognized.

When we first started with ICANN, you weren't very visible, right? And, you know, I want to share behind the scenes. We're like, Aaron, like, can you come on the show? It would be really great to just show you, like, I'm just, I'm just an attorney, Delis, want to be an attorney on this. I don't really want to, you know, be famous around this or anything.

You would even say, Del, you do that. I'm going to stay in the courtroom. But, you know, a couple years ago, you sort of seemed to have adjusted your thinking on that. And now we watch you on Fox News. We watch you out there, you know, on panels speaking about this. You know, sitting center stage in hearings, state by state, doing all that.

what was the first of all why originally did you not want to sort of be a public face on this conversation the lowering on this is plenty yeah there's a lot of work to do and um you know um you know going doing what you do going around the country talking at events flying around you know you have much time for anything else no it's exactly it's it's it's i love it but it is all consuming absolutely doing interviews all that stuff it's it's It's an incredible amount of burden on time, but also, you know, whether you like it or not, and whether you're not trying to do it, you get viewed, you know, as an activist, you know, versus somebody as somebody who I'm just trying to litigate this as an attorney, which is the role that I was really playing.

I wanted to, I wanted to litigate this issue. I wanted to protect people's individual and civil rights. I feel very passionately about that. I'm a passionate about protecting kids. I feel passionate about all those things. And that was enough to drive, you know, the legal work I was doing. Didn't want all the distraction. But, yeah, that did change one day.

What was the moment? Was there like a thing that happened, something that just said, that's it? I can't hold back any longer. So for years and years, I ignored every reporter request. I mean, I just ignored all of them completely. Did no media, as you know, for, I mean, it was a lot of years. Yeah. And then the Washington Post apparently decided that they had had enough from me ignoring them. And they ran an article. Well, first of all, they sent me their normal emails. And their normal email goes like this.

Hi, Mr. Siri. You know, we have a few questions for you. One is, why do you like to kill children? Why do you like to eat babies? You know, it's just like all pregnant questions. Right. They're not serious questions. Right. You know, if you're a reporter, you're asking a question, you're not making it pregnant with an assumption, which is, so, you know, so obviously. And it's a trap, right? It's a horrific statement. They want, they'd love to be able to just say, we reached out, but he refused to comment on this pregnant, ridiculous statement. Which I never cared about. Right. They could do. Yeah. But the thing is, is that what Washington Post did is they then ran an article all about the legal work of our firm, my firm. as well as me.

And in one way, it was very flattering article because it said we're very effective in battling mandates, protecting people's rights, right? Yeah. But it was, from what I recall, the main article on WAPO's website for almost a day.

And that just created an avalanche of inquiry. I mean, it was just endless. I mean, our phone system went down. Everybody in our firm got email. I mean, it was just insanity. And I was like, well, that was an interesting experience. Because normally I got left alone. Normally just came after you.

Yeah. They were like, they just came after you. But then they came after me. And I'm like, stay in the courtroom, Jared. I got this out of here. Right. You know, like out of the front steps, dukeying it out. So then I got, and this is what broke it.

Then then I got an email. We had brought a lawsuit, supported by I can, in Washington, D.C., to strike down a law that would have allowed a doctor's to vaccinate children without the consent of the parents, you know, as young as even 11, 10, maybe even nine years of age, okay? Not only did this law provide that the doctor could do it without a consent of a parent, and not limited, by the way, to Washington, D.C. residents. So a kid anywhere in America could go to D.C. and go get vaccines, and the doctor give it to them. The, if the doctor gave it, the doctor then is supposed to have two sets of medical records, one that the kid can see and the one the parents can see.

So they hide it from the parents. Wow. The doctor was all supposed to notify the insurance company when they send the statement to the parents' house to leave it off to lie to the parents. And the school was required to create also a separate file so the parents wouldn't know the kid got the vaccine. So this law basically required the doctor, the insurance company, and the school and the health department to all lie to the parents. This is an incredible law. You want to talk about teaching kids the wrong lesson in life? Oh, my goodness.

We brought the suit. And after we brought the suit, I got the same set of ridiculous questions. Like, why do you want to prevent kids from getting vaccines? The law wouldn't prevent it. It would just assure protected parents' rights. In any event, after I got that list, it was clear that we're going to do another hit piece, and I had to make a decision. I remember I even spoke to you about it.

I said, look, either I let them run another ridiculous hippies or the advice I was getting for many folks, including you, was the best thing to do is get ahead of it. Instead of letting them put out the narrative they want, you get the narrative out first. And despite what I had, my preference was, which is not to do media, I think it was the first time I said to actually,

the public relations person that ICANN was working at the time, I remember, and I said, all right, I'll do it. I will do media on this thing before Waypo puts the article out. And that was the first time I said yes to him. I think he almost fell out of his chair. And he got, and I got on to Laura Ingram. Yeah, that sounds right. I think that night or the next night, and I got ahead of the story.

And way, if I recall correctly, never ran an article after that on that piece. Super interesting. I mean, a lot, I mean, the heart of everything you're talking about is in this book, Vaccines, Amen. It covers the cases, some of the big victories, some of the science behind it, some of the great charts that have been put together, which leads me to, something I actually want. I mean, I want to sort of talk to you about. This last, just over the last week, I just did a podcast. You know, I was at CSD. Someone's like, oh, we're maha, we're maha. Like I went to the podcast. And it ended up being like three doctors, right? I wasn't told that.

It's fine. You know, just, you know, when you're in and you're being interviewed and all of a sudden you realize, oh, this isn't totally friendly. You know, you're very pro vaccine and the whole thing started hitting. And I, you know, I'm saying there are no placebo trials. And like, and the, the doctors trying to say, yes, there are. They just, I mean, and they do the whole bait and switch, which we cover so clearly in our movie an inconvenient study, which is what I call the whiskey study, right? They never had placebos, not in the originals, not the first version, not the second version, because they're saying, obviously, they're finally admitting this.

They didn't used to admit it. They used to say, placebo's on everything. Now they've given that up. They're saying, well, we don't, the current vaccine program was never tested against a placebo. It was tested against the existing vaccine because it's unethical to rob a placebo group of that vaccine. But the originals all got a saline placebo study. And I was like, where are they getting this? And one of the doctors, they even like preempted, they added a part to this podcast when I finally heard of a doctor that wasn't even there.

And so I went home and I was like, all right, what is grot? Let me just see what Grock says about this. And I typed it into Grock. This is the exact question I typed. What vaccine on the CDC recommended childhood vaccine schedule were tested against a saline placebo? It goes on to explain exactly what I just said, which is, obviously, we can't do placebo trials anymore for vaccines that exist. But the original forms of the vaccines were tested against saline placebos, and it describes those as being IPV was tested against placebo, MMR, the original MMR, the original chicken pox, rotavirus RV1, oral, the hepatitis A, human papilloma, HPV, and COVID-19. So those are the vaccines that GROC says were tests against saline placebos.

Now, we worked really hard with you and your team to develop, you know, an entire chart of the placebo-based trials. This is something that we put out publicly. It's on our website. I think people can check it out right now. If you want to click on this, I'm going to have Aaron go through this for us. Just click on that QR code and you will get this chart, you know, immediately. But first, Aaron, I was wondering if you could work. walk us through. We've used this chart, but can you walk us through this chart and show us how

this works? Sure. Should I go up there? Yeah, yeah. Go on up there. All right, sure. So, this chart in many ways is an accumulation of really years of work, you know, almost all supported by ICANN, drilling down into what were the clinical trials relied upon to license each of the routine injector child of the vaccines. And so, you know, we've fit it all on the to one page. There's a lot more to say, but this is it. If you want to know whether or not there truly was a placebo control trial, it's a license any routine injected to tell the vaccine, you'll find the answer on this chart. And not only the answer to the currently licensed vaccine, but any vaccine used as a control to license a currently licensed vaccine. So if it was tested

against an earlier vaccine, we also go what that vaccine was tested against and take it all the way back. We've done it for everyone. We've gone down the daisy chain. And I can tell you standing here today categorically, categorically, there has never been a routine injected childhood vaccine that was licensed based on a placebo control trial, nor were any control vaccines used for those trials anywhere down the chain, licensed based on a placebo control trial. And the proof is right here. Okay. Walk me through how this works. Sure. So before I even go start going down this list, I just want to start with the source column. because it's critical.

The source column shows where the information to the left and right come from, and particularly the left, right, that we're going to go through. It comes from these links, and where these links go, they almost all go to the FDA documentation, to the FDA website. So if you don't agree with what I'm about to say, or you don't agree with the information here, that means you don't agree with what the FDA is saying. Okay, you're not arguing with me. You're arguing with the FDA.

Okay. Got it. So with that said, let's just start. and go through it. There are two licensed hepatitis B vaccines, okay? Yeah. Two. A child on the first day of life will only get one of these two shots.

In the clinical trials to license them, there was no control group. There was none. None. Zero. To license these for children, there was no control group. So they weren't using any prior license vaccine. And you know why they weren't using any prior license

vaccine for injection and children? There is no vaccine that was licensed before these for routine administration to children. Okay, so this is the first trials ever done. These two, these are first products of their kind for children. So they didn't even test, they just test against nothing.

Right, it just tested themselves for. They tested itself. Five days, four days. The old vaccine, there was a vaccine in license in 1981, recombax HP was 86, I believe, I believe Enderxp was 89. And though, the old plasma one literally used human blood to make

make the vaccine from hep be chronic carriers right they went they got their blood and most people didn't want that shot it was licensed for high risk groups okay that's it all right adults in high risk and then also newborn babies born to hepb positive mothers and that was all but that trial did not validated safety and they never and it's probably wild by the way they never use that as the control so here you have these two are licensed without any control okay no moving on to detap yeah you have INFINRICs licensed based on a trial that used DTP as a control. DTP has never been licensed based on a placebo control trial. Okay.

Period. And that's the vaccine, by the way. DTP is what we believe is the reason for the 1986 vaccine injury compensation program. That one was causing so much issues, sickness, death, injuries to children that they're like, we can't make a profit, protect us from liability. There were other vaccines, but DTP was a disaster. Yeah, but OPD and MMR, the only other two routine ones at that time. Okay.

Also had tons of lawsuits. It was all three of them. All right. It was a problem with all three. DTP was never licensed based on a placebo control trial. And in fact, as you know, the studies that have now looked at mortality from DTP, Dr. Peter Abe, a series of studies, have found that children that get DTP die at far higher rate than those who don't. Right. Right.

And had there been a clinical trial, they might have figured it with a proper placebo withdrawal trial, they probably would figure that out. That probably probably would never have been licensed. But now that it's licensed, as you all, as we know, they'll say it's unethical to do that kind of trial. Moving down the list, gets us to PCV vaccine, pneumoccal vaccine. And here, the very first vaccine ever licensed was Previnar 7. Okay.

Now, Previnar 13 used Previnar 7 as the control. So you would hope that Previnar 7 was licensed based on a placebo control trial. Right. But no, if you move over here, because it's not a currently licensed vaccine. Okay. So, but in the notes, it says Prevvinar 7's trial control was, quote, an investigation of meningoccal group C conjugate vaccine. Meaning literally, they use another experimental vaccine as the control. This would be like a cancer drug where the cancer drug is being tried in a trial,

in the trial to test against a different trial cancer drug. Either one of them ever approved for safety, both just going against each other. So, I mean, that's crazy that they would do that. Honestly, again, I couldn't have even made that up. Like, if you asked you, I'd come up with, like, the craziest thing to say about vaccines. I would never have dreamed to say that. Yes, the very first vaccine license to give to a baby at two, four, and six months of age was trialed based against another experimental vaccine. It's not, it's, it's truly dumbfounded.

I mean, before we move on, and to really point out the madness, in that trial with Previnar 7, they reviewed, say, if you're about 30 days, 60 days for some stuff, not long enough to look at anything, much. Certainly not autoimmune disease, which is going to take a couple of years probably to kick in. Oh, not neurological, immunological, neurological, it's given to a baby. Yeah. A baby, two months, four. So, you know, now, there was adverse events in that trial, but because they were similar between the two groups, the experimental and the experimental, it was licensed.

Then they used Previnar 7 as the baseline of safety as the control to license Prevonar 13. In that trial, 7.2% of completely healthy babies within six months developed a serious adverse event. 7.2%. That's, I mean, we're moving towards 10%. We hear vaccine injuries, one in a million. This is like virtually 10%. Like 7%. Well, it actually keeps.

up there very quickly because Prevonar 13, 8.2% of previously healthy babies within six months had a serious adverse event. So finally, they actually did a trial that was six months longs in terms of safety, which is uncommon, right? Certainly for most of the vaccine. So that's long for a vaccine, for a childhood vaccine. A long study is six months. That is about that's as long as it gets. Rotavirus did look in a trial for a bit longer for just one issue into seception, but that's it. Okay. Everything else is pretty much the most you're going to get is six months. Typically it's days or weeks of safety review after injection. Then they use, now, you know what's really insane? You know what Pfizer said to explain?

They said, well, we looked at safety for a lot longer in this trial versus the other ones. So, yeah, we found a higher rate. That should have been an indictment, not an excuse. But it is what it is. That is what they told the FDA, and FDA actually put that in the package insert. but let's put aside that craziness. Then they use Previnter 13 as the control to license basically PCV 15 and 20. And in those trials, the serious adverse events get even higher, right? So for in the, you know, you had 9.6% in, remember, like, these are perfectly healthy children. Healthy baby.

You have to imagine, like, you know, if there was a saline group, which is it should have been, It would have shown 9.6% are getting a serious adverse event from the problem. And what's happened in the Saline Group? We know for sure healthy kids just walking on their own do not develop like almost, like I said, almost one in 10 is not developing a serious adverse event for walking down the street and breathing and drinking water. So this is why they don't do this. But if you try to get something that's at 7 or 8%, you're like, ah, it's pretty close.

It's almost as safe as. Let's just keep it moving forward, right? This is how this game is being played. Those are terrible numbers. Yeah. In the FDA, it's a technical standard often. If the rate in the experimental group and the control group are similar, effectively that is deemed safe. Now, it might be deemed safe technically, but in the real world, no parent would consider that safe, no logical thinking.

No one wouldn't want a 9% chance of having a serious adverse event in their baby. And the concerning part is it gets worse and worse with each iteration, as they go down this stage chain. Now, they will tell you it's unethical to do a placebo control trial on PCV 20, PCV-15, or PCV-13, because it was already a licensed product, Prev-R-7, PCV-7.

But as we know, that never established the actual baseline for safety. They're literally raising. Each product is getting a little more dangerous, but because it's staying closed, and the new one is just slightly more dangerous than the last, we've been creeping up the side effects and then just saying, hey, it'd be unethical

show you how bad this thing's doing against the saline placebo let's read the actual let's read that exact language so here is the language from the fda documentation for example in and this is talking about pcv 15 it says in pcv 15's trial quote serious adverse events were reported by 9.6% of pcv 15 recipients and by 8.9% of previn 13 recipients okay end quote but was deemed quote safe because, and here it comes, quote, no notable patterns or numerical imbalances between vaccination groups, end quote. It's exactly what you just said.

It's because the numbers are similar because they keep getting similar. Right now, had they done maybe PCV-15 against PCV-7? I can't imagine where we're going to be when we're at PCV-80. I mean, it's going to be like 50% of the kids are getting sick, but hey, the last one was that 48%? As long as it's just a little more dangerous each time, it's been safe.

And so it's, you know, in their argument, which is what these doctors were saying to you, is no, no, no. The very first one was a placebo control trial, so we know a baseline of safety. That's just, that's just false. Okay. That's just totally and categorically unfuried. Right, IPV, this is one that GROC said was tested against for sure a saline placebo. Yeah, that says right here on my computer. Not true at all.

So, the current polio vaccines, which is iPole in the standalone version, and it's also included in a bunch of combination vaccines, five of them, in fact, was licensed in 1990. Okay. And in that trial, they reviewed safety for three days after injection. Three days. Three days. And there was no control group. Now, this is not the polio vaccine of Jonas Salk or Alfred Savin. Okay.

This is a new polio vaccine with a new technology. revolutionary at its time because what they needed to do, instead of taking them, you know, literally taking a kidney out of a monkey and with the cells still being alive and having to grow in culture on that live kidney cells, they developed,

they took those monkey kidney cells and they modified them to make them immortal, meaning they would just replicate forever. Essentially cancer. They call them bureau cells. Cancer, right? Basically like cancerous, right? Because they'll replicate forever. It's just a very different technology. And

And the formulation also had a lot of completely other differences and changes, which is why, by the way, in my view, no doubt, that's why they didn't use any other old vaccine as the control. So they did, even though this says the original IPV was tested, the Salk vaccine was tested against the saline placebo, they didn't test the new iPole against that Salk vaccine. So that argument doesn't even work. So the argument doesn't even work. They test against nothing. Test against nothing. So the argument isn't that they use the initial. was a placebo control trial you know they use a saline injection and then we use that as the baseline of safety they just use no control okay so you can't they're not even lined up but did that original salk vaccine because a lot of people since it's irrelevant but i'll still hear

but the sulk vaccine used that was a saline placebo which we now know is pointless because it never was even in this chart to be tested against but did the salk vaccine have a saline placebo no really no and i had this exchange with with dr paul off it okay on substack first on and then a substack. And apparently he's never really looked at the initial, the clinical trial report, which I have a copy of. It's the book. And it describes exactly what those in the control group that was quote unquote received. It was an injection that was not saline, that was not inert, which is what a placebo is, something inert. Right. Okay. Has no effect on the human body, right? That's the CDC. That's the definition. Instead, it was an injection that included formulin.

included antibiotics, it included red number 80 or 40. Did it die? It included a whole host of ingredients. Okay. The fact that antibiotics alone merges it not inert, the fact that it include other ingredients, not under, had culture mediums in it. That's not an inert, an injection.

That is not a placebo according to any definition of placebo. So GROC is wrong. It's wrong about IPV, and it's wrong because we never tested the newer vaccine against that old one. So GROC is wrong. We just beat GROC there. All right, go ahead. Let's go to Hib. Okay, so, all right, going to Hib.

So, I mean, it's, you can see right here what the controls were. The controls for Hib, again, were other vaccines, but none of these vaccines were licensed based on a placebo control trial. Hep B, we just looked at the two HFB vaccines. Right. Okay, so we know that's not licensed based on placebo control. Hib tighter and certain other vaccines, and we addressed it, are not licensed, none of those were licensed based on a placebo control trial, and lifelized PEDVX Hib, in fact, I don't believe was ever licensed.

I forget whether a license is based on a placebo control trial. So none of these were like- So again, testing all against vaccines that they themselves never saw a placebo trial. Again, none. Okay. That brings us to rhodovirus. Roto virus, this, again, they're saying in here, the original rotovirus, saw a saline placebo. So GROC is claiming rotavirus for sure.

They're claiming saline. Yeah. This gets the closest to something inert. It's the closest because unlike all these other ones, this is not injected. This is given orally. Okay. So it's a little different. It's the normal route you would normally get infected on your mucosal surfaces, that deepen your muscle tissue.

And so here, you would think it would have been very easy to just put drops of water in these kids' mouths instead of... Sure. But no, for rhodorics, you can read the ingredients. It include dextrin, sorbitol, amino acids, modified eagle medium, and so forth, you know... Eagle, as in the bird? Well, no, that's just the nano. No bird. No bird.

But, I mean, it's not outrageous. We do chimpanzees, we do aborted fetal cell lines, so it's possibly chopped up. up an eagle, but, okay, in this case. I mean, brodetext, you know, control, it's not a placebo, used, you know, included fiends. I mean, this is outrageous, really, because you're exactly right. I mean, why go through the process of mixing

all these ingredients when a drop of water would have done the job just fine? Here you go. Here's your placebo. You don't know what you just got. So what's with like whipping up a witch's brew for no reason? Well, I mean, you know, I, I,

I would say the reason is that if you're trying to get a product licensed, you want to do everything you can to assure that your experimental group and your control group will have a similar safety profile as possible. So, but when Grock is saying that saline, is there saline in the base of that? Is it, like, all being mixed in a saline? Like, how is Grock getting that so wrong? Just, it's believing the sources it's reading, which are just false. Okay. I mean, it's like CNN's articles with Dr. Jake Scott. Oh, there's hundreds of, 600-something placebo trial.

That's what they're doing. They're relying upon these supposed authoritative sources, which is always hysterical because the only source they need to look at is the FDA website. The FDA website, which is what this does. Instead of doing that, you know, CNN, all of that, New York Times. We went beyond it and got a better source. Right. They don't go to the primary sources.

That doesn't fit our narrative. We're just going to go and crowdsource stuff or rely on or with somebody parrots and says. Okay, COVID-19, I do happen to know had a short time period with the saline placebo because we basically brought a citizen's petition against the FDA. I can did. You helped us do that. Yeah. So, but it's not a routine vaccine anymore. Okay.

So it doesn't count. So it doesn't count. And there's questions that right now, whether the product that's out there is the same one that was tested. Is that also a question, too? Yeah. Well, obviously, the original formulation that was in the trial is not the current formulation. And they did vaccinate the placebo group. As far as we can see from all the documentation,

they finally did use a saline injection, right? By the way, which belies any claim you can. Right. Right. Yeah. Because they could do it. Right. They did it.

Okay. They finally did it. Yeah. And then on, you know, they vaccinated everybody. Once it was given emergency use authorization, not license. They basically vaccinated everybody that got out of placebo. but they called it crossing over. To remove any long-term study that was ever going to be possible,

which would really come in handy right about now with turbo cancers on the rise, blood clots, strokes, you know, swelling of the heart. But, you know, that's all anecdotal because we erased our placebo group. But we've talked about flu. Flu. So flu, there is not a single flu vaccine that was licensed, that injected flu vaccine that was licensed for children based on a placebo. control trial okay um it's just you know and anybody who wants to wait through them can do that okay

mmr it says again this is another one that grok claims the original mmr says the original measles vaccine in 1960s use saline placibos in pediatric trials yeah well uh that's just not true okay and we know it because that link right there is to the original clinical trial reports relied upon to license MMR 2, the current MMR vaccine, in 1978. So we have the reports from the FDA. We foiled them on behalf of ICANN. The FDA eventually gave it to us, always, you know, a fight. Yep.

And when you read those reports, you know what the control group was? What? There wasn't one. No control. No control. No control. They could have used maybe the MMR1 as the control. We also have the clinical trial reports for that one.

That one's also troubling. Okay. But they didn't. MMR2 is not licensed based on doing it as a non-inferiority trial or anything similar. So again, the one we're currently using never tested against the old one. Therefore, it didn't even use this trick that this saying exists or this ethical issue. It just said all on its own. We don't need a placebo.

They just didn't do it. And, you know, they really, I mean, they certainly should have because it's quite a different product. I mean, unlike MMR1, every single vice. bile of MMR2 literally contains, as we've talked about, billions, billions of pieces of human DNA from the cultural cell line aborted fetus. You should test that properly. Yeah. The original one didn't?

The original one wasn't grown on aborted fetal DNA? No. So they're able to make the MMR without aborted fetal proteins? They did, but they said it didn't work so well. So they changed the formulation. Okay. Which happens to be at the heart of a lot of the work you do. when people have a religious exemption.

They have an exemption, they want an exemption saying it goes against my religious belief to chop up an aborted baby and inject the proteins from that baby into my own child. Yeah, I mean, culture, you know, cell components, not only the DNA, it's the cellular components from, I mean, when you grow a virus in cells, you know, you can't, you can't completely separate the, the substrate, what you're growing, the viruses in from, from those cells. and a lot of it ends up in the vial. Wow. Okay.

So, Marcella. Not true for MMR2, Veracella, Varevax. So in Varevax, they had a few. This is another one. It says here, Veracella, chicken pox, early phase one, two trials for Vervax, includes a small saline placebo arm, is what it says. Drac is saying. Yeah, well, at least it got it accurate on small.

Okay. Because it was only a few hundred kids, Boblin, which I don't even know what you would do with that anyway. So even if they had a placebo control, it was useless for determining safety. the few hundred kids. And we got all these trials from the FDA, like 11,000 pages. They're all an ICAN's website. Right? And we have a whole analysis of why that product should never have been licensed based on that data. With that said, those few hundred kids, now the package insert does use the word placebo. Okay. So it's misleading because it wasn't inert. Because

when you go to the underlying documentation, which we have cited over here, right, sub materials, sub materials, which also goes to the FDA website, it's clear that that was an injection that include of 45 milligrams of neomycin, which is an antibiotic per milliter, that's not inert. Injecting neomycin, neomycin can have serious events when given topically on the skin, let alone injected deep into muscle tissue or into the body. Like, why would you do that? I mean, what are you gaining? Like, I'm just going to put something we know some people have allergic reactions to.

We're going to make that the placebo and call it saline. I mean, you're going out of your way to do something that makes no sense. Well, it makes a lot of sense when you understand. If you're trying to make your product look safe. If you're trying to make it look as, if you're trying- Well, I guess you're trying to avoid too much of a differential and safety between the control group and the experimental group. Right. I mean, that's what it makes sense.

Let's put it this way. You're rigging the trial. This is rigging the trial. Yeah. I mean, saline is saline. We all know what saline is saline is. They go and bastardize the saline. It's absolutely rigging the trial.

Well, and if they didn't have immunity to liability, right, on the basis, they could have made the product safer, no doubt, I have no doubt they wouldn't do this. You would use this in court. If you could sue, this is exactly the type of thing you'd probably bring into court and say, you didn't do a proper safety test. That would be Exhibit A. And Exhibit B would be that since they haven't determined it's safe, here's the stuff that shows it is causing these harms. And the thing is that they want to know whether or not a product would cause harm or not when they have a financial interest. So like Pfizer's top four most profitable drugs, according to Money Inc. in 2019, were all licensed based on long-term placebo control trials. I use that example to not carry pick.

Those are the top four, right? And they're all long-term placebo-control trials. Why? Why do Pfizer do that? Because they're moral, because they're ethical, because they, no, because they want to make sure they make money. And if they put that product out there and they haven't checked it properly, they could end up financially upside down. That's how borrowers would make decisions. That's how CEOs. That's what Wall Street expects people to make decisions. That's how investors expect people to make decisions. And look, most people have, for example, 401Ks or retirement accounts, and that's how you want companies in your portfolio, often to make decisions based on the profitability.

Good news for everybody in America, the safety interest is aligned with the economy. economic interest, almost always. So how a free market works. But they broke it with vaccines. All right, let's finish this up. Let's get to, I know a lot of parents are sitting on the edge of their chair. HEPA, once again, I believe this one, Havericks, pivotal pediatric trial in 1990s, use salient placebos and double blind studies with 1,000 children aged 2 to 16 years.

That's what GROC says. It's just nonsense. GROC is hallucinating. Hepe, two vaccines, both licensed. right around the same time, by the way. Okay. And so they both could have used an actual placebo. There's no reason not to.

There was no license hepe. These are the first two license. Of their kind. Ever. You don't have an ethical problem. We're not removing the ability to take the earlier Hep A, because it doesn't exist at all. Doesn't exist.

This is where they would say, obviously, we should have used a saline placebo. Right, because it's the very first one. Right. So they should have. Instead, Havericks use Enderx B as the control. Endrix B. Which is, remember the Hep B vaccine.

The one with four days of safety trial vaccine. Four days. After injection. Four days. Okay? They use that. And then you have Vacta, which the package insert

uses the word placebo. But actually, again, when you actually go to the Merck study itself, right, if you go to the underlying documentation as compared to the package insert, and then you look at what was actually in the control, this one's incredible it included a hs which is aluminum management and that's that

that's protected aluminum we can't figure out what's actually in it right it's murks proprietary aluminum management that they will not give anybody a sample of to test wow because it's so safe right there's and then the marisol together in the ejection yes you ever seen that video where they put aluminum and mercury together and it starts like growing some crazy wild you know foreign monster. That is what was the placebo growth. And that's what they're saying

was saline. That's what's, was literally too massively aluminum, totally toxic. And then Mercury, the second most toxic substance on Earth, most toxic non-radioactive

substance there is, that was what GROC is calling a salient injection. Yes, but it's clearly not saline. Wow. I mean, unless Grock's view of saline is, well,

in it, mercury, you know, nuclear radiation, and as long as I had a spritz of saline, it's saline, okay, maybe, I guess. But that's obviously not a placebo. Right. Right, which is something inert. That brings us to Tdap. And again, these are the only two Tdap vaccines ever licensed. Now they are for, that include pertussis, diphtheria, tetanus. So there were licensed vaccines, but there were of different formulations. They don't give the full dose of pertussis or diphtheria. Okay. to anybody really older than six. So this is the child version?

No, this is the adult. Oh, that's the adult? For 11, it's licensed for 11 years. Okay, got it. Right? It's licensed for adolescents and teens. Yep. D-TAP right here is licensed for six and under.

They don't give the full dose because it can cause adverse events in adults. But apparently it's okay for kids, but let's just leave that aside. Maybe it's because two four and six-month-old babies can't explain what's going on so well. In any event. They didn't. Instead, they use, for both of these, actually used Decovac, which is a vaccine that's licensed for adults as the control. You know, instead of using a... So they gave the kids the adult version of a product as the placebo group. That's what it appears.

Wow. Wow. It's very surprising. Yeah. That brings us then... HB, this one's in here too. Let me read what it says. Gardasil 9 phase 3 trials included salient placebo arms for adolescents age 9 to 15 years.

It says 2,200 participants confirming non-inforiority and safety. This is what GROC just said about HPV. Yeah, it's not true. Not true. So it's it's true. It's only, it's not true for Gardasil 4 and it's it's sort of true but not true for Gardasil 9. I'll explain why. Okay.

So for Gardasil 4, okay? The original. The original, there were a few hundred kids out of 10,000, over 10,000, that got an injection that they labeled a placebo. They even called it a saline placebo in the package insert, but it's not. It included the entire carrier solution. Everything in that vial was in that injection other than the antigens and the aluminum management.

Everything else was in there. It's a whole slew of ingredients, and they're listed actually. right over here on the side okay they couldn't fit there and um or there's a link to it on the side and here's the thing about um about that you you could have easily with gardasil four the very first guardisle vaccine just use a saline injection for all the whole group the whole group higher control why not why not instead they gave over 10,000 young girls and women an injection of aluminum imagine it, which is an active ingredient in the vaccine. But I thought it's illegal to do something on innocent people that can only cause harm

and has no benefit. The aluminum provides no health benefit whatsoever, right? It's a known neurotoxin. So you're telling me they took innocent girls, didn't even give them the possibility if HPV was going to work to protect them from HPV, only put their body at risk by injecting them with a known neurotoxin that has only the potential to hurt with no benefit, that should have been an illegal trial, shouldn't it? Totally unethical.

Totally unethical. It's completely an unethical to inject a human being in a medical experiment with something that has absolutely no therapeutic benefit. In fact, the opposite, aluminum imaginants are used, for example, in animal trials to induce autoimmunity. Cause autoimmune disease in animals so we can study it. And in fact, you know, when you look at the Gardasil 4 clinical trial results, you know, the group that got Gardasil 4, like 2.3% had some suspected form of systemic autoimmune disorder, 2.43%. Wow. Right?

In six months, completely, before and totally healthy girls and women, that's not normal. Imagine of 2.3% of girls and women in America develop a systemic autoimmune disease every six months. The whole country would have a systemic disease. It's not normal. The control group, okay, and they combine these numbers, almost all of those girls and women received an injection of the aluminum management. Yeah. The very thing that can cause autoimmuneity, right? Some systemic autoimmune disease.

So the very same issue that it can cause. Except for those few hundred that we just talked about did get an injection that didn't include lumen management, but it still wasn't a placebo because it didn't include all the other components. There's lots of other components for Gardosophore. So that was not. Everything in the vaccine, they took out the aluminum and the HPV and said, you get the rest of it. You get the rest of it. Got it. So Gardosol 4 could have been a good trial.

It should have been a good trial. It still wasn't enough curls, but it was at least over 10,000. It wasn't long enough. It was six months, but better than days and weeks. And they still saw autoimmune disease in that short period of time. But critically, the comparator group gave you no baseline for safety. And there was no excuse for it. because it's the very first vaccine of its kind.

Yeah. No excuse me. Amazing. What about nine? So with nine, again, they gave the controls. None of them got a placebo. None of them except, and this is where it gets so funky, they did give, okay, a few hundred finally a placebo injection.

They did. They gave them, as far as we can tell, a saline injection, which again proves you can do it. Right. But guess what? They only gave it to those few hundred out of the, over 10,000 after they got all three doses of Gardosol 4. So again, that's not a placebo control group. Wow.

Unbelievable. So, you know, which is just nonsensical in any event. Like if you're testing radioactivity, say you have to take three shots of the radioactivity. Once you're done with that, we're going to give you a placebo shot and say, see, placebo group is just radioactivity as the rest of them. Basically. I mean, that's not even... It's not exactly. But it's close.

But you get the idea. But here's the part that's even most troubling. Think about this. It was only a few hundred in each that they did this with. Why not half the group? Why not do the whole group? Right. Why only a few hundred?

You know, a few hundred is never enough, really, to detect anything but the most common potential issue. Right. So, you know, they've rigged it, as you said, in a number of ways. One, they don't review safety long enough. Two, they underpower it. They don't put enough kit. you know, individual, young children in it to study its safety. Yeah.

And then three, they don't have a proper control with the baseline. I mean, it's just all three. Wow. Meaning the control is just one of the problems. That brings us to Menja Cockle, okay, men, MCWI, men four. And here are the three. Currently, it's really just two being used. At the time, we've got to update this.

It's been so long. I mean, the truth has been out there so long. Menocture was licensed based on a trial where Menoimmune was used of the control. And Menoimmune was licensed based on no placebo withdrawal trial. In fact, this is the most wild thing, right? In section 6.1 of each package insert, and this is where you want to start, the FDA regulations, the federal law requires a summary of the clinical trial relied upon to license that product. Take note, CNN and New York Times, okay?

Right. It's got to be right there. So when you go to Meno Unes Package Insert, do you know what trial it describes? It describes the trial in which it was used as the control to license Minacra. It tries to reverse it. And you know what Menoose Packaged Insuret uses?

Mennamune. The same trial. The same trial. The same trial. So they both use their trial against each other as proof that they're both safe. The package inserts for these use the same trial in their package insert because that's amazing And the reason is we did a bunch of historical research on behalf of i can and what we found was the initial trial for men immune is so ridiculous and it was out to seeable control that even the FDA is like oh my god we can't even cite to this thing clearly and so they use the current trial that for minotra so again no baseline of safety and then menveo uses minotro or other vaccines vaccines to, and then Mancoffi uses another menveo and other vaccines.

Got it. So it's just a big pyramid scheme. And that, that concludes all of the routine recommended vaccines on the CDC Childhood Schedule. We just went through everyone, not a single one, again, because COVID is not routinely recommended right now, not a single one, as I'll say it again, not a single one of the routine recommended injected vaccines was licensed based on a placebo control. trial nor it nor any vaccine uses a control in one of those trials that is if you take issue with that you got to argue the FDA and the source documents okay categorical I think you've

officially then we've debunked grok um I just want to say to uh Elon Musk um Grock's not accurate on this issue you're gonna have you have some work to do there it appears that you're trying but we'd like you to take a look our chart here and you can do that at work or have your scientists do that work or however Grock does that work. Aaron, you know, we were going to try and like beat this Grock thing in time. I think you just did it. I think let's just leave it right there. People can do this work. You can run this test. If you went home want to challenge GROC, go ahead and pull out this, you know, document. Let's bring it up one more time. If you want to have this document in your hands that is the most thorough document ever made on the placebo trials, there it is. You can just

just click on that QR code and you will have a copy. The reason I want to do is, Aaron, I want this dead. I want this conversation over. We've watched as they've bait and switched along in science. We watched during the COVID vaccine how they changed, they literally change the definition of what a vaccine does. It no longer stops transmission because they had a product that couldn't stop transmission. So this is how they work.

And I'm assuming eventually we're going to get to the place. Well, they say we never needed to do placebo trials or saline. trials because I want to get to that place. I want to deal with that battle, which I know is out there. I know this is where this is going to go, but I'm so tired of hearing doctors say in these podcasts with me or in a challenging debate, they have been done just the original version. So you just took us through it. And I'm going to send this exact, this piece of video every time they say that to me go, here you go. Here's every single vaccine. Prove this wrong or I'm not coming back on your podcast. Right? I think that's a great idea.

And I think that you should also ask doctors, after they look at the package insured, for example, just for these Hep B vaccines, how can they possibly ethically give this product to any child? Because a product that has not been properly licensed, the ethics, the bioethics would tell you it is unethical to use that product. Is it possible? There's one lawsuit right now out there that's just saying the entire vaccine program has never been tested. and it's never been proven to be safe. Paul Thomas is one of them. Is a lawsuit, I mean, should we be attacking the entire schedule like that? Or do we have to take into little pieces? I know we're working at this.

I mean, what's the future in, I mean, we're all staring at it. They're giving our children products that have never been tested for safety. At the least, parents should know, they should be informed. They should understand what the truth is. And as it stands right now, you know, the first. federal government for forever, the state health departments, and apparently even GROC are still misleading parents. And that needs to stop. It does. Well, Aaron, your book, Vaccines, Amen. You even get into this in vaccines, amen. You have every chart that's in there, you know,

you're covering the science. I feel like once you've read this book, you know more than just about any pediatrician that's out there. You've covered, I agree. I think even calling, we act like it's a religion. It's really a cult. I think we're doing it a favor by calling what pharma and this industry has done as a religion. But I just want to thank you for all the work that you've done for I can. I do not think we are in the moment we're in in this country that I've actually been kind of bragging about. I'll have to admit I even said to a reporter last week that was interviewing me. I said, oh, I'm she's like, how are you doing? I said, oh, I'm giddy. I'm singing in the car. I'm myself singing all the time. I think we're now in the

offensive position and you have some explaining to do. I'm waiting for the placebo trials for you to hand it to me. It's been years of you saying the experts say, and yet you cannot prove any evidence. And so that doesn't make you a good journalist. You know what I say to them? I say, you know, in the world that you live in right now, this would be like going back to Woodward and Bernstein and they would have just called Richard Nixon and say, hey, did you tap the Watergate phones? No, I absolutely did not. Experts say Nixon didn't tap the Watergate. phones our job is done here that is what journalism is doing right now yeah right in many ways it is because to this point instead of going to the FDA website like we just went through that data

they they call up you know Dr. X or they you know look at like a doctor Paul off and it's made millions of dollars off of the work that he's done in vaccines and so as Stanley Plotkin and the rest of them yeah but I just want to point out there's a reason I call it a religion not a cult okay Because, you know, and I thought hard about this. And it's because a religion is when something's widely accepted. A cult is when a very few people accept it. And so I agree with you. It should be a cult.

We need to get it to a cult. And to get it there, we just need people start thinking about these products and start believing. When they do that, the number of people who believe instead of think, when that gets to a small enough group, then it's a cult. It's a free country. You're allowed to be in that cult. I'm not going to take your, which, you know, your strange injections you're doing to your children that have never been proven to be safe, but. Exactly. And also for those who, some folks who have said, well, I don't know if I like the religious term, I'll just want to point this out, is that folks who are practicing a religion, they know they're taking a leap of faith. They're trying to answer the unanswerable. Where do I go when I die? You know, go down the list.

Yeah. They know it's a religion because it requires faith and belief. These people, these people, these people, these people, They think they're making decisions based on facts and evidence, but it's not. Yeah. They're doing it based on belief, but they don't realize it, which is why it is a religion, but it's a perverse religion. Awesome. Aaron, you're the best of the best.

All right, so everybody out there, this is the book, Vaccines, Amen. If you do not have a copy, then you really can't claim to know everything there is no about this topic that we've covered on the high wire since the very beginning of 2017. Aaron and his legal team have been a part of this topic. a part of our team doing this work that entire time. All of that information is in here, peer-reviewed, proof, evidence, and why we're actually going to ultimately win this conversation. And I think, as Aaron said, you know, push this into just being the little cult that it is for anyone that wants to take part in it. Last week, you know, we had the opportunity to a live

show here. And in that live show, many of the donors and sponsors that make this show possible, just like you do. They were here and they went out and looked at their own brick to find it on the walkway, which you can do if you buy a brick. So our favorite brick this week is Gina Dalpez's brick. Take a look at this. This is my brick. I did this for my kids. It says, I'm sorry, CR and K. I love you. I vaccinated based on, you know, what the doctors told me to do. I boys were both injured. We protected my daughter, but it still impacted her life as well by, you know, having the vaccine injury in her family. I was that last person that should have defended them and didn't know better and didn't defend them. And so this was my apology to them. I'm more hopeful

now. They're doing really well. So the new brick that I do for over there will have a much more hopeful message. Every single brick here has a story, whether it's a story of injury like my family or parents who lost their children due to vaccine injury or the parents who are so grateful that those of us who had injured children spoke out and that the high wires you know shine a light on that but every single brick here has a story if you have a story you want to share on a brick Please take part of the terrorist project. It's beautiful. It's making our campus beautiful.

It's just getting better and better. And then you get to be a part of it. You can come and check it out. There's benches and plaques and different things you can do. But we're running out of time. I think by the time Christmas, I'll be shocked if there's any bricks left. So definitely take the opportunity because a lot of people missed the first time we're putting the walkway. So take advantage of it.

Maybe it's a great gift over the holidays to say I'm dedicated to great. a brick to somebody. I think that would be really neat too. What an amazing show. I mean, a reflective show, but also looking up in Canada, we're not through this. We've still got insanity all around us. We have, you know, the Canada and, you know, the world, the authoritarianism seems to be taking over.

England and Europe are in a horrific position. Canada, clearly, and yet we're sort of this beacon of light. We've got this smoldering ember and we're blowing on it. We're trying to win back, you know, our medical freedom, our right to free speech. But, you know, what happens if we don't get this fire raging by the time the cold, dark winter that Joe Biden described it is is upon us again? There's so much work that needs to be done right now. And so I'll hope you take whatever, you know, advantage of any opportunity you can to support the work. You just, we just spent all that time with Aaron Siri.

For some, maybe it was in the weeds. but these are your kids. Don't you want to know actually how this whole lie is being told. It was so clear that document's now in your hands. You can, you know, click on the QR code. It's always on our website. You can hand it to anyone you know. We're helping you, you know, win this argument with everyone you're talking to. We're helping you enroll people. And then, of course, we've got, you know, right there again, if you missed the opportunity, take a picture of this QR code, this document, you know, as I was sitting here with Aaron, is decades of work. I mean, there's so much work that has gone into making sure we have that exactly right. So you can say, nope, you're wrong. Grock, you're wrong.

There are no placebo trials anywhere in sight of any of these vaccines. It's critical. But we want to keep doing this work. We want to keep bringing the lawsuits. We want to get this fire raging. If you're just sitting there going, well, it's nice and warm, but it's slowly dwindling out. And you're not aware that there's a dark storm on the horizon that will come eventually. let's plan for that. Be a part of making a difference right now, become a recurring donor. It makes

all the difference in the world. And when you become a recurring donor, even if it's like $4 a month or whatever you can do, you're automatically enrolled in Highwire Plus, which is where we're doing extra content, a little extra something for those of you that give. We just want to thank you and give you something back. And as I was sitting here, Aaron just mentioned that he has received a letter. I didn't know anything about this from Dr. Stanley Plotkin, the leading authority on vaccines in the world, sent him a little letter because of this book saying, apparently, like, kind of being harsh and saying, you know, bad things about Aaron.

Well, guess what? I'm going to ask Aaron about that letter. We're going to get into it and off the record right after this show. but you can only watch this interview if you're a recurring donor. It's just one of the little things that we're doing for you. So why don't you make today to day? Because I am curious what Stanley Plotkin just said after reading this book. So let's not miss that.

To everyone out there, these are amazing times. There's still darkness. We're going to pray for the family, for Katie and her family and the ostriches, you know, that just represent, you know, we're watching social. socialism moving here on America. We talk about not ready to go to sleep with the wheel. What is happened in New York? Come on. This cannot be where we want to go, where everything's taken care of by the government. The government is like paying what? Our bus fare, our groceries. Holy cow, has that been tested and failed as many ways as it could possibly be?

It's an important work. We can't do that work without you. We have been bringing the truth when no one else would. We've stood the tested time. We don't care if they take our YouTube. channels or our Facebook channels or make threats. We know we've got the truth. We know that it's important and we're here for you. We'll be here every week. We're not going away because of those of you that make all this possible. Thank you for being part of this. Thank you for helping me, you know, be able to support the work that Aaron is doing because you're helping me get to support my children, my children and their future. And maybe my children will meet your children and they'll decide let's have a family that's totally unvaccinated. Can you imagine what

that generation is going to look like where their parents and now the kids multiple generations of unvaccinated beautiful children as is sort of represented in inconvenient study make sure you check out that film share it with everyone you know we're going to be really doing something with that over Thanksgiving which will be a lot of fun coming up so proud of the work that we're doing so proud of you that are part of this with us we're going to keep doing it we're not going to stop I hope you won't either and I'll see you next week on the highwire Thank you.