The Highwire with Del Bigtree - Episode 453: EXPOSING THE MOTIVE

Episode Date: December 6, 2025

Episode 453: EXPOSING THE MOTIVEToday on The HighWire, Del reveals why the CDC quietly changed its vaccines-autism page — now stating the claim “vaccines do not cause autism” is not evidence-based. Jefferey Jaxen covers the FDA’s bombshell disclosure that the COVID shot has killed at least 10 children, Europe’s rejection of Bovaer cow feed, and why flaws in a new Cochrane HPV study undermine claims it prevents cervical cancer. Then, Carrie Bigford (Texans for Vaccine Choice) shares tools she developed to help advocates confidently navigate vaccine discussions. We’ll check in live on the ACIP meeting, plus major news — ICAN will present to ACIP tomorrow at 9:30 AM ET. Del also sits down with Dr. Bob Sears to discuss MAHA leadership and the ACIP Hepatitis B vote. Guests: Carrie Bigford, Dr. Bob SearsBecome 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 to step out onto the high wire. As you can see, I think I have a rant coming on here in just a moment. But first, let's talk about the incredible day that we are sitting in right now as we speak. The advisory committee on immunization practices is in a meeting at the CDC. It's like no meeting that we have seen in decades, maybe ever. Real questions being asked, science being challenged, what were the studies? How long were they? What evidence do we have? How many kids are at risk? What proof do we have of the risk? Things that we've never seen take place, even though everyone in America believed that this was how these meetings were happening. But they weren't. Back in 2017, the advisory committee on immunization practices at that point was a country club for pharma. This is where pharma went to celebrate the billions of dollars they were going to be made as they just used ASIP to pass through their lack of safety testing to rush a brand new vaccine onto the market, and they would run out as soon as it was approved by the ASIP, and the

newspapers would write, you know, Pfizer going to make a billion dollars on their new vaccine. That's when Aaron Siri, our attorney for the informed consent action network, called me and said, Del, you know, we're winning lawsuits against the government. We're beating FDA, CDC, HHS, NIH, but we're never going to make a difference here if we don't go to the heart of the problem where these vaccines are being approved and put on the schedule. That's the advisory committee on immunization practices. Why don't we go to those meetings? He said there are actually public hearings, even though the public isn't going,

and we might even be able to submit and have you make a statement on a microphone from the public. So back in 2017, Aaron and I went to that hearing. We were the only ones there as far as I know. maybe there's one or two others out there that weren't representing pharma i got up and spoke about the dangers of the vaccine program and a slight disgust for how i'd seen things happen there we came back from that and started broadcasting the live stream cuts that we'd made of the ridiculous conversations that were happening at asip the next asip came around and we brought a bunch of people now we had a handful of people all showing up the third asip after that suddenly we had

50 people all getting on the microphone and talking about our issues, parents of vaccine injured children stepping up and telling their story, something that had never happened in the halls of this country club ever. And then finally, when hundreds started showing up from our side, the intelligent side, the questioning side, the hesitant side, they suddenly changed the way the entire format worked. They put a giant rope across the room, whereas once we could sit amongst everyone else, Now we were pushed to the backs of the room, like Rosa Parks on a bus, pushed to the back of the room with a rope we could not cross.

That side's pharma, the rest of you, dirty people, you at the back. Still, we spoke on microphones. And then moments after that, of course, COVID hit, and they made it so that there was never a public hearing again. But today, the tables have completely turned. Today, live streaming on X, if you've been watching, on the Highwire, at Highwire Talk, we've been streaming these hearings from the very beginning this morning. They'll be going all day. They're going right now as we're broadcasting on our

own channel. Tomorrow we'll be broadcasting on every High Wire channel, including our website. And if everything sticks to schedule at 9.30 a.m. Eastern time, our own Aaron Siri will be giving an entire discussion. 8.30 Central, 9.30 Eastern Time. series going to be giving a presentation at the advisory committee on immunization practices. So he's no longer sitting in a seat. He's definitely not out behind some ropes. He's going to be up in there. And by the way, if you really wanted to recognize a shift and the way things are going, Dr. Robert Malone has been the one overseeing these hearings because Kirk Milham, who is supposed to be the chair, couldn't make it. So the vice chair is standing in his

steed and running the hearings. It is clear now we live in a totally different world, a world that those of you that have been helping fund, I can, the work that we're doing, today should be one of the greatest celebrations you've ever had. You have literally proven that we can change the world. You know, never doubt that a small group of passionate citizens can change the world because indeed it's the only thing that ever has. This is who is going to be voting. We're expecting a vote today. on hepatitis B, which is the conversation of the day. My understanding is there may be a discussion right now on whether they're going to push that back.

They're terrified of that vote. You know, pharma has got to be ringing the hooks, ringing the phones of everyone that's on that panel, maybe even threatening jobs. I don't know. But this is a historic moment happening in the United States of America. It's a historic moment, certainly for health, health and human services and science, as we know it. The scientific method is alive and breathing, and real questions are final. happening. But why am I sitting here in front of this? What is this all about? This is inspired

by a video that Paul Offutt was a part of. This is one of the great vaccine shills known to man. He is an author on the Bible on vaccines, Plotkin's vaccines. He appears in court cases, defending vaccines, supporting vaccines. There's the authors of the Bible on vaccines right there, Stanley Plotkin, Walter Ornstein, Paul Offen, and Catherine Edwards. If you watch this show, you know all of these individuals. But Paul Offutt, of course, who's made millions and millions of dollars off of his own rotavirus vaccine, did not, by the way, recuse himself from this very committee, the ASIP community, while he was making a rhodovirus vaccine, did not recuse himself

for a vote to add rhodovirus vaccines to the childhood schedule, just to show you how completely corrupt these people are. That's not a conflict of interest. You stand to make millions of dollars in the future when you're done. making your vaccine and you think it's appropriate for you to vote yes on adding a rotovirus vaccine to the schedule when you are making a rotavirus vaccine. I mean, you can't make this stuff up. We've outed all of these things. And it's why, by the way, Robert Kennedy Jr. is now HHS Secretary and the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is now called ASIP. I want to add that

little feature. They always wanted to call ACIP. We change that. We think it should be called ASIP. And it is. So anyway, here is the video that really lit a fuse in me this week. And not maybe for the reasons you might think when you first watch it. But let's see what you think of what he's saying here. If you alter the vaccine injury compensation program and make no doubt about the fact that that is Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s he's already hired a law firm out of Arizona that has an expertise in the vaccine injury conversation program with a goal towards altering it. And what I predict is going to happen. And so I'm going to make something you should never do on on any sort of podcasts. I'm going to make a prediction. Here's my prediction. Probably by no later than early

next year, maybe the spring of next year, you are going to see Robert F. Kennedy Jr. holding up some paper that he's going to publish in a journal that is a fringe journal. I'll put that nicely. The journal that he uses called Science, Public Health, and the Law, which has an editorial board that consists solely of anti-vaccine activists. So he's going to publish this paper that says that aluminum adjuvants in vaccines are causing harm. Now aluminum adjuvants are in seven different vaccines given to young children. Not like thimerosol, where you can just go from multi-dose to single-dose well. There's no taking aluminum adjuvants out of vaccines.

There are certain vaccines that just need adjuvants to get a better immune response. What he's then going to do is he's going to say, see, it's causing autism, asthma, eczema, whatever. And he's going to either add that to the vaccine injury compensation program, which will break that program. or he will take vaccines out of the vaccine injury compensation program and say, I don't think they should get the protection of that program. Let's leave them open to the slings and arrows of outrageous civil litigation. Obviously, Paul Offent now finds himself an incredibly defensive position. For many that were watching that video that was posted online,

I think the obvious thing is essentially what's happening here is Paul Oppets looking to his little crystal ball and somehow psychically is going to predict what Robert Kennedy Jr. is going to do. Essentially, this is the same thing as if the Wizard of Oz suddenly said, I am going to predict that Dorothy and a lion and a tin man are going to come and pull back a curtain and reveal that the Wizard of Oz is not a wizard at all, that the science has sucked all along. And instead of having real robust science that is stood for the scientific community,

all that is there is a little guy in a chair and that little guy might just be me. That is what most people were talking about. Of course, he's predicting the very thing that he's been a part of covering up the entire time. But that is not what struck me in this statement, not that he's obviously afraid of Robert Kennedy, Jr., undoing the entire lie that he's weaved for decades and made millions from. Now, instead, what I thought was the most important part of this statement is he has finally delivered something that everyone has, asked me about. Why, Del, what would possibly be the motive? Why would the government lie about vaccine injury? Why would it hide the science? Why would it take away liability and then never do any actual science? It doesn't make sense. Are doctors just trying to kill people? Is Paul Opitt really

an evil person who just wants to destroy children's lives? It doesn't make sense, Del. There's no motive? Really? Well, Paul Offit just gave you the motive. Let's focus in on exactly what that motive is, not just for Paul Offit, but for maybe everyone in science, everyone certainly that supports a vaccine program, including every government of the world. Listen to it closely. Here comes the motive for the crime. You are going to see Robert F. Kennedy's holding up some paper. He's going to say, see, it's causing autism, asthma, eczema, whatever. And he's going to either add that to the vaccine injury compensation program, which will break that program. There you have it. Now, he's going to say, Paul, I mean, what Robert Kennedy Jr. is going to do,

I predict, is he's going to connect aluminum adjuvants, which is in seven of the 16 vaccines, can't be taken out, never been tested for safety, but cannot be removed. But he's going to take aluminum and he's going to say that it's connected to autism he's going to attach vaccines and autism and if he does that he's going to break the vaccine injury compensation program break it okay so what is the motive for a cover up he didn't say if science and by the way he's trying to make it about Robert Kennedy Jr but listen what he just said do you think he would be happy with any scientists in the world doing a study that connected vaccines and autism if his belief is that will break the system. See, this is what they know.

This is what they've been protecting. It doesn't matter if it's Robert Kennedy Jr. Del Bigtree or, you know, Dr. Marcus Zerbos at Henry Ford Health Systems at the heart of our film and inconvenience study. There can never be a connection between vaccines and autism or the system will break. I posted about this video. This is what I wrote in my post this week. And by the way, If you're not following me at Del Binkree, you should, because I have rants too in the middle of the night like Donald Trump. Dr. Paul Offutt accidentally admits the real motivation behind the autism cover-up. If Illumina is found to cause autism, it will break the vaccine program. He is correct.

So never doubt why your government use shills like Offutt to block any science that would link vaccines to autism. The cost would overwhelm the entire health system, and thus the motivation for the crime. Now, there's one little post, some guy commenting, I love this because this just shows when they really think they've got a gotcha. He said it will break the vaccine injury compensation program, not the vaccine program. Huge difference. Geez, do better. I wrote, you obviously haven't done the math. Huge difference, indeed.

So why don't we talk about the math today? How big a motivation would this be? There's a motive for a crime, which is important for every single, case, whether it's a murder or a fraud case, why? Why did they do it? So let's go back to the 1986 vaccine injury compensation program. This is the moment in the United States of America that the pharmaceutical industry said to Ronald Reagan and our Congress, we are losing so much money from death and injury cases, we cannot make a profit. Their statement, not mine. A product so bad, we can't afford to make it anymore. Not like all the other drugs where we lie to you,

we know we're lying, and you discover years later in courtrooms that, yeah, we always knew it caused heart attacks, we always knew it killed people. We always knew the talcum powder caused cervical cancer, but it took you 50 years to figure it out, and guess who made billions of dollars before that happened. See, that's the pharmaceutical industry we all know and love. But in this case, it had caught up with them. So many lawsuits, they couldn't make a profit. Ronald Reagan, the idea. He doesn't want to give liability protection. But what's he going to do? He doesn't want to see the end of the vaccine program, especially somewhere in the future, there's going to be a biological attack. How are we going to make vaccines to protect ourselves? And so with his hands

tied behind his back, he signs on to the 1986 vaccine injury compensation program, which takes all liability away from the pharmaceutical industry and puts it all on the government of the United States of America and specifically a vaccine injury compensation program. VICA. And in this case, every vaccine is going to have a little tax. That little tax will go to a fund. We will pay off everybody being injured by vaccines because what they admitted is we know vaccines injure people. That's why you're in court all the time. But instead of having a regular court system, we're going to have a no-fault court. We admit it's injured your child. There's a list of the injuries we admit to, and we're just going to pay you and send you

on your way. And guess what? They were paying for autism. Autism was paying out, the ocephalopathy, brain swelling, which they fully recognized took place, one of the most common injuries reported across the world from vaccinations. But every payout was about $5 million. But then suddenly the government realized, oh, snap, we got a problem. No one bothered to ask Pfizer or Merck or any of the pharmaceutical industries exactly how many lawsuits do you have? How big a problem is this, really?

How insurmountable is it? I mean, I guess we should have thought about the fact that you wanted to walk away from the program altogether, but they didn't. And then suddenly, after 1986 by the year 2000, this is what they saw. Outside the courtroom, the vaccine court of the United States of America, over 5,000 cases of autism lined up to be paid their $5 million for being injured by vaccines. and all of a sudden they realize, oh my God, we have a little bit of a problem here. How are we going to handle all these cases? What is that going to cost? What are we going to do?

They had no idea the problem was this bad. So they go and do better science and they fix the vaccine, figure out why it's doing this? No, no, no, no, no, no. We've got to run some sort of court scam to kick all of these people out of court. So here's what they came up with. Let's have what will be called the omnibus proceeding. So in the omnibus proceeding, they decided of the 5,000, and by the way, just for visual reference, this is only 1,000. Okay?

Just going to put that out there. Here's what they decided they're going to do. We're going to take six, select six, one, two, three, four, five, randomly selected six cases, and we are going to have. a court. We're going to bring each one of these in the court one at a time. If any one of these randomly selected cases ends up proving that vaccines can cause autism, then the 5,000 will get their day in court. But if we get lucky enough that none of these six cases can prove a connection between vaccines and autism, this will be over. This will not be our problem. And so this is how it goes down. Case number one, Michelle Sidio. Michelle Sidio ends up in this court case.

They decide that because of the leading witness in the world, the leading authority on vaccines, Dr. Andrew Zimmerman states unequivocally that there is no mechanism by which a vaccine could have caused Michelle Sidio's autism. Therefore, this case is thrown out. It loses. It's done. Okay. One down, five to go. Next up, Hannah Poling. Now, Hannah Poling, same thing, regress into autism right after vaccinations. Only one problem here. Hannah Poling's father is a neurologist, John Poling. And to take it one step further, John Poling works inside of the same health system as Dr. Andrew Zimmerman, the world's leading a third. authority on autism and the primary witness for the Department of Justice. Yes, the government that is fighting these poor parents. The government's against them. You against the government of the United States try to beat us. Well, John polling says, hey, Dr. Zimmerman, we are colleagues.

I want you to look at the health records of my daughter because I'm a neurologist. I've tracked her all the way along. I can show you something I never would believe in my own eyes. My daughter did regress into autism right after vaccinations. Obviously, I gave her. of vaccines, because I went to the same med school you did, and I thought they were perfectly safe. But she regressed into autism before our very eyes. Here's videos. Here's proof. Andrew Zimmerman studies hand upholing, and he comes to a new conclusion. He says, oh, my God, I've discovered why for some kids, vaccines can cause autism. It's an underlying mitochondrial disorder, the energy of the cells, and somehow the energy is not productive enough that when the inflammatory event

that is caused by vaccines happens, it was unable to quell that inflammation before it reached her brain, caused an encephalopathy, a swelling of the brain, and resulted in a symptom called autism. So he rushes to the lawyers, the Department of Justice. The night before this is going to go, and he's going to be on the stand, and he says the lawyers, hey, look, I've discovered it. I've discovered why many of these kids may be regressing into autism. I'm the leading authority in the world, and I've just studied Hannah-polling, and it's a mitochondrial disorder and they say, great, Dr. Andrew, that's fascinating. You're fired. What? You're fired.

We don't want you in court tomorrow. That's how they handle their leading witness and they send him home. And they take the hand of polling case and they take it off to the side and they settle it on its own. They move it out of the queue. And they end up paying what is believed to be over $20 million over the life of Hannah Poling. Not five, $20 million. Before John Poling was silenced, this was him on Sanjay Gupta and CNN. Take a look at this. We are here with Dr. John Poling. He is, first of all, he's a neurologist. He's also the father of Hannah Poling. As you just mentioned, her autism, her case of autism, diagnosis was conceded by the federal government as having been contributed to by vaccines. That was a pretty startling thing, I think,

for a lot of people to hear. We talked to a lot of experts about this. They say, look, vaccines in no way cause autism. You're a neurologist, you're also the father of Hannah. What do you say? Well, I think you bring up a really important point is that the government, actually, the Department of Health and Human Services, conceded that my daughter's

medical problems, which are autism, encephalopathy, seizures, were brought on by vaccination. That's startling, I think, for a lot of people to hear that, because we've been taught, for so long. You're a doctor, I'm a doctor. We go to medical school, we hear this vaccines, obviously. There's so many good things about vaccines. They prevent, you know, life-threatening illnesses that we've heard about. But in your daughter's case, it turned out to be a problem. I wouldn't have believed it until it happened to me. To be honest with you, as a doctor,

until it happened to me, until I saw the regression, until I saw a normal 18-month-old toddler descend into autism. I wouldn't have believed it was possible. So what you believe is that that Hannah have some sort of predisposition and then the vaccines tipped her over the edge into developing autism? What is your belief now? Well, I don't think that vaccines are the only way that you can tip over a child like Hannah to regress and have an encephalopathy and have a regress into autism. There are probably multiple triggers. And my daughter clearly it was the vaccinations. That was our experience.

As far as other family's experiences, it may be different. The other cases that were at Johns Hopkins, there were, you know, only a few like Hannah, and then others regressed for other reasons. It's not really a known entity. I mean, I don't know if for those of you that may be new to this show, maybe that's the first time you've ever watched that. So anyone that tells you that it's never been proven that vaccine caused autism, it has been proven in court. And Sanjay Gupta knows it when he says this on television ever since. We don't know what causes autism.

I mean, that's fair to say. We're not sure as a scientific community, what causes autism, but we know that vaccines do not. I wonder when he's saying that every time he says it, is it in the back of his head going hand of pulling, hand of polling, hand up pulling. Don't think about hand and pulling. Forget about Hannah polling. Forget about John polling. Forget about the science. Forget about winning in court.

Just keep saying it. Just keep saying, I don't know. I don't know what makes Sanjay Gupta tick. But I do know for a fact that is one doctor and one scientist that knows for a fact that this case right here was thrown out of court hidden from the. public silenced after that video and settled for $20 million. So next up, Yates Hazlehurst. This child does have a mitochondrial disorder, autism right after vaccinations. They end up running the case.

And instead of Andrew Zimmerman showing up, what do they do? We look at the case right here. They don't bring him onto the stand, but boy, do they quote him. They still quote Andrew Zimmerman in the testimony. There is no scientific basis for a connection between the MMR vaccine or mercury and intoxication and autism, despite well-intentioned and thoughtful hypothesis and widespread beliefs about an apparent connection with autism and regression, there's no sound evidence to support a causative relationship with exposure to both or either MMR and or H.D. Mercury, all of these things. That was

Zimmerman's statement. So they knew he'd evolved his statement. They took this case, fired him, took this case and settled it, but kept using his original statement, total and complete fraud by the government of the United States. That is a fraud. hands down by the Department of Justice committed fraud and then throughout this case and everyone others not on their own using Zimmerman but lying about

what his understanding was because he had finally learned and woke up and they wouldn't let him to a courtroom this is what took place and why did it take place what is that motive Paul Office talking about this is what Paul office talking about if it is ever

determined that hand of polling was right had this case ever gone how it had suddenly every one of these people are going to be lined up in this courtroom with the potential to win $5 million. So let's do some math. When Paul often says it'll break the system and some dork is telling me he just said the vaccine injury compensation program, not the whole the whole vaccine program, Dell, get real. Oh, yeah, you haven't done the math. So we'll do it, shall we? there are, at this moment, in 2007, in this case, there are 5,000 cases, right?

Let's multiply that, shall we, by the average payout of $5 million. What does that equal? $25 billion is what was potentially at stake for our vaccine injury compensation program. To date, right now, as we understand it, there's somewhere between 4 and 5 billion complete totally in the system. It's paid out 5, has roughly 4.5 billion in the trust to pay awards right now. After 40 years of existence, it has 4.5 billion. So it's going to come up really short back in 2007. We are going to pay this out. $25 billion. I have news for you. That doesn't just flatten the vaccine injury compensation program. Obviously, it doesn't have that

much money. And this is just autism. How far does this go? This wipes out HHS. This wipes out the vaccine program. This potentially wipes out your entire health department. HHS gone. What does it do with the government? And it made me think, and what I really started thinking about this was Jason Chaffetz was a congressman that was the head of the OGR committee. He actually watched Vaxed and was really into Vax. Check out those numbers right, 2009 to 2017. but he'd watched Vaxed, and I had several meetings with him. In fact, I was joined by Mark Blacksell, who was actually at the ASIP meeting today reporting on behalf of the CDC. But Mark Blacksle and I were sitting in a meeting with Jason Chafetz multiple times,

and he was really curious about Dr. William Thompson. But he said something in the second or third meeting that I had with him over the course of many months because we were trying to get him to bring Dr. William Thompson in front of the Congress to have a public hearing, to hear about the fraud that he was talking about, the center of Vax, of course, the cover-up of the MMR Autism Vaccine Study that clearly was manipulated. They kicked half the kids off the study, committed fraud. At this exact time period, by the way, same time period. Remember, the government is looking at $25 billion bill that cannot pay.

So we've got to do this. We've got to do the omnibus proceeding. We've got to do a fake study, a fraudulent study inside the CDC. Oh, guess what else is happening? Over in England, they're destroying Andy Wendon. Wakefield's connection to the MMR vaccine because England's got the same freaking problem. Billions and billions of dollars, you got to ruin this guy's career because he's on to something. He even in this paper says, look, I'm looking at 12 kids.

It looks like autism is connected to some bowel disease that they got while they got the MMR vaccine. He says this doesn't prove causation, but means we should study it further. That was the big smoking gun that destroyed Andy Wakefield's job, daring to say to someone like Paul Offutt, Just study it. Yo, bro, if we study it and we find out that it causes autism, we are effed. 25 billion. So Jason Chafetz, and I'm sitting there across from him, and he said something that took me a while to figure out. I said, Del, if we call, you know, William Thompson in front of America, what will happen?

I mean, in all honesty, how big do you think this is? where does this end I didn't quite understand what he meant but as I laid in bed that night and many after I thought he's right this is like the first time you divide atoms you're going to blow up a nuclear bomb for the first time there's a question do the atoms ever stop splitting

do they ever stop does it kill everything in sight because certainly certainly at five million dollars a case it's going to destroy the CDC and all the CDC credibility if we discover that the government lied about the safety of this product, that it actually causes autism. CDC is screwed. 25 billion? No, what are we at?

Like a $66 billion budget, I think, for HHS? Screwed, gone. All of the health departments. But then you've got to start imagining Jason Chaffetz is sitting there going, but what about the government itself? What happens to the government in the United States? What happens about my job? What happens about the president?

What happens about the greatest nation in the world? What does a $25 billion bill do? Wait a minute. Hold on a second. That was $25 billion back in 2007. Where would we be at right now? Hey, how about we run those numbers? It is now believed, let's go over to my calculator here, that there are 73,100,000 approximately children in America as we speak. There's numbers all over the country ranging at 31, now 1 in 31. But in California, why are we look at California, where the number has now gotten as high as one point in 12.5 boys with girls included, look at the bottom, 53.1 California, that's one in 19. One in 19 children in California are being diagnosed with autism. And they're saying in California, it's not because there's anything wrong with our water, the fact that Gavin Newsom has one of the most authoritarian forced vaccine programs the world has ever seen. It might weigh in a little bit.

But what they're trying to say in California is, we think this is the fate of the whole country. We just have better systems in place, better tracking systems than anywhere else in the world. So let's just take it on because this is what you're going to do if you work for the government of the United States. Let's take on worst case scenario. So if we go ahead and say, all right, so one in 19, let's divide 73.1 million by 19. that means that there's potentially 3,847,000 cases of autism in America right now. Now imagine if it comes out, whether it's Robert Kennedy Jr. or just decent science that proves that vaccines actually can cause autism, which makes perfect sense.

Certainly all these eyewitnesses can be wrong, and Hannah Poling wasn't wrong, Zimmerman wasn't wrong, John Polling wasn't wrong, Sanjay Gupta wasn't wrong for about 45 seconds of his life. And so what does that mean? Well, let's multiply that by the cost of raising a child with autism in America, including taking care of them once they're adults. Get ready for this. $19 trillion, $236 billion, $842,000,26,000, $842,263,000. dollars dollars 19 trillion last I checked the entire debt of America which we're worried could sink this all is 30 trillion let's go ahead and add another

20 trillion to that just for autism so in Paul Offit says if anyone call it Robert Kennedy Jr. ever gets as far as connecting vaccines to autism. We're finished. This program that I wrote a Bible on with Stanley Plotkin, Walter Ornstein, and Catherine Edwards, this program that I built with my bare hands playing God for the world is over. In fact, I might have just bankrupted the United States of America. So, folks, if you're going to commit a crime, what would be the motive? Would $19 trillion make you think twice? I think it made Jason Chaffetz think twice. Almost, I think weeks after my final conversation with him, where he asked me, how big is this? He quit. Walked away from his job early. I've never seen

anything like it. I can't say it's because of this conversation. Pretty sure his grandkids are not vaccinated, though. We had really good conversations about Vaxed, and he was very, very concerned about this issue. But think about it. You're a class president. You believe in the government. You make it all the way to Congress or Senate, or maybe in the President of the United States, and suddenly you're handed just a truth-telling moment. Let's just do the science and show. What everyone knows, vaccines cause autism. Oh, wait a second, that's not just going to bankrupt our health care system. That might just bankrupt the greatest nation in the world. So Yates Hazlehurst, Got another day in court.

Years later, this time, Aaron Siri was working for I-Can, and we sent him down to that case. And in that case, which you've seen before, they brought in Catherine Edwards, another shill, doing her job to make sure that no one ever connects vaccine to autism because there's a mountain of evidence. There's a mountains of science. Obviously, we've never been afraid of costing the government $19 trillion. We rushed right into the best science you could possibly imagine to get to the bottom of that conversation. and here it is in court. Watch this once again.

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

That's correct. It's your testimony that Head B vaccine cannot cause autism? That's correct. It's your testimony that I poll cannot cause autism? Yes. It's your testimony that HIV and, vaccine cannot cause autism? Yes. Your testimony, that Varicella vaccine cannot cause autism?

Yes. It's your testimony that Prevnar vaccine cannot cause autism? Yes. And it's your testimony that DTAP vaccine cannot cause autism? Yes. And do you have a study that supports a DTAP doesn't cause autism? I have, I do not have a study that that DTAP caused autism. So I don't have either. Do you have any study one way or another of whether iPol causes autism? No, I do not, sir. Do you have any study one way or another of whether Endrex B causes autism? I do not have any evidence that it causes autism nor that it does not. And what about hid titers vaccine?

Any evidence one way or another whether it causes autism? And what about Prevnor vaccine? Any evidence one way or another? No, sir. And how about varicella vaccine? Let me just finish. Are there any studies one way or another that's for whether it does or doesn't cause autism? Part of MMR, but not as varicella by itself. No, sir.

No studies that say it does or no studies that say it doesn't. Right. There have been studies that have found an association between hepatitis B vaccine and autism, correct? Not studies that I feel are credible. Okay. Which study, which study are you referring to when you say that? Well, why don't you show me this study and then I'll see whether I agree with it. According to your profile, you have done most of the predictable trials relied upon to license many of the vaccines, correct, on the market? Yes, sir.

Okay. So you're highly experienced in conducting clinical trials, correct? Correct? I'm highly experienced conducting clinical trials. And you're familiar with many of the clinical trials that relied upon to license, many of the vaccines currently on the market, correct? I am. In your opinion, did the clinical trials relied upon to license the vaccines that Yates received, many of which are still on the market today?

Were they designed to rule out that the vaccine causes autism? No. You've badgered me into answering the question the way you want me to, but I think that that's probably the answer. Is that your accurate and truthful testimony? Yes. Motive. What's your motive? Is it evil?

Is Paul Off it evil? I mean, you have to ask yourself, what would you do? What would you do? How much do you care about the United States of America? How much do you care about our government? If you realize that doing a study, which clearly we've proven over and over again, and Catherine Edwards just admitted, we've never done any study because we're too afraid that if we found a connection, it would bankrupt this entire system. Forget about our egos. Forget about our dream of going down

in history is the great gods that made us better than God created us himself. It's all over. In fact, this is what we're going to have to deal with now as we think in these ASIP meetings that are happening right now, the same exact conversations. Hep B, never tested. Five-day safety trials. Is that enough? No one in medicine, no one in farmer, Merck, nobody seems to care. No, that's plenty. Why would you take away a vaccine that's never been tested for safety? You know, what are the risks? We don't know the risks.

Because you refuse to do any science because you're so afraid of these numbers as you should be. When people ask me, you know, why are you in this conversation? Because I will tell you as a journalist, this is the biggest story in the world. This is the biggest fraud that has ever happened. We have evidence. vaccines causes autism. It's called Hannah polling. We know that they've never done the science. They're so afraid of it. Would you do it, though? What will Donald Trump do? Honestly, I'm concerned about this. Because if Robert Kennedy Jr. does do the science, and of course, Forma and all

of its shills and everyone on TV and everyone that's been a part of this fraud and this lie, will have to hold up that lie because they're so guilty of being a part of this fraud. But does Donald Trump know that we are talking about trillions of dollars of owed to everyone that's been injured? And I know I'm using big numbers, $19 trillion, would have only half those cases are actually caused by the vaccine. And as John Poling said, you know, the other ones, it could be other reasons. Okay, so $9, $10 trillion, we can afford that. That's only going to wipe out the vaccine injury compensation program, folks. There is not a bigger fraud.

There's not a bigger story that's ever happened in our life. time. And that is what's happening. That's what's beginning to happen at the advisory committee meetings. But I will say to you this. There are those that could honestly say that what Paul Offutt is saying is true. And whether or not vaccines do cause autism, he's trying to protect the United States of America. And frankly, every nation in the world that's been a part of this fraud because they're all going to be bankrupted if they get sued for what they've done. There's an atonement. There's a gnashing of teeth. This is Armageddon, folks. That's what is at stake. So when Paul Opitt tells you there's been science done, would you ever trust science done by someone that is hanging with a noose

that should they discover what they don't want to find, it is going to destroy them and everything and the nation they live in? That is the motive. That is the motive for the greatest crime that's ever happened. And it's why Paul Offit has been perfectly happy to say this to every parent of autism and everyone that's ever been lined up. F you. You don't exist in my world. I don't care about you. I will never do the studies because I have a lie to uphold. We have a huge show coming up. Obviously, I've just spent a lot of time just now, but I think it's important to know what's really going on here.

To know what's happening, what's at stake. Coming up, I've got Bob Sears, and we're going to be talking about him about physicians for informed consent has created a great new document, a book for every doctor to know the truth about vaccines. We also have an expert coming in. Kerry Bigford is going to talk about how do you talk about this issue over Christmas with your family as she's got a course in how to do that. That's going to be amazing. But first, with the news that's happening and what's going out at the ASEP committee, it's time for the Jackson Report.

All right, Jeffrey, I had to get that off my chest, man. That has been, you should have seen my version yesterday in the, in a war room. I was like screaming and yelling. And Jedd shared his life, but he's like, you'd have to take it down a notch. Yeah, I'm not cutting any segments down. We got to talk about what's happening in the news here. We have another historic week. And we're here reporting live on the front end of this with our audience worldwide watching

as the evolution of science and public health is happening right now. So I want to talk about the ASIP committee that's also had. happening as we speak right now in Atlanta, Georgia, at the CDC, and we're going to go into that moment. But moving into this week, into this ASIP committee, hanging over that conversation that they're having on the hepatitis B vaccine, the FDA, the Food and Drug Administration, had a memo that was leaked to the media, and it looked like this. The FDA's vaccine chief says the agency plans to tighten approval standards for COVID vaccines, citing concerns about potential risks for children. Last week, a senior official sent out a memo linking the deaths of at least 10

children to the shot. Dr. Vene Prasad says a review of records linked 10 children's deaths to the COVID vaccine, but he did not provide data to support that claim. The memo did not include the children's ages or medical history, did not identify the vaccine manufacturer, and these findings have not been published in a peer-reviewed journal. So why does Dr. Prasad say that the benefits of vaccinating children are unclear? There's no science to back up that claim. The American Academy of Pediatrics strongly recommends COVID shots for children between six months and two years old, while the infectious diseases society of America recommends vaccine for everyone six months and older.

So 10 deaths. 10 deaths is what the CDC is now talking about. And I want to bring, I want to go into this, obviously, but bring people's attention to historic similarities. And I want to bring this chart up. This was a study by Peter McCullough and his team showing the drugs and the vaccines that were recalled and why they were recalled. And you can see there at the top, the polio vaccine, the Cutter incident. This was 1955, Cutter Laboratories. They found that they were shipping live polio that was going into children's arms and it killed 10 kids.

They pulled that in less than a year. Underneath that, the swine flu vaccine, 1976, less than a year, it killed 53 people. They pulled it. And what happened after they pulled that? well they ended they literally ended the national immunization program federal health officials they just they put a stop to it because of that and so that's where the fda is the waters they're treading in now with at least 10 deaths from the covid vaccine in in a group that was not susceptible to covid essentially that was the smallest risk factor in that group so i want to

unpack this story because there's a lot of lies out there by our friends the corporate media so in september of this year you had this headline trump official to link COVID shots to child deaths, alarming career scientists. And again, from the corporate media saying science is not political, every chance they get, they're beating this drum to make it political. I want to go into it says Tracy Beth Ho, one of McCarrie's top deputies, who was a critic of broad childhood coronavirus vaccination before joining the FDA, has been one of the officials looking into vaccine safety data,

according to five people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private information. So you have some leakers there. And so Tracy Beth Hold, by the way, is now the director of the Center for Drug Evaluation of Research. She's a physician and epidemiologist. So this isn't some off-the-wall anti-vax Trump official. This is a career scientist. Yeah.

Very strong career scientists. So at that montage on the top, they were attacking this. You saw the corporate media saying, well, Vinnie Prasad, he didn't release. any type of study, there was no names. Well, he didn't do that because this was a leaked memo. This was an internal food and drug administration email that was leaked to the Washington Post. And so let's go into this email. That's amazing because they're accusing him, right, like almost like a fear mongering. He's putting out this fear on a vaccine that we all know is great.

Forget about the fact that we actually got it all wrong. We told you was 95% effective, wasn't 95% effective. Told you one shot and done, two shots and done, seven shots and done, 10 shots and done, we keep lying about it. I don't know how they have confidence, Jeffrey, by the way, to stand up and put children at risk. That's what these news agencies are doing when they're saying this can't possibly be true that 10 children died. But the point is, is he didn't submit this to the press. This was an internal memo that they stole, that they went out with it. Then they scared the public with it and then said, oh, by the way, but don't listen to it. Literally creating

the problem and alleviating their own problem at the same exact time. It's such a giant pile of And Prasad did it did everything that a normal functioning government official would do going through the appropriate chain of command and also to talk to his team, to communicate to his team. This is what's happening. This is what we found. Let's go into this memo that was leaked. And again, Vinay Prasad is the head of the Center for Biologic evaluation of research. I remember our friend Dr. Peter Marks, who was the previous head, who hit the data, who listen to the vaccine injured on Zoom calls and said, I'm sorry, we really can't help you, essentially. So now this is Vinay Prasad. He's speaking to his team at Siebert, and this is what he says.

I'm writing, this is a heads up. I'm writing to report that OBPV, that's the Office of Biostatistics and Pharmacovigilance, career staff have found that at least 10 children have died after and because of receiving COVID-19 vaccination. These deaths are relative to vaccination, likely probable possible attribution made by staff. That number is certainly an understatement due to the underreporting and inherent bias and attribution. This safety signal has far-reaching implications for Americans, the U.S. pandemic response and the agency itself, which I wish to discuss here it goes on. In the summer of 2025, Dr. Hogue began investigating. Now, here he is trying to unpack the lies of the corporate media to his team. Dr. Hogue began investigating bears

reports of children who had died after administration of the COVID-19 vaccine. By late summer, she had concluded that there were, in fact, deaths, a fact this agency has never publicly admitted. It goes on. Dr. Hogan organized a small meeting to discuss these deaths with OVRR, that's the Office of Vaccine Research and Review, and again, the OBPV, stakeholders. So those are the appropriate offices to discuss this. Dr. Hogue went to these CBER sub offices and said, Office of Vaccine Research, Office of Pharmacal Vigilance, you need to hear what has been found. She says this. The slides she presented, email she sent, and distorted firsthand reports were shared with media outlets. Some staff present, who leaked, portrayed the incident as Dr. Hobb, attempting to create a false fear regarding vaccines. This is Prasad now. I then ask the Office of Biostatistics and Pharmacoviligians, which he should do, to perform a detailed analysis of deaths voluntarily reported to the VAR system. So again, he's asking, Dr. Hogue found this. Now, Dr. Prasad as a leader of that organization said, thank you, Dr. Hogue. I'm going to ask now my team under me. I have a whole team that can look into this. Now they're going to do an independent study to see what you find to back this up or to debunk it. Yeah. He goes on in the full interest of

balance. He asked his team to do this. The team has performed an initial analysis of 96 deaths between 2021, 2024, and concluded that no fewer than 10 are related. If anything, this represents conservative concoating with vaccines are excruplated rather than indicated. In cases of ambiguity, the real number is higher. This is a profound revelation for the first time the U.S. FDA will acknowledge that COVID-19 vaccines have killed American children. Wow. This is a heads up to his team. He's saying, we are going to announce this. Prepare yourselves. We have the science. We've talked to the families. We've reached out. And again, from 2021 to 2024, the previous, I mean, What's not being said there is the previous leaders, Dr. Peter Marks, no one cared to look,

no one cared to call these families. No one cared to do anything. A new administration had to come in and look through, look back through the data. Do these parents even know that their kids died of the COVID shot? I don't know. But hopefully they're being, hopefully they're being contacted at this point. A lot of people representing this, by the way, is like an FDA cover up that, you know, they knew these deaths were there. Actually, my biggest question for Tracy Beth Hoag would be When you called these parents, when you decide to look through the VAERS reports and call all of the reports of children who had died, how many of them said, oh, we've already spoken to the FDA. I bet you zero. I'll bet you she was the first time they called.

I mean, that's a guess. But my guess is no one in our government ever even cared to look into the VAIRS system for the exact reasons I just explained. Because as long as you don't do an investigation, as long as you don't do any science, you can say, to your knowledge, the vaccine is perfectly safe. This is literally ostrich through their head in the sand. It's how science is being done. And finally, we have an administration that doesn't just take one scientist's perspective, but runs it through an entire team. The world is changing.

Finally, we're watching science happen. But unfortunately, you know, what are you going to do with mainstream news that's owned by the pharmaceutical industry? Right. And it works both ways here. And I'm reading a lot here. I'm reading from, this is a historical document. It's a leaked memo.

But this is how you want your government health agencies communicating. This is how you want them talking in back channels. So it is great that we are able to read this to the public and show what is going on, how they're speaking to each other. So I want to go on it because it doesn't just talk about 10 deaths, which is huge, which is bombshell, as it should be. It goes on to talk about the path forward for the Center for Biologics, the Sieber Center, that Vinay Prasad is, and in general, FDA, and he goes on to say this, I want to outline a path forward. Our general approach in Sieber will be to direct vaccine regulation towards evidence,

based medicine. This means we will take swift action regarding this new safety concern. We will not be granting market authorization to vaccines and pregnant women based on unproven surrogate endpoints. And he goes, any prior promises will be null in void. And we will demand pre-market randomized trials assessing clinical endpoints for most new products. Nymonia vaccine makers will have to show their products reduce pneumonia, at least in the post-marketing setting, and not merely general antibody titers. Immunogenicity will no longer be used to expand indicated populations. He says, we will revise annual flu vaccine framework, which is an evidence-based catastrophe of low-quality evidence. Poor surrogate assays and uncertain vaccine effectiveness

measured in case control studies with poor methods. We will reappraise safety and be honest in vaccine labels. This is what we want in a public health organization, the FDA, the CDC. We want them talking like this. And now, will all this happen? We don't know. These are his hopes. His path forward. That has to be put into policy. Staff have to probably be hired to do this because this is a whole new road for the FDA. But this is the hopes and dreams Vinay Prasad, his team, and I would assume much of the FDA at this point. This is the hopes and dreams of I can, of you, of me, of Aaron, Siri, of Robert Kennedy Jr. I mean, I had tears in my eyes this morning when I was sitting listening to the hearings and hearing people like Mark Blacksill, who I've stood side by

with when you watch this happening. Jeffrey, these were statements that were always being made from outside the echo chamber, outside the castle, outside the walls. It's coming from inside the walls now. Real science, real questions, real investigations. It's so incredible. No one believed we be here, Jeffrey.

That's what I keep thinking all day. No one would have ever believed if we would have stated this, you know, nine years ago when I was touring with Vaxed, that we would be here, that we would be inside the government, government that we would have real scientists finally asking real questions and doing exactly we just said. We're no longer just going to assume safety. We're no longer going to say, oh, you have antibodies, therefore you should take the vaccine. Now, what if those antibodies have nothing to do with the circulating strain? Never again. Flu is going to have to prove it can

stop the virus that's in circulation or we're not putting it out there. I mean, finally, you know, no more 10% effective vaccines given to people, injuring them, making them sick, killing grandma for no reason whatsoever and probably increasing the risk as we see in so many studies four times the risk of up a respiratory illness and infections if you get the flu vaccine so all of this finally finally finally I just feel bad right I feel bad for everyone watching mainstream news that are still living in part of the lie don't realize that there's like a 19 trillion dollar incentive to lie to you they're missing some of the biggest stories of really the century when it comes to public

health because this evolution is real. It's happening. And you can see other states having formed a Western or Eastern vaccine alliance. Now Illinois jumping in there with his governor, that they're sticking to the COVID shot for all children, all infants, six months or older. So they're ignoring literally almost six years of new science on the COVID shot now, including deaths and the children. So I want to talk, you mentioned proof. I want to talk about proof because people watching, again, mainstream corporate media, they're seeing headlines like this. We're going to go vaccine heavy because this This is the conversation in America right now as far as the public health. Scientists confirm HPV vaccine does prevent cancer.

Another one, HPV vaccine slashes cervical cancer risk with minimal side effects, major review fines. I want to unpack this because when we see these headlines, we think, wait a minute, we know some of the science here. We know how this vaccine was brought to market. When we see headlines like this, we have to start questioning this. So in order to really unpack this study that we're being told is a major study. study, we have to look at what HPV is. This is a human papillomavirus, and we go to the

National Institutes of Health, their National Cancer Institute, their own website. I want to read this. Research has found that it can take 5 to 10 years for HPV-infected cervical cells to develop into pre-cancers and about 20 years to develop into cancer. So the research we're being told is saying that cancer that develops in 20 years, this HPV shot can stop it. going to end it. So let's go to this research. It's from the Cochrane Collaboration. We're told this is Gold Standard Science. This is an independent research organization, and they just look at the facts. So this is their headline here. This is the human papillin vaccination for prevention of cervical cancer. They looked at 60 studies. It's a meta-analysis. And you go right into there.

The first couple paragraphs, you read this in this study. The researchers say the studies were the 60 were not of sufficient duration for cancers to develop. up. Oh, okay. Well, that's not what the headlines I just read said. They said it stops cervical cancer. But the researchers are, okay, I'll take them from where the word is. So with any research, as Secretary H.J.S. Kennedy said, we're going to try to eliminate conflicts of interest. Why? Well, because conflicts of interest skew research results. We know that. It's common sense. Yeah. So now let's go into the paper again. This is a Cochum collaboration. Let's look at their conflicts of interest. It says, out of those 60 studies,

44 studies were funded by vaccine developers at 73%. The GlaxoSmith Klein, 25 studies, Merck 18 studies, Sinoffi Passer, goes on and on. In 48 trials, that's 80%, authors had conflicts of interest due to being affiliated with or employed by and or owning stock or holding patents in the vaccine development or manufacturing company. Okay, well, there's a whole other side of the conversation

that'll say conflicts of interest have nothing to do with it. All right, great. So let's go to the action. results here for cervical cancer. In 15 to 25-year-old females, there was a reduction in CIN 2-plus irrespective of the HPV vaccine type. The research is right after six years, moderate certainty, and a large reduction in CIN2 plus from vaccine match HPV types after six years. Again, moderate certainty. So what are they talking about there? CIN2 plus. This is cervical intra-epithelial neuroplasia. These are abnormal cells. There's a grading system of these abnormal cells.

And I can show you this image here. You have a normal cell, you have the membrane, and then you have CIN one, two, three. And then after all of those abnormal cell grades, you have invasive cervical cancer forming, 20 years, according to the NIH it could take to get those to form. Now I want to bring people's attention to the HPV vaccine on trial. This was a book written by three great authors, 2018. Dell, you interviewed them when the book came out, and they wrote about this HPV vaccine, the safety of it, how it came to market,

and really the HPV vaccine industry. And there's an image from this book looking at these grading systems. Just give people an idea. So here's this image. You have normal cell. Next in line to the right there, you have HPV infection.

90% clear spontaneously. Only 10% go to the CIN. Okay, so let's go to CIN 1. 5%, only 5% of those now go to CIN 2 or 3. So now go to CIN 2. So 95%, so the 10% move on and go past HBV, the rest have cleared. Of the 10% remaining 95% of them clear it by the time they're in Sin 1. So now you're, I mean, I don't even know how to do that math,

but like your tiny percentage is now moving forward. And then of that tiny percentage moving into CIN 2, go ahead. Yep, we have 50 to 60% spontaneously regressed. The body can't fight this. Wow. CIN 3, 30% to 50% of those. progress in the cervical cancer. And you can see there, 0.18% of infections are cervical cancer.

And that is from that book. And so there's, so C-I-N-1, typically most of those go away. C-I-N-2 and three, if those are found, it's an outpatient procedure removal. And there's screening that can be done for this. It's a pap smear, and it's recommended every several year, every few years for women to have. And you go into the numbers on pap smears, and you can look at this study right here. Each year, more than 50, 50, 50 million pap smears,

and these are just looking for these abnormal cells. They look under a microscope, are performed in the United States to screen for cervical cancer, 50 million. Most of the abnormal cells found during a pap smear are the result of a cervical or vaginal infection and are not cancerous. Of the three million women with abnormal pap tests each year,

less than 1%, 13,240 cases will be diagnosed with cervical cancer. Let's do the math. 50 more than 50 million pap smears, it says, but let's just say 50 million pap smears. Out of those, 3 million women have abnormal pap smears. And out of those, only 13,240 have actual cervical cancer. You do the math on that, that's 0.02% go into cervical cancer.

Wow. So that's what we're talking about here. But the Cochrane collaboration, the headlines being produced from that will say, the shot eliminates cervical cancer, period, full stop. And I'm trying to show people here that there's a lot more to this story and a lot more to that study than we're actually seeing. So just to be clear, so I understand this, they've said that we've proven that the HBV vaccine is reducing the risk of cancer. It's proven. It's working.

But they never went to cancer. It was still too short a period of time to do that. So they just said it's reducing CIN2, which already is now a minimal percentage of people that will even progress. to that point and then progress onwards, 50 to 60 percent of them, of those will still spontaneously clear. They don't care about that. They're saying that that's the end point that matters to them, and therefore, HPV is going to stop cervical cancer. I mean, it's what we keep seeing over and over and over. It's like three-card Monty, man. Follow the ball. It's a shell game, total and complete baloney, and really sad that Cochran that was once since, you know,

a stand-up institution that we've celebrated is now regressed in clearly another Pharmashil company. Unbelievable. Absolutely, and I want to go now to the story of the day. This is the CDC's ASIP committee, the advisory committee on immunization practices. They're meeting right now as we speak. The entire day today is devoted, is devoted,

and we'll be voting on the hepatitis B recommendation, the first shot given to babies' first day of life in this country. And I wanna make some points here that you made right at the top. We have the previous chair, Martin Koldorf. He has now left. So the chairman of the ASIP previously has now left for an HHS job. So he's becoming now the chief science officer within the HHS planning and evaluation office. So that's kind of like the major think tank in HHS. So he's moved on to that senior position. So now we have Dr. Robert Malone as the vice chair.

Dr. Kurt Milhoun, he came in on a Zoom call. So essentially Robert Malone, you'll see from the video, he's facilitating the entire meeting. And I'd say, seems like he's doing a great job. So I want to talk about the hepatitis B vaccine was on the docket for last ASIP, the last ASIP meeting months ago. And this is Robert Malone introing today's ASIP meeting just this morning to talk about that. Take a listen. Okay. Many of you will recall that in September, ASIP deferred a vote on proposed changes to the hepatitis B vaccination schedule. That decision was not about hesitation or reluctance. It was about standards. Several data elements the committee requested were incomplete, and the evidence did not yet meet the level of clarity required for a confident, evidence-based recommendation.

When gaps in the evidence aburge, the responsible action is not to push forward. It's to pause, review, ensure that we fully understand what the data can and cannot support and then formulate independent advice to the CDC director. This is our charter. So there you, and the reason we're playing these clips, and again to the audience, we're watching this in real time, making these clips, shooting these out so we can report in near real time on this meeting that just happened. This is the most up-to-date broadcast you're going to hear on this right now. This is ongoing.

So he's saying, we tried to vote on this and we did, we had incomplete evidence. Our teams that were looking at this, they couldn't, they don't have the data that we needed to make a vote on this. The reason I am showing that is it's not RFK Jr. It's not Trump trying to do this. This is a team of researchers and scientists at a federal government agency saying we don't have the data. We want to change this. We want to evolve this conversation, but we just don't have it. So we have to defer this vote. So now it brings us to today.

So the discussion, which was really great to see publicly, was back and forth. It was, as they would say, robust discussion. And one of the topics was about, horizontal transmission of Hep B. Now that's not from a parent to a child, a mother to a child at birth. Horizontransmission are the IV drug users, the unprotected sex, the exposure to infected blood. And so I want to bring in this conversation here and see if you can see if you can pick out some of the pieces here. Take a listen. Okay. Yes, it can occur among certain high-risk immigrant communities, but the evidence for horizontal transmission, among most U.S. children is very, very sparse,

and really all these years has been based on a fit to seropositivity data that really wasn't statistically significant. And a final point is that the 16,000 cases per year, predicted by Armstrong at all, are not supported by the surveillance data. I'm showing here children age zero to nine before the universal birth dose, which is the vertical red line,

there were about 400 acute cases per year reported, 400 compared to the 16,000. And keep in mind also that of the 400, many are probably resulting from perinatal infection. So just a final note on horizontal transmission in childhood. The informed consent action network, ICANN, asked the CDC through their lawyers, and I believe one of them is testifying tomorrow here, for documentation sufficient to reflect a case of transmission of hepatitis B in a school setting. The CDC's response, a search of our records failed to reveal any documents pertaining to your request. It reminds me of the models that were projected during COVID, right?

It's what they do. They just explode these numbers, 16,000 potential infections. Actually, when we looked at it was 400. I mean, just a slight miscalculation. they've done all the sign, all the fear porn that they push out there based on models that aren't anywhere close to the actual conversation that's happening. And finally, instead of just getting fear porn at ASEIP, we are getting both sides. Like actually, that was a bloated number. When we actually chopped it down, we're talking about maybe 400 cases this is happening in all of the United States of America. Right. We're knocking out assumptions. And all of the people who helped make ICAN what it was, everyone that donated, you have forced facts into the highest

in public health in this country right now. You've forced them to accept these facts through the legal action you funded. You heard her say the legal action of informed consent action network. We force the CDC to admit this that they don't have the studies on horizontal transmission.

So that's a big hat tip to our audience. And I want to go on now. And people, by the way, they'll say, Jeffrey, what do you get from it? I mean, do you win money when you have these cases? Do you win money? No, we don't win anything, except we win the opportunity

like moments like this to be in an ACIP, And when they try to say, oh, the science had been done, or the evidence is there, or there it is, actually, no, it doesn't exist because informed consent action network spent money that nobody thought they would ever waste on a case like this to prove you're all lying. You're lying. You don't have a single case of horizontal transmission in a school, anywhere in America, which I guarantee you would have known about. It would have been a headline because it doesn't exist. It's an imaginary problem. and you've made a product making billions of dollars to solve an imaginary problem.

Absolutely. And that's the big conversation. Mothers are tested. We can figure that out if they have that so they don't give it to their child. There's precaution that's to be taken. So the horizontal transmission is the big question that I guess we're giving this shot to every child that comes onto this earth. So it goes on. But this whole ASIP committee was back and forth because we're talking about are the benefits outweighing the risk? What are the risks of the Heppe vaccine giving it on the first day of life to every infant? So these are the conversations that we're happy.

So the question of harm, the evidence, where is the evidence of harm came up? Take a listen. Okay. The question is, is there any evidence of harm? There is clearly evidence of benefit. Is there any evidence of harm to giving the neonatal hepatitis be? My basic answer would be that the safety evidence is very limited. And I wouldn't want to speculate.

on safety or harm that the IOM has concluded that we don't know any we have any reason to reject or or claim causality on a wide range of conditions there is concern I for something that is as profound as you know a universal immunization of every American infant at the moment of birth to to address a condition that many of them will not be at risk for. The safety evidence should be rock solid. With all due respect, I don't think that that's the right question. And I want to phrase another relevant question which is, I think if we want to understand the quality of the evidence,

then you need to ask hypothetically, suppose that there was a harm of that rate, of a certain rate, would we be able to detect it with the level of monitoring and surveillance that we applied to the issue. And I think that given the data that was presented to here, very, very low numbers, very short follow-up time, and not really comparing to placebo, the answer is that could be major signals out there

that our surveillance and the way we monitor and measured would not have detected them. So I think that the question is their evidence to harm cannot be untangled from what was actually measured. And I think that that's something we tend to do not only in this particular question, we tend to do that more broadly when we think about safety. So the first other question is, what do we believe, given our monitoring system, given what we actually monitored and checked, we would be able to detect? And I think that the answer is basically nothing.

nothing. Thank God for Retz of Levy there. I mean, he makes the point we made on the show over and over again. The trials for HPV, I mean, hepatized B vaccine, 154 children with five-day safety review. So if this is a one in a thousand injury, is 154 kids going to pick it up? No. If it's an injury that only takes a month or maybe even a year to develop, is this going to capture that, no. So when we're talking about safety, what do we know about the safety? What will we have ever captured with the way this science has been done? He says, basically, I would say, not a goddamn thing. That's what we would find out. And we've been told, we know this, because we've watched all the ASIP committees, we've been quite a few of them as well,

that we've had the most robust safety monitoring system in the world that's been drilled into our heads and now we're getting the truth finally we have again we're watching the evolution of public health and the evolution of i would say courage to have these discussions publicly and what they're saying is we don't know because we don't have we don't have the the robust safety monitoring system that we thought we had to catch these things and this is what goes on to the point of the studying you mentioned tracy beth hoag was at this meeting as well and she made a comment regarding the evidence the evidence of harm the safety of the hepby vaccine take a listen to this.

All right. This is Dr. Hogue, now acting director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Over? Yes, that's right. Thank you, Robert. I just want to add to what RETF, Dr. Levy, just said that it's really important to keep in mind that the U.S. is an outlier in recommending a universal birth dose of the hepatitis B vaccine compared to other high-income nations.

And the data that we used to approve the hepatitis B vaccines, there's two, Angurix and Rekombe vaccines for infants, were based on studies that had very short-term follow-up and no control group. It wasn't like, you know, it wasn't like it was a randomized control trial against, you know, another vaccine. No, there was not, there was not even a control group. It was just an observational study. We would never approve a vaccine based on data like those today.

So that's important to keep in mind. And then we have these five randomized control trials that were identified by the CDC at the last ASIP meeting that we discussed. And these are also, these are short-term randomized control trials that where the hepatitis B vaccine recombavax was given and compared to other vaccines, so not compared to placebo. So we are working with very low, low level evidence here. And we have very limited confidence in what we say when we say these vaccines are safe. Wow. And so these are the conversations that we're having. And I want to talk about one last, one last clip from, there's so many clips.

I recommend everyone watch this. And tomorrow, 9.30 a.m. Eastern Aaron Siri testifies against, not against, but to look at the U.S. vaccine schedule, the entire childhood schedule, against what other countries are doing to talk about that, compare and contrast that. But when it comes to this Hep B vaccine, we have really horizontal transmission kind of up in the air from the quote we just talked about. They said about 400, really not the 16,000 that was projected. By the way, they make it really clear because we can't show every clip that that 400 sits really directly in an Asian immigration population. I think as specific as Hmong peoples, I think is how they referred to them.

but that are coming into this country with high hepatitis B rates, living amongst each other, sleeping with, you know, in close proximity and eating, that it does not represent at all any other population in this country. So it was so specific where those numbers are coming from. I just wanted to make that point. And, you know, I think it's important. And we're screening pregnant mothers. Probably could be doing a better job of that.

That's what they mentioned at the ASIP committee. So what's happening is instead of, trying to look more at these at-risk populations, the mother's better screening. Just like during COVID, closing schools, vaccinating infants, we're putting the burden on babies, first-born babies and saying, you know what, just give it to everybody, give it to every single person, every single infant coming in because we're not doing a good job on the other aspects of public health here. So the babies have the burden. And this is exactly what someone mentioned, thank God, at this meeting, and now it's in the public record. Take a listen. Okay.

Regarding the opportunity to identify infants at risk, in obstetrics, our American College of OBGYN gives us guidance for hepatitis B screening early in pregnancy. And so I find it very concerning to see the statistics that we have reviewed in our workgroup anywhere between 84 to 87% of women being tested or results being issued before delivery. which is even more concerning knowing that in 2002, the MMWR morbidity and mortality weekly report reported that we were very good at testing women at a rate of 96.5%. So between 2002 and now, what happened? How did this screening gap widen? And so this speaks to an opportunity for us to close. the gap in prenatal care, and should we be pushing this off to the babies? That is my concern.

You know, the term safety net that is being applied to this program that's being put on the babies. I mean, is it fair, you know, is it incumbent on the babies to save us from this when this really may be more of an adult problem? We could implement universal screening in pregnancy rather than asking the babies to kind of close that gap. Let me put this in terms because she's being really nice about this. How about instead of giving 99.95% of our babies that do not need this vaccine, a hepatitis B vaccine on day one of life, they're not planning on sharing heroin needles or sleeping with prostitutes for a very long time,

hopefully never. Why instead of putting that burden on our day one, old babies. And by the way, so serious that I get calls all the time. They're calling child protective services on me because I'm just trying to leave Cedar Sinai, which is like Alcatraz right now, because I just don't need this vaccine. I don't want this vaccine. This is how serious this is. They put the burden to the point where they're threatening to take your child away. If you don't give them a vaccine, they don't need. Instead of threatening parents and putting the lives of infants at risk, how about, here's my idea, how about you are

going to lose your license as a doctor if you don't get the blood test of the mother that is giving birth. Just that simple. Instead of 88%, here's one thing. How about 100% blood testing, not 100% vaccine uptake by a bunch of children that will never need it? This is her point. Why? I'll tell you why. Because Merck doesn't make billions of dollars on you making sure that everyone's getting a blood test. They're making billions of dollars over this vaccine program. and this is where you can figure out where this whole scam is happening. Who's been driving ASIP and why they're so shocked right now, probably upholding this vote because pharma is freaking out.

We're about to lose our stranglehold on a vaccine program that was making us billions that nobody needs. And that is why we're playing these clips. This isn't Trump. This isn't Kennedy. This isn't an anti-vax conspiracy theory. When someone hears that they can't unhear these facts, this is common sense.

And these are people. These are educated, some of the top educated people in the country sitting on this independent panel asking questions and presenting facts that need to be heard by the American public. So let's bring it back up to current present moment here. The hepatitis V-B vote was supposed to happen today. They were going to either keep the universal recommendation and put it in every arm of every infant coming into this world, or they're going to have no recommendation anymore, or they're going to do what they did with the COVID vaccine and say, you talk to your doctor. It's called an individual decision-making process. between you and your doctor, as medicine probably always should have been. So that was delayed. That vote now has been delayed. It was deferred. It was voted to be deferred until tomorrow morning. So we're going to keep an eye on that.

Follow, obviously, our X channel, our Instagram, our Facebook. We're going to be posting up-to-date results on that vote. That will happen tomorrow morning. So that is the latest on the ASIP committee. Amazing reporting, Jeffrey. What an amazing moment this is. It was like two different worlds inside of ASIP there. the old vaccine shills spewing a total lack of science and real scientific questions that need to be answered for the future of the species in our children.

Great reporting, exciting moment. I'm heated just because of the ridiculousness of the other perspective right now. But I'll see you next week, and I'm sure we'll have a lot of report on what actually happens in this meeting tomorrow's. Take care. See you then. All right. Thank you. As if this week wasn't big enough, we've absolutely transformed the country club of ASIP into a real science organization. It's happening this week. You're watching with your own eyes. You've made that possible with your work with the informed consent action network Every one of you that is sponsoring and donating the work that we've done those lawsuits that you now are seeing appearing the results of those lawsuits are at this a sit meeting being discussed you did that I didn't do that

I simply asked for your help we handed it over Aaron Siri you funded it so that we could get and we could you know Sue the government start winning all you know cases like this against FDA CDC NIH HHS we won back the religious exemption for for vaccinations in Minnesota. I mean, I mean, in Mississippi. We won back the religious exemption for the university system in California. We're working on the rest of the school programs in California.

But as you know, we've been deeply entrenched in West Virginia in one of the most contested cases we have ever seen. This is proving to be much more difficult than Mississippi. Every time we win, they move the goalposts. Well, I have breaking news for you just a couple of days ago. We were excited to report breaking I canes,

legal team secures religious exemptions for West Virginia school children in a free the five victory. So we dropped it down to free the four. West Virginia is now free every child. What the decision that was made by the court was not only the cases that were funded by informed consent action that were you, these children that were fighting for their religious right to go to school without injecting themselves with products that include things like chopped up aborted fetal DNA, baby parts, not just for them, but the court said this is for every child that wants to opt out of the program. You're allowed to go back to school. I was so excited to be able to come to you today in the middle of the holidays and say, look what it happens when you donate to

us. If you think to bring your holiday giving, look what we can do. Well, within moments of that victory, we started hearing that there were calls going out from the pharmaceutical industry saying to the counties now, not just the state, to the counties in the school systems, don't accept it, don't take it, don't let kids in. They were starting to push back. We were thinking, geez, what are we going to do? We're going to sue, you know, for contempt of court. I mean, what's going on here? What's happening? And then within moments, the, you know, ACLU and all the 20 lawyers we've been up against in this courtroom didn't matter that we won. They went to the appellate court and says there's chaos here in West Virginia do something. And the appellate court has just ruled

a stay. None of the kids are allowed to go back to school. This is such an unfortunate. West Virginia, again, bans religious reasons for school vaccine exemptions. The West Virginia's Supreme Court has paused a ruling that allowed parents to use religious beliefs to opt out of required school vaccines for their children. So we're out of the court. We won. We won this case. We won it in court. And now it's going to the Supreme Court of West Virginia. And I guess we're going to have to do this all over again. What I want to say to you right now is if you think this is over, this is a great day for celebration, things happening at ASIP that we never believe would happen, victories in West Virginia, but it ain't over. They're stalling the vote as we speak.

Farma is everywhere, and so is Silicon Valley with its tracking systems on your phones. They need to own you. They need to own your body, and they know if we win in West Virginia once and for all, this is over, man. If we win in ASIF, if hepatitis B finally moves to share decision making where you, you know, You get a choice, and now we can sue if that thing injures us. This is all over, and they know it. We are in the fight of our lives, folks. This is real now.

This is big now. This is the battle for the whole cahuna, the whole tuna. And by the way, not a moment to back away. We are ready to put our pedal to the medal. I want Aaron to have an army of lawyers around him as he walks in to fight this monolith we're against. I need your help. We cannot do this without your help. this is you know this is time it's holiday giving will you please consider what we've done this

year what has happened this year transformed as if we help put robert kennedy junior to place we're the number one news agency discussing all these issues on covid on every single vaccine that's ever hurt you we've been there first we've been telling you the truth but we're not just reporting it we're suing we're bringing the most important lawsuits in the world if we fail we all fail. When you think about giving a donation to us for the holidays, think about how selfish you actually

get to be. This is not a donation to help a rhinoceros in Africa. This is actually going to benefit you. It's going to benefit you and the future of your children, your body sovereignty, whether you want to go to jobs and get on airplanes and walk into schools wherever you want without being vaccinated.

If that matters to you, please make your holiday giving this. year right now, please think about us at ICANN. Think about Aaron Siri, who's standing right now on the front lines, needing your help, your funding, so that he can finish this case once and for all. You can go to the top of the page, hit donate to ICANN. We're asking for you to become a recurring donor. $25 a month. You've only got a couple more weeks where that'll make sense. It's going to go up a whole dollar next year to $26. So get in while the getting's good. Or if you've done really

well in life. If you've been, you know, made of just a great amount of money in this great nation, but you believe in God and you believe in the church and you do not believe in having kids injected with aborted DNA, a product made with the bodies of dead babies. If you want to do something about that and you want to make a major contribution to make that change, then please, right now, just send us a message, info at Icindecid.org, and we will work out a way that you can donate any way and any amount that you think matters for this issue. This is the fight of our time. This is your religious right in the most important place. If you cannot stop evil from being injected into you and your babies, then you have lost it all. Thank you to everybody that has

made ICANN possible, that has made the high wire possible so we can sit and celebrate the conversations that are happening inside the walls of government right now as we speak. Our people are on the inside now. The truth is happening. Science is changing. But they need our help and they need our courts and they need our wins. And that means we need you. All right.

Another hero that I met very, very early on before I ever even made facts and facts. The fax was just an idea. I was beginning to do the research. I just met Andrew Wakefield. but I was standing, you know, protesting SB 277 in California was going to take away these exact rights to forcibly vaccinate every child in California. And I was looking at that situation with my brand new baby who was unvaccinated. And I thought this is the end of the world as I know it.

Who's going to speak for me? Who will stand for me? Well, there was one doctor that was doing that. His name was Bob Sears. And if you don't know who he is, watch this. Dr. Bob Sears. Dr. Bob Sears. Dr. Bob Sears.

The most beloved and most hated pediatrician in the world. An expert who has been on the front lines of pediatric care. A doctor and a firm believer in vaccine choice. He is the best-selling author of tons of books like The Vaccine Book, Making an Educated Decision for Your Child. My dad was a pediatrician, so I watched him growing up, and he really enjoyed his work, so I thought I would want to be a doctor as well.

Back in the 90s, I actually discovered there was one vaccine that was actually pretty dangerous that they ended up taking off the market. So I decided to dig into the Georgetown Library, and I uncovered so much research about this one vaccine. And so it made me realize the medical community sometimes is capable of covering something up when there's a problem. I kind of felt like my world was shattered. You know, how can the ivory tower of the CDC and the FDA

let this slip through the cracks? That basically opened my eyes. In my office, Don, it's not so much about, you know, vaccines and autism as it parents just don't want to see the baby suffer any sort of bad vaccine reaction. Parents are afraid that their baby will be one of those statistics. Probably 99% of doctors in California are now scared to even write any medical excuses from vaccines for any patients because they're seeing that the medical board is coming down on us. This bill will scare doctors away from writing medical exemptions for children who need them. Doctors are afraid of losing their practice and their livelihood over a medical board investigation. The California Medical Board tried to revoke my license to practice based on the type of vaccine advice I give in my office.

I give them all the pros and cons. I give them great resources to read. And I happily accept them in my office if they choose to raise their kids without vaccines. Well, it's my honor and pleasure to be joined right now by my good friend, Dr. Bob Sears. Bob, it's been a while. How are you doing? Hey, Del. I'm doing awesome out here in California. I'm in the same room right now as you saw on that clip.

That's fantastic. And I'm glad that you still have that room. I'm glad that you're still a doctor. There's been some precarious times for you. And I've watched you have to now. navigate probably one of the most difficult places to be a pediatrician, at least an open-minded pediatrician in the world. And so good for you, good for the way that you've stood. I just want to say, you know, I worked with your brother, Jim Sears, on the doctors for years. So our families in some

ways are connected. We go way back. But to take this moment in, I don't know if you've been watching these ASIP meetings, but to watch what's happening today from your perspective, And you think about when we were standing on the steps outside of the Capitol in Sacramento. And on SB 277, of course, when, you know, Richard Pan was taking away the rights of all children. And then even worse, SB 276 that later then was going to threaten every doctor. As we saw you testifying for anyone that wanted a right exemption for these vaccine injured children that needed one. Now you're going to be under review. You're under threat.

What does it mean for you watching what's happening at the CDC today? It makes me so excited, Dell, just to see scientists openly discuss real science and discuss all the science. And that's the whole key. I especially love that part, the gentleman, I forget his name Reddy or Yeti or something. Levy. He made the point. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah, when we look at the data we have, none of the studies are large enough to to give us any answers, any good answers on vaccine risk. And I think that's so awesome to see that just that basic idea put out there in the public. And I also like how none of these doctors are saying anything really against vaccinating or they're not speaking out strongly about all the terrible possible vaccine side effects.

And I enjoyed your little brief tirade a few minutes ago on the show tell. It's always fun to hear you. But I mean, none of the scientists are talking like that. They're just talking straight science. Yeah. And that is so refreshing to see. It really is.

And it's a very important question. Why give this to children that don't need it? Why a product for 99.95% of the kids that don't need it? No one is saying, let's not vaccinate these kids. Let's just test all the moms. Let's know who's at risk and let's just be focused. I mean, are we not at a place in the United States of America? in a future with AI and technologies that can track my eyeballs,

that know where I am anywhere in this world. Is it not possible to make sure that we have blood tests, that we're well aware of the positions that these children are in, and give them care that is specifically designed for them? Isn't that the heart of do no harm, meaning I'm going to give you something that only, you know, that you need and not something you don't because of some kid you don't know? Exactly. And, you know, you talk about, you know, about the potential harm of this vaccine. And they brought this up in the meeting. Well, what is the harm? I mean, you know, what's the harm in giving this vaccine that can only benefit babies? Well, you and I know that there definitely is potential harm from Hep B vaccine. And there are serious neurological risks. There are serious autoimmune risks. One straightforward risk, though, that

that isn't even really that serious is newborn fever. The number of babies who get fever alone from the Hep B vaccine given the day they're born in the hospital is it's not a small number. And I don't actually have the actual number, but I know we do have some research that shows one hospital in Israel looked at this. And they showed the year they started vaccinating babies

with Hep B vaccine as newborns, The number of babies admitted to their intensive care unit with fevers doubled in the hospital. So when you're a healthy newborn baby born in the hospital, nothing's wrong with you at all, you get a hepby vaccine, you get a fever, that buys you at least three days in the intensive care unit while they treat you for infection, they do all kinds of tests. And that alone is potential harm right up front for any baby with, as you and I would say, no potential benefit in a low-risk population. And Tracy Ben,

so there is harm with no benefit. Right. And by the way, we're trying to develop harm where you've refused to do any proper science. Five-day safety studies of 147 kids. You know, no sort of capture system or reporting system that anyone would say that they trust, that's totally underreported.

I mean, the whole thing is such a mess. But I would just say, you know, when I look at this conversation, we're going to get into why we're having this conversation. but the one thing I would like to see set on the floor of the advisory committee on the immunization practices as the argument is, well, you know, what is the risk? What is the harm? I don't know the fact that there's 54% of our children have chronic disease if you include obesity in America. The fact that we're the sickest nation in the industrialized world, the fact that this

vaccine we're giving on day one of life, which is an anomaly, as Tracy Beth Hogg pointed out, isn't being given anywhere else in the world and they're not having hepatitis B outbreaks. So we're doing something no one else is. And by the way, we have the highest day one old baby death rate in the entire industrialized world. More babies dying on the first day of life. Can we prove its hepatitis be? No, because you won't do the science, but there's some signals there, man. There's some signals we should be worried about. Yeah, and I love how the doctors of the CDC, who are what I would like to call maybe entrenched doctors and researchers who have been there a long time, they're so quick to point out the underreporting of disease. They say, okay, yeah, sure. We only have 400 children reportedly

infected every year from Hep B, but we're estimating we're missing so many of those. We're going to call it 20,000. You know, they used to call it 30,000. Then they called it 20,000. I think now they're calling it 16,000. They're so quick to say, hey, there's all this underreported disease that we're going to escalate in our findings. They're not willing to. to discuss the unreported and underreported vaccine reactions. Such a good point. And I think finally we have a group that is actually willing to look at that. Well, I think what's critical and why I want to talk to you today,

you're a member of one of the most important groups out there that has been doing work right alongside Informed Consent Action Network physicians for informed consent. This is a body of doctors and scientists that really risked your careers to come together, to really bring evidence-based science to this conversation. But as you're saying, for those entrenched doctors that just are struggling to understand what's happening here, that got that, you know, that as has been declared by the WHO, only got a half a day education on vaccines while they were in med school. Is that, I mean, I made that statement.

Is that somewhat accurate? I mean, would you sort of? Yes. That's accurate, right? That's accurate. That's incredible, man. As I mean, every time I say it, I know I've seen the WHO state. I know it's stated.

That's outrageous that when I'm going to my, you know, pediatrician, they had a half a day education on one of the main things that they do in their office. But tell me about this book over your shoulder. I'm talking about this one right here, the silver book, vaccines and the diseases they target. This has just been put out by physicians for informed consent. I love that it's happening today. This is something we've been wanting to talk to you about. for some time it's been out for i think a couple months now but on the day of as it perfect moment

why this book what is it and who's it targeting what what did you guys work on this book uh what's it set out to achieve well it's it's been in the works for uh 10 years now del and and some of the doctors and researchers in physician's form form consent started collecting every single research study they could find on vaccines and the diseases they target. Whether the study is in favor of vaccines or shows potential vaccine side effects, they just gathered all the data. And this book actually has 400 studies that look at disease information and vaccine safety. And what they did is they basically compiled it. I mean, you know how you're talking to people, you're thinking about vaccines, you're doing research, and you wonder, where is the data? Where is the

information? Where is the research? And you have to go find it. And that's not an easy task. Yeah. Well, this group finally put together all the data in one very little book. I keep looking at my book over here on the side. Yeah. Yeah. The back third of the book is all the all the research studies, right? Yeah. And then the first two thirds of the book, what I love is just every disease is one page just like a one page overview of everything you need to know about the disease and then every vaccine is one page i guess two pages you know yeah both sides of the book um it's so simple it takes the data that seems very complicated and it simplifies it down to something that even a cdc researcher could understand probably and so i feel like this book is for everybody but it's especially people

who really want to take a really deep dive into the data? Well, I, you know, I mean, I want people to sort of look at what he's saying here because it is, this is what makes this so brilliant, is when you hear 400 studies, it can be really intimidating. But I can turn to enter any page, though. I just want to show them, yeah, I can show you slides. But it's this simple. It's only a few paragraphs.

And it's what is so genius about this, Bob, because this is the work, right? Anybody, I can bury you in the 20 studies around Tetanus. and all that you need to know, but you've been really exceptional. Let's just get, what are the most important salient points? What are the most important things that we know about the vaccine? Are there issues? What is it? And then the disease itself, this is the part we really don't cover a lot.

You know, not even at I can. We talk a lot about the dangers of the vaccines, but what were the numbers of the dangers of the virus itself? Because if we're going to try and do some of, you know, risk, reward, benefit ratio, you know, dive. How do we do that? This is the first book that I've ever seen on the left page. I can see what the vaccine is up to. Or is that right or is it vice versa. And then on the other page, I get to see what the disease was all about and really make this, you know, help me make this, this decision, right? So it's fantastic that way.

Yeah, I think when I talk to patients in the office, one of the main things they want to know is Like, they tell me, we know there's vaccine side effects. We know there's risk. I want to know what's the risk to my baby if I don't vaccinate them? Right. What is the disease risk? They want numbers. And I usually skip to the end of the story when I'm talking to them.

And I say in my 28 years of being a pediatrician, I've never seen a single case, a single severe case of a vaccine targeted illness. And so they say, okay, well, sounds like the risk is pretty low. But what PIC has done with this book is they actually give you the exact numbers. Because the data is there. They have numbers from the CDC throughout the 19th century where the CDC was gathering data on every single case before vaccines. So they tell us, yeah, how many kids were harmed by diphtheria before vaccines, tetanus, hepatitis B, you know, measles, everything. How many were harmed before there even was a vaccine? and Dell, the numbers are staggeringly low.

It's amazing how low the numbers of kids who are harmed by infection before we even had vaccines. And then the page you have right there kind of speaks to it. You know, you can see the risk of each of these infections. You can see the, you know, the risk compared to the vaccine and then the actual disease and these tiny little numbers. And that's what pharma has so been. so brilliant at. You know, I have to say, and even watching Dr. Meisner, some of these guys are just so pro-vaccine that are still, and by the way, I'm glad they're still on the committee,

right? I mean, I want to point that out, too. Anyone that says that Robert Kennedy, Jr. has stacked this with antivaxers, you got Dr. Meisor in there. There is a robust debate. Both sides are being represented. So even though my skin's crawling over some of the, you know, the blindfolds that are appearing on some of these doctors, they're in there. Like Bobby didn't, he wants a road. It's what science should be. All sides should be represented. We should be having it out. Sure, yell, scream, cry, let's do this. And so finally it's happening. But what pharma has done so brilliantly through media, it's what I did on the doctors. I, you know, me and your brother were really good at this, let's just scare the hell out of you and make you personalize a super rare

issue. All I have to do is show you someone covered with a rash. Doesn't matter that one in a million people are ever going to get this thing. If you see it, you go, oh my God, I'll do anything to make sure I never get that. Well, you know, 999,000 of you would never have to do anything, but we can make you all say, well, if you take this product, it's 100% effective at keeping you from getting covered with this, you know, and that's what they do. And so we go, we don't hear the one in a million. We just go, I will do anything to make sure I don't get that. Yes, yeah, exactly. And then they've done a great job and how awesome is it now to realize we are now part of a movement where now half of our country or more now understand that that's probably not true.

What farmers been telling us all these years may not be true. Yeah. And something I also wanted to point out that I really love about this book is the the researchers and the people that wrote this are really good friends of mine. And they're very honest in this book, Tell, in that when they talk about vaccine risk, you look at any vaccine page and it basically, yeah, turn to the next polio vaccine page. I don't know if you have it there. I don't know if you have next one. Okay. Basically tells you, they tell you what's the risk of catching polio. Yeah. they also tell you what's the risk of the polio vaccine but what they're honest about is

they say the risk of these vaccines dealt are largely inconclusive right because of the lack of safety research so they they estimate say for example polio vaccine probably about 70 people for every 100 000 people in our population are going to have a severe injury from this vaccine Yeah. Or the DTAP vaccine on the DTAP page. 70 per 100,000 people. But they're honest. They say our data is inconclusive though. We're estimating about 70 per 100,000 are going to be injured by the vaccine. But we don't have really good research to show you whether or not that's actually true. So they have really good disease data. But again, the vaccine safety data is lacking.

And that was probably the take home message of this ASIP meeting. yeah is that is there's just a total lack of safety data and now they're faced with a decision about a disease that the asip committee has now realized after much discussion poses very little risk to uh to american children who are not born into a high risk environment so the big question part of what this book is there for for doctors to have next to their pink books the silver book here, you know, so that they can really have a quick look at something that they were never educated on in school. But let me ask you the hard question that I get from the media all the time. I'm sure you fielded it. Bob, what are you going to do when polio comes back or when

measles comes back because people aren't vaccinating? Yeah, well, the polio question is very interesting one and this book covers it very, very well. The whole key to understanding the polio dilemma is the vaccine we use now doesn't prevent infection and it doesn't prevent transmission. All it does is gives you some immunity in your bloodstream that will protect you from neurologic symptoms should you as an individual contract polio infection. But it does nothing for the public health. it doesn't protect your neighbor or your friend or your schoolmate is just individual protection so we've managed to keep polio out of the u.s for 40 years now using a vaccine that isn't even keeping it out of the u.s because it doesn't prevent infection wow that's a good point so we've done

it through public health measures we've done it through sanitation and hygiene and good health And, you know, right now, polio is confined to just a few impoverished nations in other parts of the world. And it's been that way for a very long time. So, I mean, I think that the polio debate, I think, is very easy to answer. And that's why it pisses me off when I see polio vaccines mandated for school. Right. It's a really interesting point, Bob. I actually, you said that in a way I hadn't thought about it.

because I am aware that it doesn't stop infection or transmission. But they'll, when you make the statement, we haven't had polio for 40 years. Like, yeah, because we're vaccinating. No, actually. If it doesn't stop transmission and doesn't stop infection, we should be seeing in the sewage systems all across this country. If it can be spread here, there's nothing stopping it spread. There's nothing stopping it coming from Africa or the Middle East, wherever they are having these impoverished nations, which also there's some sense of chemicals and things that they're around that might. be lowering their immune systems that are, you know, making that risky. But it would be here.

It's just, you know, we're being protected from the severity of it, but we don't see it here at all. It's not here at all. And we're not using a vaccine that is a sterilizing vaccine that kills it dead and make sure we never get it. We should see it here and we don't. And so there's not really a problem. Such an interesting point. And measles. You know, what do you, what do you say about measles? I mean, I think we're going to have to grapple with this idea as we move forward, you know, I want my kids to have the measles. When the media is like, you're going to cause measles, like, great. I mean, tell me where. I got to get my kids over there. I want them to catch the measles. I want the benefits that I know exist when a child has had the measles.

But are doctors going to have to retool? We're going to have to learn how to treat measles because obviously it was a Brady Bunch episode years ago. Doctors weren't terrified. Your father wasn't terrified of dealing with the measles. No, no, I'm sure. I'm sure he wasn't. You know, measles is really interesting. And I've told people for a long time, you know, if any infection is possibly going to, you know, make itself known once again, it's likely to be measles. Yeah. Yeah, as we're seeing in the last year and a half. And what's interesting with measles, though, is the reason why it's coming back, Dell, and you know this, but I guess maybe I'm telling this to the audience, is largely because our adult population is no longer immune.

Yeah. Back when adults caught real measles, they were immune for life. Yeah. But now since we've been vaccinating since, what, since the early, you know, 70s or 80s, yes, well, 62, but it gets robust in the 70s. Yeah. So now everyone now is growing up, they have vaccine immunity for maybe 10, 15, 20 years, but then they lose that immunity. So the whole herd of adults that we have in the United States, a large part of our herd doesn't and have herd immunity from measles. And then yes, when some children, when the families elect to not vaccinate their children

because they have concerns about the safety of the MMR vaccine, we're now gonna have some children that don't have vaccine immunity either. So now we're seeing more measles and children, but we're seeing it in adults as well. And we've been seeing it every single year going back, you know, ever since we've had measles. We've never had a zero year.

So I think we're going to see measles wax and wane as each, you know, kind of a couple of years go by. It's probably going to come in a couple of years cycles and it'll be low again and then I'll come back again. I think measles is going to become an ongoing part of our society now. I don't think it's going to make your comeback like chicken pox and and but it's largely because the vaccine wears off and it doesn't work in everybody. So measles is actually a disease that we can't eliminate from our world. The infection is just too smart and the vaccine just doesn't work good enough. So all really good points. Those are points obviously that are in this book. So for anyone that wants to buy this book, I can't recommend it up. It's so simple, so easy.

You can just turn right to the page of whatever vaccine or whatever disease you're curious about. Where we find this book? I guess we have it up here. Yeah. I mean, you get ordered on on Amazon anywhere, anywhere people sell books and probably everyone get on Amazon, you know, leave reviews and that always helps, you know, help sales. I love tracking vaccine book sales on Amazon. I love looking at it's been great to see Aaron's series book there as well. And it's fun. And my book usually hovers around, you know, number five or six on the on the vaccine list. So I'd love to see that the silver book hit number one.

Yeah, you know, vaccines and the diseases they target because I think it touches disease information probably better than any other book. I agree. As well as the vaccine information. It's really, I think that is really the stellar part, the exciting part about this book and what hasn't really been done, certainly not this simply and clearly. So here's my recommendation. Sure, definitely buy one for yourself. You want one of these. It's easy. You got a friend over. You can look through it. But I would make this the Christmas gift to every doctor that you go to. Just go ahead, bring it to your pediatrician, wrapped up, say, this should go alongside your pink book. It really help you understand what's going on there.

Don't worry about it. It's from me. Merry Christmas. Love you, you know, and that'll help you make sure that your doctor is better educated. Bob, you're a hero man. You've been on the front lines. I'm so glad to see that you've navigated it. You've, you've caught slings and arrows from all sides of this to precarious space to be in, you know, I know the, you know, the people that have said he still gives vaccines. He's an evil person. And I remember I interviewed you a few years ago and, and you said something that has always stuck with me. Dell, there are parents in, in California that are trying to spread them out, that are trying to do whatever they can to make this as safe for their kids. They don't have a choice. If I'm not here, they really don't have a choice. I'm working with people wherever they're at.

I'm so glad you're there. I'm so glad the position you've held it's been critical and important and I know babies are healthier and are living and alive and maybe we'll go on to be great scientists that can do better science because you were there to make sure they survived. So thank you for that work. Well, thank you, Del. And I just want to say I appreciate your friendship, Del. You know, you kind of said at the beginning of the show, you and I met a long time ago and and it's been great to know you over these years. and see your journey as well and feel your passion and nobody's more passionate than you, Adele. So I appreciate your friendship. I'm glad that you're out there. And yeah, it's fun to see what the ACIP is going to do with this. It looks like they're talking about making the happy vaccine under the shared decision-making category, individual decision-making category. It looks like they're probably not going to just take it off the whole schedule, but they're going to change it into something where the doctor will then kind of individually have this conversation

patient to patient which i think is where most of this should be i've said it from the beginning i should all be there probably i think it should all be there i you know uh we're smart people we should be able to be educated your you know the nonprofit you're a part of physicians for informed consent my nonprofit informed consent action network informed consent is not about erasing vaccines from the planet It's not about erasing anything from the plant. What it's saying is inform me. And what is my risk? If there's 400 kids that have a problem with this of the millions being born,

then I don't think this is a problem I need to worry about. I know I don't have hepatitis B. I've been informed. I recognize my baby has zero risk. And based on that information, I'm going to make a choice. But if I'm hepatitis B positive, for whatever reason, got a bad blood transfusion, you name it, I should be able to have a kid. I should have a product available to me.

My doctor should be able to have an honest conversation with me and have a product that is there and available. That is the world that I think Robert Kennedy Jr. is working towards. It may not be the eradication of the vaccine program as some people would dream, but that has never been what Bobby Kennedy's promised. It's never been what you promised by the statement informed consent. We stand by informed consent. All we want is your right to choose, and you've been a big part of that.

It's what I believe. And I pray, I pray that you're right, that we're going to find. finally see the first vaccine, really since COVID, but this is the one that is not protected by PrEP, which is going to, you know, set a lot of other things in action. We're going to finally see real choice in a free country return to the people. All right, Bob. Amen. Amen, Del. Absolutely. Take care. Everyone, go out, get yourself vaccines and the disease they target. Bob, thank you for taking the time today. I look forward to catching up with you soon. Yeah, you too. All right. Oh, man, so many great heroes.

that have made today possible that are out there. So many great groups coming together. But we need your help. As I've said before, we're the ones that are in the courtrooms. You know, there's a lot of writing. We, you know, department is like, God, I wish we'd have written that book. We've been talking about doing it. They did it.

Physicians for informed consent have written a book that you should really have in your arsenal, along with Aaron's series book, Vaccines, Amen, which lays out the whole story all around, the court cases. But we can win, folks, and we have to win in West Virginia. We cannot let up. I always, I don't know if you watch MMA fighting, but I do on occasion when I'm flipping the channels that grabs your attention.

But man, you can watch someone that just have someone almost look like they're dead across from them, and all of a sudden this haymaker comes out and knocks the guy that was winning out. We can't afford to look the other way. We can't afford to let up. We've got to continue the ground and pound. It's happening.

We can win this. We've got to knock Goliath out. And we're the only ones in the room right now. I can is the only ones in the room. in the courtrooms that are about to make that happen. Fund that, please make that happen. And one of the best ways you can do it is buy a brick on our campus so you can come and visit.

You can actually put a piece of cement on our property that will stand through the test of time and be here as a testament to we were here. Our generation made the difference. We fought for truth. We stood for truth. And we brought a brick on the terrace. This is our favorite brick of the week,

delivered by someone that was touched when she came to visit her own brick. This is my daughter's brick. This is Sarah, her middle name Stevie, Sarah Dignacio, Brave Warrior, love mom, Exo. I've been in this journey for 31 years. My daughter's 33. She was injured from her 18-month DPT shot. She was completely normal, got the shot. Eight days later, had a terrible screaming episode, was never the same.

My family was involved in the second only vaccine. litigation case in Canada. In 1995, we sued the pediatrician and cannot laboratories. Vaccine damage hasn't just occurred since COVID-19 experimental gene therapy. It's been going on since the advent of these vaccines. So what Vax came out, it took me two years before I could sit down and watch it because I've lived it. Like, I'm still living with her vaccine injury. My daughter doesn't, she's nonverbal. She's so beautiful, but I'm her voice now. So I say, say for a girl who doesn't talk, she has a lot to say. She's helped so many people.

Lots of people didn't vaccinate because of what happened to Sarah. When Vax came out, I was blown away because finally the moms were speaking out. And I always say I've never F with a mom because I'm in it for over 30 years and I'm just getting going. And it's because of shows like the high wire. It's an important message to get out. And when Del came out about the brick, I just knew I had to get a brick for my Sarah. And I knew when I bought it,

I actually had tears in my eyes. Because I'm like, one day I'm gonna be here in Austin, Texas, and I'm gonna see her brick. So for me to see it, like it's a miracle. So I'm very, very grateful. All right, we're almost ending this campaign. We have so many of you have purchased bricks. It's amazing, but you don't wanna miss this opportunity.

Everyone that missed the last time when we put in the walkway here was reaching out. How do I get in? This is your moment. It's also a great Christmas gift for someone you love. You can send them a picture. Hey, look, this brick is now what I can. You should go check it out. Also, look, if you want another way that you can contribute and, you know, get something out of it, how about a Christmas gift?

Go to our store right now, and we have all sorts of things that you can buy for Christmas. And we have a special Christmas gift for everyone that buys over $75 worth of stuff at the highwire. Dot shop. We're going to give you a gift bag that has valued over $100 of extra stuff for extra gifts. And I would say this, you know that person in your family, you're a little afraid of having the conversation with, you know, if you're back during Christmas, you haven't been getting along very well. You definitely can't talk about that issue. And you don't know what am I going to get them for Christmas. How about a high wire shirt?

How about a high wire hat? How about a high wire mug? That would do the job. Be a lot of fun. Anyway, these are great gifts from shirts to hats to Faraday bags to protect, you know, your loved ones if they're using cell phones, great stocking stuffer, also a great conversation piece. And if you go over there right now and spend more than $75, do it now.

You only have enough time to really make Christmas. You're going to get over $100 worth of free stuff sent to you, additional, a bag full of all sorts of Christmas gifts for you or those. that you love, so this is a great opportunity for you, a great opportunity for us to celebrate the holidays and continue to fund this incredible work that we're doing. This is an amazing show today

because we have the Advisory Committee on Neumization Practices where we're watching finally science being discussed as Bob Sears just celebrated. We're celebrating a book that everybody, the silver book that you can buy, that doctors can buy, that really simplifies this conversation. But whether you've bought that book, whether you're watching

these meetings where you're watching the high wire. The big question is, how am I going to have that conversation at the Christmas table or the Hanukkah table? We're all going home for the holidays, but you don't want to show up with this shirt, not vaccinated and ready to talk politics. I don't think that's Thanksgiving. I don't think that was the way to do it, but, you know, nice try. Anyway, you know what I mean. These are sensitive topics, but it's the most important thing we're going to do right now because we have a vote that's coming up we have things we have a you know an electoral season coming that will decide how much robert kennedy junior is going to be able to do how far down the road are we going to get we're only going to

get there if we keep enrolling more and more people it's why i want everyone sharing an inconvenient study just go to there at inconvenient study.com share the film but how are you going to talk to your friends and loved ones well i'm joined now by carrie bigford that that is exactly what you are doing you've got a program to help people talk about this somewhat complicated issue it's not somewhat complicated it's very complicated and we absolutely have to talk about it because we won't succeed if we can't have this conversation and fear is one of the biggest barriers yeah i know that you've been a long time just like me have you ever had one of your well-intentioned thoughtful conversations go unexpectedly sideways with someone never

Well, no, but I know a lot of people that have. Absolutely. Of course, I think we've all, you know, especially when you're starting out. When I first was, you know, traveling with Vax, every once in a while I would get myself into a position where I, you know, brought up a point that then gets used against me in a way I hadn't imagined. You don't do that twice. Yep. But it'd be great if someone had like walked that road and had said, you know what? Here's the mistake I've made.

You don't want to make that mistake. Well, I failed forward. Great. And through lots of years of bad outreach, I developed excellent outreach. Okay. And my background is mental health. So one of the reasons why those conversations can go sideways on a difficult, polarizing, emotionally-driven topic like medical liberty,

it's actually biological. You know, humans have a two-story brain. Okay. We have an upstairs brain, which is slow, deliberative, logical. It is the excellent upstairs outreach partner brain for us. And then we have a downstairs brain, which is fast, instinctive, and a little bit always running amok based on our feelings. Okay.

And the fun thing about... The emotional brain is moving faster than the... Far faster, and even more fun, the emotional brain has... I think the zeal brain I'm using, no. Most people are actually downstairs brain dominant, which is part of the problem. And so we come in trying to bring with logic, and the only way to get upstairs, there's no external staircase. The only way to access someone's slow, deliberative, logical, good outreach partner for us. Upstairs's brain is through the staircase, downstairs.

So having an awareness of what's happening in your partner and how that communication works neurologically can help you frame. So rather than trying to come in first with hard logic and facts, which won't work. I've watched, I've said that my own way, which is, go ahead and just bury someone in science and you will get nowhere. You'll get nowhere. You just watch the door closed immediately. Right. Yeah. So what we do in our approach is we actually go downstairs up. Okay. So we focus on establishing safety and trust first. We have a like four basic steps. I mean, with a lot of tips and tricks that we have in our program to help you with communicate. But basically, we've just dealt under four main steps.

It is prepare yourself to do the work. And when you're preparing yourself to do the work, you are coming up with some idea of what you're going to inform with, and you want that something to be not nuanced, objective reality, so not your opinions, beliefs, choices, ideas, whatever, right? And you also want to make sure that you are coming from a place that is, centered enough where you are no longer vulnerable to your partner's emotional wins, right? You need to be able to be centered enough to stay upstairs in your upstairs brain and not go downstairs and fight, okay?

Yeah. So first step is you prepare yourself through the work. It's a really good point, right? Because that's where I think we get off, right? We start out, we go home, it's been a big raging fight. Yep. Not going to talk to my sister again for another six months. Yeah.

And you know, you're kicking yourself, why did I get emotional? I was the one that had the upper hand. I had the information. It was that closed-mindedness that I was running against. And then I got emotional and the thing just went absolutely south. Once people get upset with one another, rational thinking goes out the window. Right. I mean, emotional miscommunication and emotional feelings are the main thing that derail communication.

Yeah. All across the board, all cultures, all humans, everywhere. It's emotions that derail communication. Yeah. So being able to have some way to get yourself regulated emotionally so that you can stay, centered enough to be on task and on topic and mainly not vulnerable to your partner's emotional wins is a really big deal and also being able to replace your judgment with curiosity right yeah being able to identify your partner's position and empathize with it and empathy is not agreement

empathy is understanding your partner's position it's not agreement yeah and so after you have prepared yourself because it's a real thing you're doing that you need to prepare for or you will go in flames and get an emotional reaction. It's designed for that. It's designed for that. We're designed for that. We are designed for that. We are designed to be downstream. It's very dominant.

We are designed to have that wild card, irrational nature of humans, right? And we see that everywhere, right? I experience it's medical liberty all the time. And so after you're prepared yourself and you're centered and you're ready to go and you have some idea of what non-nuance, objective reality fact you're going to share

when that point comes along, then you connect with your partner. And connection is really the step that you spend the most time on, and you never, never inform before you connect. You have to connect and manage that downstairs brain and establish trust and safety first, because you have to be invited upstairs. You've got to remember, you're entering someone to downstairs ground floor level. Yeah. You have to be invited upstairs. You don't just show up upstairs.

You're invited upstairs, and you're invited upstairs by establishing trust, safety, and connection. through connection work okay yeah absolutely um we have lots in lots so tell me so do you have a course i can take how to is it like how does work because i look i think this is really super important again i agree something i wish i'd had the time to develop some teaching curriculum i wish i'd had me 25 years ago but you've done it and so where do people go how do they connect with this because look we've got you know three weeks right now to go get ourselves prepared for what i think is is going to be oh here we go. I guess it's up right there. Texans for Vaccine Choice. But I can click on the promo code. So there you can go to Texans for Vaccinechoice.com. Okay, Texans for Vaccine Choice.com. And you can find

it there under Train with Team TFCC. Okay. So you'll be information. If you're in Texas, you can volunteer for us and take the class for free. If you're out of Texas, you can buy a ticket. It comes with this handy dandy workbook that has all kinds of exercises that walk you through and help you internalize and apply the information. But going back to Connect, In fact, another piece I really want your audience to understand was really not my idea, but it's one of the lenses that we use to help with our outreach work. And it's called a 738 55% rule.

It was founded in the 70s by a UCLA psychology professor, Albert Mahabrian. And it's very important and very true. And what it says is it's not what you say, it's how you sound and what you look like when you say it. Only 7% of your partner's perceived meaning of you, of you actually comes from the word spoken. I spent sad, literal years

trying to find perfect magical words and I meet advocates all the time that are obsessing about perfect magical words if I could find the perfect words. Well, you know what? The perfect words get you 7% of the communication puzzle. That's it. Interesting.

38% however comes from your tone of voice alone. So rather than taking all that energy trying to find perfect words that don't exist and don't get you very far. Focus on developing an awareness of how you sound to your partner. Do I sound aggressive? Do I sound approachable? Do I sound calm, right? Do I sound condescending?

Absolutely. Do I sound judgmental? All of those things. Develop an awareness of your sound. And then 55%, 55%, more than half, comes from your body language and facial expressions alone. Am I closed off to you? Am I turned in your direction?

Do I seem welcoming and approachable? Because those two things, your tonal voice and your body language, provide the contextual cues that give the meaning to the words to your partner. I use very clear and direct language in all of my interactions, and it is my voice tone

and my body language that conveys my love and care for you. And there is nothing, I mean nothing more powerful, and magical than you and your ability to connect with the person in front of you. So connection is a very important step that should not be missed or rushed. And during that connection step, you're looking for three things in your discovery process with your partner. What my partner's position is, why that position makes sense to them, and what they need to shift into a different space, okay? Yeah. You discover that. And when you discover that and you've,

gained trust and established safety, your prize for connecting well is gaining the influence to inform your partner. And when you inform, definitely choose something not nuanced. Don't go in the weeds, okay? You're asking your partner to elicit a worldview shift, right? Barring trauma, as most people in medical liberty

came here through trauma, but barring trauma, there's a lot of resistance to that worldview shift. And the dominant worldview is at vacuum. is that vaccines are what, safe and effective, safe and effective, right? And to pierce that, right, is a big ask for someone. So don't just be surprised by resistance, but expect it. And help your partner shift by giving them things that are not nuanced, that are objective reality and easily verifiable

so that they can push back and openly resist that reality and be proven wrong, right? Right? That helps your partner shift so much. And while you're doing that, make sure that you're staying regulated, you're staying open to them, be mindful of your body language and your voice tone,

and then after you've informed your partner and they're marinating in it, the last step is allow. Right. I meet advocates that struggle with allowing all the time. And I struggled greatly too. I was coming from a fear-based place. I did not want those people to be harmed.

I was frightened that they would be harmed. and I got too attached to their outcome. But the truth is, just like you and I know, we are not at the decision-making table for anyone else but ourselves. You're not. And I'll say this, I've said it before, the odds are you're not going to see that shift

in that sitting, right? This is like a television series, you're not in episode 10, it's going to get 10 to get there. What you want is for them to tune back in. You want them to have this conversation with you. You know what, I really appreciate that conversation yesterday. I wanted to follow up with a couple more questions. That's what you were trying to hook that you hear.

You want them to assimilate and internalize what you shared and be willing to continue their relationship in the future so that you can have more opportunities to help them shift because, again, you're eliciting a worldview shift in your partner, which is a very tall order for humans to do. And it's important to recognize that. There's no two minutes that's going to shift anyone unless they were about to shift anyway.

Yeah. right yeah yeah which you don't know when you like talking to random people is one of my absolute favorite activities i mean it's making me sound a little odd but i love it i love talking to people that i don't know and getting to see how far i can get with them and where they are on this spectrum of understanding because regardless of your individual choices you want medical liberty laws in your life you do not want bureaucratic government people to decide what happens to your body ever this is the most important issue it is even freedom if you care about what this country represents if you want it to last for your children and the generations to come,

I do think this is the tip of the spear. I think you make a good point. I would also say what's great, they should take this course right now. You can go to Texans for vaccine choice. We are having a high wire specific class. Okay. On December 9th, so Tuesday, December 9th, you can do that QR code. There's a promo code to take 20% off. You'll get long class with me that's live where you can ask all the questions that you want. You'll also get a workbook mail. to you so that you can have tons and tons and tons of information to help you internalize and apply those tenants because again I want you to be successful we must be successful or we're not going to succeed we will lose our liberty we will lose our liberty and we have to get the hearts

and minds we have to have this conversation with the people that we love and the people that we don't know that we love yet right I just had this image I know like I'm one of the world's worst dog trainers we have like these feral dogs in our house but if you have ever been ever ever had a dog like that right yep that gets outside of the yard and they're running towards the road and you adversely like get over here you clap and then they look and then now is the game and then you yell and now they start going more and more and eventually you just like I found like I just dropped down on my back and like just lay there and I have to act like I don't care if you run that traffic and just see if you'll come to me because all the attention is just driving

them away it's a lot of what this game is with someone you love you have to just you know approach in a way where you're not pushing them away humans have a natural invoice and defense mechanism against being controlled it's called reactants okay and it's a real thing and part of allowing is what i call the paradox of outreach which is when you as the advocate can let go of your need to control their choice because that's what you're doing when you're too attached to their choice that's your need to work through when you can let go of your need to control their choice that is the exact moment when you gain the type of influence that truly can help them shift that choice.

People can feel when you're not attached. My own personal growth marker of my success as an advocate has been the enhanced ease with which I can allow. I am not attached anymore to anyone else's choice but mine. And because of that, I shift people faster and more effectively than I ever did when I clung to my need to have their choice be what I needed it to be.

And that's hard to hear sometimes. hear some times, right? Well, you know what? Let's get into your personal story right after the show and off the record. I want to hear how that got you there. Take advantage of this. Texans for vaccine choice. You can click on the QR. Let's bring it up one more time. This is really important. I mean, you should really take this on. I want to do better over the holidays. It's time, man. We've got the momentum at our back, the winds that are back, the science is with us. Go in, be happy. Look, there's no reason to get defensive. We're in the offensive position. It's really easy to get nice and friendly right now, but start enrolling people, right?

Start using honey to catch those bees and not vinegar. You know, we were hoping today that somehow we would break from this show and go to this incredible vote on hepatitis B and watch history being made, I pray, when hepatitis B is removed from recommendation for all children. That is now being delayed because apparently, even though ever... Everyone in the news reported that vote was happening today. Some doctors didn't think they were prepared. All they were prepared to do was bitch. This is one of them.

Let me begin by saying that I take strong positions against each of the three presentations that have been made. Many statements that I don't agree with that it's hard to be succinct. But let me begin with Dr. Synthes. Invesant. First of all, I think you conflated serology, that is, antibodies, with protection against infection. I don't think there has been a single case of hepatitis B that has occurred in a person who was otherwise healthy, or a neonate who was otherwise healthy, who received the recommended schedule. This disease has gone down in the United States thanks to the effectiveness of our current immunization program. In your opinion, is that fair?

In my opinion? Well, okay. These are facts, Robert. Well, there was Dr. Cody Meisner, who is, you know, and I pointed out, look, I'm glad he's there. Proving Robert Kennedy Jr. didn't get her of people that believed in pharma and didn't care that this vaccine only had a five-day safety trial. We need those types in there, too. But what kind of science does he talk about? Do you know how rare this issue is? Do you know how rare hepatitis B is? Do you know how hard it would be determined if vaccinating everybody in the planet that didn't need this was actually making it. difference at all. He calls those facts. They all call things facts, just like Tony Fauci said

it was a fact that six foot distancing would make a difference. It was science. And if you question him, you question the science, except when they were under oath, just like Catherine Edwards, suddenly all that science disappears. You realize there is none. But despite the fact, even though Cody showed up today, he had a whole dossier that had been sent to him saying, today we're going to discuss it. At the end, we're going to vote. Apparently, he was the one saying, I don't think we're ready to vote. This is the moment that we've missed while we're doing. the show. You could put it up once again. So, I mean, it would be much easier if we could have a hard copy of this and think about it a little bit. I would like to make a motion that we have

an opportunity to look at a hard copy of the votes and hopefully defer until tomorrow if that's possible. Do we have a second on that motion? Okay, that second. That second. That motion. This is a Dr. Hibble, and I second that motion. Well, there you have it. I can't imagine what's going to happen tonight. I mean, are the lobbies of the pharmaceutical industry going to reach out to the individuals on this committee? Maybe. Are they going to reach out

to the establishments where they work, the hospitals, the clinics? There's going to be pressure there. What is Cody really thinks going to happen overnight? As you think, we're just going to go home and read and that's going to make a difference? I doubt that that is all that's taking place. But then again, that's my opinion. That's my

perspective, I guess they need some moment, some way to regroup and figure out, can we pressure these people? Because I think they feel like the writing's on the wall. They thought they were going to win this vote. There was no problem. We're going to keep vaccinating 99.95% of the babies that never needed this vaccine and continue to make billions of dollars up for product that was totally unnecessary. I guess they want one more shot at it. They need another night's sleep, some more pillow talk, if you will. We are up against close-minded individuals. We are up against a religion, not science. We are fighting against billionaires and frankly, trillionaires. This industry is the most powerful in the world. We have won in West Virginia, and it didn't

matter. They've driven to another court, and they're going to keep pushing in everywhere, and they want us to walk away. They want us to throw up our hands and give up. They wanted of the same thing in COVID. Just roll over. Get the damn vaccine. Get your vaccine passport or you're never getting on a bus again. And we said, no, no, I'm not doing it. I'm standing up. We're standing up for real right now. We're standing up inside of government. Robert Kennedy Jr. standing up. Dr. Robert Rollone is running real science where everyone is allowed to the table. We're having these conversations for the first time. We're standing in courtrooms for you. 90 courtrooms we're in right now with cases with ICANN all across this country. And the

most important that have ever been fought, especially West Virginia right now and a case in New York that we believe will go to the Supreme Court. You can do something. You can tell your friends. You can learn how to talk to your friends. Super important. But do not take this moment lightly. We are not going to get another chance at this. We are not going to find ourselves in this position for a very, very long time unless we win. Unless we take this opportunity to win this battle and then win this war. This is a war for our children. This is a war for our species.

This is our war for sovereignty. And most importantly, it is the war for freedom. Do not take it lightly. Be responsible. Act accordingly. And do everything you can right now to make sure that when you have that last moment in your life. When you're lying on your deathbed, I assure you it will not be about whether you

meet your maker and God tells you how you've done if your children are not free because somehow you shirked your duty. You just thought Del Bigtree's got this handled or Aaron, Siri can do it without me or Robert Malone's on this. Well, if you think that's going to alleviate your guilt in that moment, I think you're wrong. Wouldn't it be better on the last days of our lives to look at our children and say you're welcome we are free because we cared we did what was right that's what's happening today be a part of it i'll see you next week on the highwire Thank you.