The Highwire with Del Bigtree - Episode 459: THE TRUTH IN OUR BLOOD

Episode Date: January 16, 2026

This week, Del opens on the media backlash to the CDC’s shift toward shared vaccine decision-making. Is the panic really about safety, or about empowering Americans with choice? Jefferey Jaxen delivers a wide-ranging investigation into COVID vaccine injury data, exposing massive underreporting through VAERS and V-safe, new polling that shows widespread harm, and even admissions from legacy vaccine leaders that current safety science is insufficient. Then, he reports on Florida’s discovery of mercury and other heavy metals in baby food, the presence of PFAS “forever chemicals” in popular bottled water brands, and the accelerating impact of artificial intelligence as it displaces white-collar jobs and pushes universal basic income into the political mainstream. Finally, a deeply personal and powerful conversation about medical freedom at its most fundamental level — blood — as Del recounts his own near-fatal medical emergency and the extraordinary effort required to secure a transfusion aligned with informed consent, while families share how the right to directed blood donations saved their children’s lives and how that right is now under threat.Guests: Liz James, Tanya Lair, PA-CBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

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

Yes! 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. Well, last week we're obviously bathing in all the success that we've had on the conversations around freedom, mandates, vaccinations. but the pundits keep going and the news keeps going and they keep screaming and yelling about how dangerous it is

that we should have choice over six of the vaccines that were just moved into shared decision-making, meaning between me and my doctor. It's kind of amazing to watch it, but in case, for some reason, you've been under a rock, this is what that's looked like. Big new changes for the childhood immunization schedule. This dropped yesterday.

The CDC is dropping the record, recommended 18 vaccinations down to 11 instead. This is a big change, and I think it's going to potentially cause a lot of confusion. What they have done is sown a lot of uncertainty, doubt, fear, and so a lot of parents are going to be confused. This is going to decrease vaccine competence, more burden on providers, not what we need right now. The American Academy of Pediatrics calls today's recommendations dangerous and says it can continue to give their own recommendations. Changing the pediatric vaccine schedule based on no scientific input on safety risks. And little transparency will cause unnecessary fear for patients and doctors and will make American sicker.

These sorts of things so distrust in vaccines. And the minute that you have a question and somebody says to you, okay, you can go and think about it. You are going to take that opportunity to go and potentially think about it and never come back. What I find interesting about this, and it's something that I talk about rarely, which is why did I get so focused on the vaccine issue at all? I mean, I had a perfectly great job at CBS as a producer or an Emmy-winning producer of the daytime talks to the doctors. But as I looked into this vaccine issue and, of course, went on to make the documentary vaxed. What was fascinating were all the issues around this, and especially because I grew up a progressive liberal. My parents marched in the 1960s for freedom of choice, to choose what university, to have total freedom of speech.

That's what it meant to me to be a liberal. So when I started looking at this issue and realizing this isn't really about health, this is about an authoritarian government having control over my body, the bodies of my children. Of course, we're in the middle of SB 277, a law that was going to take away anyone's right to an education. The taxpayer money that we were paying didn't matter. You had to be fully vaccinated based on what the pharmaceutical industry had sort of convinced the CDC was the best way forward. And that then separated us from what I think is the founding father's declaration, our mandate to have freedom in this nation. It flies in the face of that. And, you know, I often think back, you know, this really comes down to do we trust the American public to make

decisions. That whole news montage shows you this is going to cause fear. This is one of the most dangerous things ever done, meaning it's dangerous to give American people the right to choose, to give them information and let them decide what they want to do with their children and their bodies. And remember, you know, we are somewhat copying the Denmark schedule at a chicken pox, but what we didn't copy is Denmark trusts its people to make the right decision. And they allow them the right to choose vaccination. So does Germany, these other nations. So why is it that the one nation that, you know, yells the loudest is supposed to be the beacon of freedom for the entire world is one of the few nations that forces through authoritarian mandate this product in order

to walk through life? It's really shocking. And I think about our founding fathers because certainly this was a question, are the American, is our population too stupid to make? make decisions for themselves. I mean, it really is the bedrock of freedom. If we're to be free, we have to allow everyone to be free. And certainly, that was a hotly contested idea. Our founding fathers thought, should we only allow landowners to be the ones that vote? Because certainly that would mean they're probably better educated. They're educated enough to know how to, you know, raise money and buy a farm and run a farm. If we only have them vote for who's president, then we get an intelligent electorate that decides the future of this nation.

But our founding fathers decided, you know what, this is a nation of for and by all the people. We're going to trust those that maybe don't even have the high school education. I mean, imagine, I mean, of all the times, if we think, if we're worried that the people, our constituents and our neighbors here in America, you know, lack the ability to vote for a good president, can you imagine what it was like back when a high school and college education? were rare? Can you imagine what they were surrounded by there? And even then, they looked out of the peasants and said, they should vote too. So at the heart of this, as I watch these news agencies fight for how dangerous it is to give people the right to choose, I think what they're really

fighting for is the right to have an authoritarian government destroy our constitutional rights. To watch all of mainstream news say, we stand for authoritarianism, is what I can. think is happening here. If you want to question me on that, let's just talk about this term antivaxor. If you look at anti-vaxxer in Webster's dictionary, it's a person that poses the use of vaccines or regulations mandating vaccination. That's actually a change that's been made over time, but that's it. If you simply want to delay one vaccine or skip one vaccine, you are an anti-vaxxer. You realize what I think that they're making a huge mistake here because what they're doing is labeling millions and millions of Americans that simply believe they had the right to choose a pejorative like antivaxer. Essentially, my understanding is somewhere between eight or nine out of ten people that are currently eligible for the COVID vaccine in America aren't getting their booster.

That means that 80 to 90% of those that once believed in the COVID vaccine program are now opting for their right to choose. Are they anti-vaxxers? If there's a mandate, should they have to take it? Do they not want to live in a nation where they get the right to choose, whether they think a ninth or tenth booster shot makes any sense whatsoever? Certainly, I believe if you ask them and they're not getting that 10th booster, They might say things like, geez, if I'm not immune for this thing by now, then make a better product, but I wouldn't be happy being mandated with this vaccine. And I think more and more Americans are moving in that direction saying, I should have the

right to choose. So in the end, this issue is to me only just partly about health. This is the tip of the spear when we talk about freedom. if you do not control your own body, if you do not control the bodies of your children as parents, then you are not a free citizen. There's no way to say that you are. In fact, I've said over and over again, you have about the same exact rights as a farm animal. And that is apparently what most of mainstream news believes, that that should be your way of being. And let's be clear. What risk is for you to delay a vaccine or not take a vaccine.

Are we going to mandate things for your own good, or is it for the good of people? I mean, I think that most of the time we should only think about are we hurting someone else? And in this case, now that so many vaccines are proving to not stop transmission, the argument that you're protecting your neighbor is now dead.

In fact, the definition of a vaccine has changed. It no longer protects your neighbor. It just protects you, which means it should be my choice. choice. So as we watch this debate roll out, as we watch Robert Kennedy Jr. and the support of Donald Trump and all of the great doctors that are around Robert Kennedy Jr. fighting for your freedom, you should ask yourself about the news agencies that are fighting for authoritarianism. And remember, even if you're a liberal, one of the great liberal voices had this to say. We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien

philosophies and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. John F. Kennedy, we've allowed a corporate infrastructure to take control of decisions in our government, and not only have they pushed for a mandate that other nations do not have, nations that we consider to be even more authoritarian than our own. On top of that, once they got us to be mandated to take these products, then they said, and we don't want to have any liability whatsoever. So if it injures you, sorry, you're out of luck.

You want to talk about the most ridiculous system ever built in a nation that says it's supposed to be free. That's it. And it's crumbling down, and it's going to continue to crumble because I believe human beings ultimately are intelligent and we should trust our neighbors. If we get back to that place, we'll get back to being the shining beacon

of light and freedom and hope and faith that makes this nation great. We're going to talk more about this. We're going to talk about your right to choose what blood that, you know, if you need an infusion, should you get to choose where your blood comes from Or should that also be a right that's taken away from you? I'm going to be talking about that.

But first, it's time for the Jackson Report. You know, we were just sitting, Jeffrey, in the meeting yesterday, talking about this show with the team. And, you know, what would it mean to say that, you know, mission accomplished? You know, I think about when we started this out, you know, after VACS, we started the informed consent action network, we started the high wire. You came in, we started reporting on this. And it really came down to the conversation.

we have around the nation. It would be once we are back to freedom, once we have got freedom of choice on all vaccinations, and frankly, liability is back on the manufacturer. Once we've restored the free market forces that make products great and give American people that right to choose that they were born with, then in many ways I think we could move on to greener pastures and other conversations. And in some ways, Jeffrey, it feels like we're getting really close to that moment. Yeah, and there's still, there is still some answered, unanswered questions. You know, during the COVID response, which is roughly since vaccines started going into arms, roughly six years ago in the United States with the COVID shot,

we still really don't know how many people have been harmed by that shot. We hear a lot of studies saying it saved the world and the pandemic. It ended it because we had the COVID shot, and we've shown studies that refuted that point. But there's not a lot of studies showing how many people are hurt by this coerced, mandated, And what we have to do is we have to rely on a reporting system. Vairs, vaccine adverse event reporting system that is really not a robust reporting system, although we're told it is, but we know it's not.

So we look at headlines like this with interest. This is a Rasmussen report, a poll, a telephone poll where people were called. This is human intelligence. This is how people talk. They get a telephone call. And here's the headline, millions experience COVID-19 vaccine side effects. And it says more than a third of Americans who are vaccinated against COVID-19 say they're say they had side effects from the shot and nearly half suspect the vaccines killed many patients.

It goes on to get a little more fine-tuned here. It says, however, 26% say they had minor side effects and 10% reported major side effects from the vaccine. Okay, now stay with me here. This is kind of a back of a napkin calculation, but we have to have approximations here because there's not really any great studies showing this. We just keep hearing. Vairs is great, it catches everything, it's the best in the world, go back to, you know, the COVID pandemic's over, you can go back to your normal lives. But there's still a lot of people suffering from this COVID shot. We know this. And so let's take some really broad approximations from this Rasmussen report and overlay it on Nvares and see if we can figure something out. So in this Rast's music report, they called almost 1,300 people.

And of those adults that answered the phone, about 68% of them said they had been vaccinated during the COVID pandemic with the COVID vaccine. So at the time of this report, there's about 258 million adults in the U.S. This Rasmussen report. So about 68% of that, so about 175.4 million. So again, total approximations here. People are going to tear this part, but that's fine because that's all we have. Now let's go to fare.

So we have, of that 175.4 million adults who received a COVID shot, we go to VERS. How many of them really reported what would be considered a serious side effect? Well, a serious side effect, as you can see from Open Vairs here, would probably be hospitalizations. You get the shot, you find yourself in the hospital for an extended state, not knowing what the heck just happened. That would probably be a serious side effect. So let's choose that. 221,872. So here we go. Stay with me here. You take that 175.4 million adults who received that COVID vaccine, according to Rasmussen,

according to those phone calls, and you take those hospitalization from VERS, 221-872. And you get about 0.13% of those people ended up with a serious side effect. According to VERS reporting, now this is all to see how robust is VERS. How much is VERS catching? Is it catching everything? So you have 0.13%. Well, the Rasmussen poll, because we're going to compare it to that, with these random telephone calls, said 10% of people said that they had a serious reaction. So you take 10%, you divide that by that.

0.13%. Vares is under reporting at a rate of about 77 times when it comes to major side effects. And the caveat to this, again, this is very broad strokes on these calculations. But the caveat to this is those hospitalizations that we chose for VERS, that was children and adults. So we actually gave VERS some help on this one. We over calculated how many reports were coming in. And even by doing that, 77 times under reporting. And remember, Harvard Pilgrim did the study, and they said less than 1% is what VERS probably was catching before COVID of the vaccine schedule, the flu shot, the childhood vaccine schedule. So again, anytime we do these calculations, VERS never comes in over reporting. In fact, it comes in massively underreporting in this case 77 times.

You know, it's interesting because, I mean, you know, I remember when you were bringing this up and we were looking at, you know, where is VERS at? It's under 1% reported if we're going to go with what Rasmussen says there, which is super interesting. What's fascinating about that article is, you know, remember we were reporting somewhere between 40% and 50%, depending on the poll, we're saying, They knew someone that they thought had died from the COVID vaccine, but to add in that one third think they're injured and 10% think that they've gotten a serious injury from it, that is a massive, massive number. But I remember when we won the VSAFE data, and, you know, this is the data, this is the app that the CDC created to track any sort of vaccine injury.

and we built the portal in which, and people can still go check this out at I Can Decide.org, but if you pull up that portal and you could search it any way you want to, what we ended up seeing with those numbers was that it was about, I believe, was like 7.5% somewhere in that zone that were having serious adverse events, and up to 30% were visiting doctors or missing school or, you know, in some way it was altering their life. And that actually goes really closely with what Rasmussen is reporting here. And again, data that we only have, Jeffrey, because of Aaron Siri and millions of dollars spent

to both get the Pfizer data, which the FDA wanted to hide for 75 years, would be in hiding for 75 years if it weren't for the work that ICANN does. The Moderna data is available to the public because of the work that we do here. B-Safe data, which anyone can read through and go through our dashboard, which is super interesting. You can see that too. But again, what we're seeing is what has been reported. Harvard has said in their, you know, experience when they were tasked, I think they were paid a million dollars investigated. Bears is capturing less than 1% of the total amount of injuries. There's that study that does that. And so, you know, and this matters. This matters when you're

going to rush a totally experimental product onto all the population and have your president of the United States say everyone's going to have to get it or they can't go to work or they can't go to school or they can't get on a plane. It matters that your one major capture system is so flawed and that you want to hide your V-safe system and you want to hide your Pfizer data and your Moderna data. This is what I think America's waking up to and why we're seeing such change, you know, as we're moving along now. Right. And so we just want to remember adults. Let's talk about children. So here's a headline somewhat recently out of the Atlantic. Yes, some children may have died from COVID shots. Well, we've come a long way since safe and effective or, you know,

antivacters have a crazy conspiracy that the COVID shots may kill people. We're actually getting these headlines that from from legacy media outlets that they're admitting this. And this brings us to a study out of Spain. And this study found something kind of accidentally. They were looking at the safety and the effectiveness of the COVID-MRNA vaccines in children, ages 6 to 11. And so, And they used the entire population database of Madrid's health system. And they looked at it really during the hot years of the pandemic around May 2021 to December 2020. So a lot of deaths going on there. And remember, they rushed these vaccines into children's arms.

There is typically unanimous voting from Verbeck, from ASIP, to vote these in, despite massive problems, despite the fact that children were not dropping like flies from COVID. So this study looks at that time period. It looks at a lot of children. And where did they find no deaths attributable to COVID-19 occurred? Now, let's look at the numbers because there's some questions here. I'm sure people are watching going, well, this is a vaccinated study. So isn't that proving that? You can say that. But let's look at the image here from the study. This is the table. Vaccinated 183,273, the controls. So they chose five times the controls for the of basically unvaccinated, to vaccinated for 6 to 11 year old and 12 to 17 year old. So you add up those controls, it's about 2.7 million children. And if you go into this study, it says during the follow-up period, a certain percentage of those children and those controls received one vaccination.

And so bottom line is about almost 1.4 million children in this study and they're monitoring them for hospitalization, for mortality. No children died. you would think if they hit the dart board you know they threw a dart like that with that many children if this if covid was as dangerous we were told that every child every child had to get this shot every infant had to get this shot in fact west coast alliance and east coast alliance are still making their own recommendations to put them in the arms of infants as we speak right now you think that they would have captured a death or two in this just by a blind chance

and they did not and so that brings us kind of to the next question we talk about the report reporting systems, but there's people that are injured from this. There's children that are injured from this, myocarditis, and the list goes on. You can look and what are we doing here in the United States? Well, we have the countermeasures injury compensation program. It pays out almost nothing to people that have been injured. It was never meant for a pandemic. It was that reporting system and a compensation system never meant for that. And we have basically trying to move that into something else to get compensation. But in the UK, as of last week, they're putting forward bills in their parliament to try and get compensation for their citizens. Here's one of them. COVID-19 vaccine damage payments bill.

And you go into and read about this. It says a bill to place a duty on the Secretary of State to make provisions about financial assistance to persons who have suffered disablement following vaccination against COVID-19 and the next account of persons who have died shortly after vaccination. So that's what the UK is doing. What's the U.S. doing? And I want to bring people to a time really quickly because there's a lot of polarization out there with RFK Jr. at the head of HHS. There's a lot of people thinking the vaccination schedule should have stayed the way it was, should have continued to be mandated without giving informed consent and choice to parents and children. So I want to talk about both camps.

We have the camp of informed consent. We have the people that kind of want the old guard back, we'll call it now. I call it the Dark Ages of Medicine now, it seems like we're turning the page. And that's represented by people like Stanley Plotkin, Walter Ornstein. These are legacy researchers who laid the groundwork for the current vaccination program over decades. of research and vaccine development that we have lived under until Kennedy took office. Well, they wrote a paper. Well, before we get to that, to be clear, if someone happens to be watching the show for the

first time, our own Aaron Siri, the lawyer that, you know, brings all of our cases, went and represented us and had a deposition of Dr. Stanley Plotkin, who is considered to be the reigning godfather of our vaccine program. It was a nine-hour deposition. You can find excerpts of that in the entire thing at the highwire.com. Just, you know, search for the Plotkin deposition. But under that deposition, he admitted things like lack of safety testing and things like that. He was caught off guard, was not ready for it.

And in our own FOIA requests, we found a request to CDC and FDA that Dr. Stanley Plotkin then reached out to Walter Ornstein and others that are the heads of the departments inside the United States of America. saying, I just had a very uncomfortable experience with a lawyer, essentially, and we have to start preparing ourselves for the argument they're making. I wasn't prepared. So very interesting. I think it sets up this article that you're about to describe. Absolutely. And so this article, and just to put in context, this was in summer of 2024, July, to be specific, Robert F. Kennedy didn't drop out of the presidential race until a month later in August. So Kennedy was not at HHS.

He wasn't talking about going to HHS. He wasn't really even talking about vaccines. In fact, I remember when he was running for president, he did an interview, a couple podcasts, and he said, you know what, I'm not talking about vaccines anymore because I'm running for president. There's also other issues that I want to talk about. So it wasn't really on the docket.

And out of the woodwork comes Stanley Plotkin. When Stanley Plotkin speaks, a lot of people in medicine listen. And he published this study in the New England Journal of Medicine, not a small journal, talking about vaccine safety science. I peaked her interest. This is what we had to say about it. He said the widespread vaccine hesitancy observed during the COVID-19 pandemic suggests that the public is no longer satisfied with traditional safety goal of simply detecting and quantifying the associated risks of a vaccine after a vaccine has been authorized for use. The public also wants public health authorities

to mitigate and prevent rare but serious adverse reactions, which no longer seem rare when vaccines are given to millions or billions of people. Huh, it kind of sounds like the entire group of people that help Kennedy ascend to his presidency and into office. Sounds like he's one of them. He's actually saying because millions and billions of people are having these rare side effects, they kind of add up and we need better safety science. And he goes on and say this. Identifying the biologic mechanisms of adverse reactions.

How and in whom they occur is critical for developing safer vaccines, preventing adverse reactions by expanding contraindications and equitably compensating vaccine ease for true adverse reactions. Kennedy himself couldn't say it any better. It's really amazing. I mean, I want to really drill down on this because these things can fly back. Bring up that last paragraph, you know, because this is what we're arguing. This is what mainstream keeps arguing.

We have identified. We know everything about the vaccine. You don't. Here's the got by the vaccine saying, you know what we should do? We should be identifying the biological mechanisms of adverse reactions, meaning we know they exist. They have to be happening. You know, we study rare diseases. Why don't we study rare injuries from vaccines?

Why aren't we giving it the same concern instead of gaslighting people and saying that this doesn't happen? And I want to go back to the original paragraph because I think it's critical as you fly through that. Sometimes I'm like, oh, what that really mean? But however, the widespread vaccine hesitancy observed during the COVID-19 pandemic suggests that the public is no longer satisfied with the traditional safety goal of simply detecting and quantifying the associated risks after a vaccine has been authorized for use. been bolded when you read that. What they're saying is what we have proven, there are no placebo trials of any of the childhood vaccines that was totally acceptable back in the day by Stanley Park and Walter Ornstein. But now, as it turns out, because of Jeffrey Jackson and Robert Kennedy Jr. and Del Batesh and others like us saying, you know, why are we doing safety tests like we do

on every other drug we take? I guess we're going to have to start doing those safety tests and figuring out before the vaccine is being injected and mandated on every child and, you know, with COVID, every adult. So it's amazing. You're right. It's actually what good science is supposed to be in that article also says the only reason we didn't do it is we didn't have the funding. I mean, you're talking about an industry that makes $100 billion on the COVID vaccine. Doesn't have the funding to do proper safety tests like they deal on every other drug. But now that we have someone at HHS, to your point, doing exactly what Dr. Stanley Plotkin would have done himself. He needs to be torn down. Oh, my God, this guy's a danger and a menace to society because

he's actually got Marty McRey's saying we're not going to prove any more vaccines without a placebo trial. And you're going to have to prove that the flu shot actually stops the flu that that season has to offer. And God forbid this be happening. This is why we're winning this argument, Jeffrey. It's why we're going to continue to win. Why I think he's a lot. it's going to affect elections from here to come, you know, until everyone gets on over the fact that we all just want safety. And there's only one side that would prefer authoritarianism over safety. And, you know, behind closed doors, what this says is the both sides are intellectually shaking hands. They're patting each other on the back. They're saying, we know what direction we're going and let's walk

there together. This is what they're saying. This is a kumbaya moment. So let's, let's, let's, let's, Let's talk about. I will love him when they actually come out in public and shake hands. And Stanley Plotkin says, Bobby, thank God for you. Thank for you for getting the funding into what I wish we could have done all along. And for those people that are wringing their fists at Bobby Kennedy and what he's doing, they got bigger problems because it's not just a federal level and it's not to Bobby Kennedy. This is expanded to states.

States rights and states are now moving along in lockstep with the U.S. government. One of those states is Florida. and take a look at what they're doing now. New concerns about what's inside, some of the most common baby formulas. A warning for Florida families. The state's been testing baby formula, and some of the results are scathing.

According to the Florida Department of Health, the state tested 24 infant formulas, and 16 of them contained at least one heavy metal above federal safety standards. Mercury was found in all 16 of the samples that tested positive, with three formulas showing three or more undesirable results. C. Casey DeSantis, backed by husband, Governor Ron DeSantis, alongside Florida's Surgeon General, Dr. Joseph Lattapo, announcing test results Friday.

Neurodevelopmental injury. We're talking about injury to your kidneys, to your lungs, to your livers, to other, pretty much every organ in your body. The governor says this is just the beginning that is part of their exposing food toxins initiative, that they will be independently testing even more products in the near future. We want people to be able to make the best decision. decision for them, not necessarily what would be in the best decision of some, you know, manufacture or something like that. You know, when I watch this, Jeffrey, I think about, like, what is it? What was it, like, six Surgeon Generals or something wrote a letter against Robert Kennedy Jr. You know, and I'm like, oh, the same six that allowed poison, toxic chemicals in our baby food,

never thought to test it for the United States of America like that. Like the same six that allowed arsenic in the baby food, which is one of the things that are finding, mercury, petroleum dyes. in our fruit loops, those same six surgeon generals. I mean, it's amazing to see. It's so exciting to live in a nation that is starting to act like the nation you believed you lived in.

Unfortunately, this is just Florida, hopefully, other states, but honestly, you know, our own federal government shouldn't it be testing all of these things? Shouldn't this be a part of what it takes to get on the shelves? Was that not what the Food and Drug Administration was supposed to be doing all this time?

Right. And what's powerful about this is you have Florida doing these studies for the entire country. So they're kind of doing what the FDA should have been doing. And so in light of that, in respect to that, we're going to give this information, as they are. We're going to present this to the rest of the country that are watching. And you can see if you go to exposing food toxins.com, that's Florida's new website. And it's not just food. So you can see by this infographic, they're looking at the food industry. They're looking at big pharma. They're looking at nutrition and chronic disease and mental health and substance abuse.

So this is a first of many, many things that they're going to be going after, essentially, and trying to really investigate. So you look at the scorecard here, and this is all the food with heavy metal, baby food, with heavy metal contamination. So you can see there in the red, the M's, those are mercuries that are over the limit. You probably, you know, if you're looking to have your child, your infant, not have mercury in this system, you're probably going to want to avoid these foods. Oh, but it's just a small amount of mercury.

I'm sure it's fine. You know, forget that you're taking it. You know, you're feeding this stuff two, three times a day. Don't worry about it. It's just mercury. It's the safe form of mercury. And as the Surgeon General Lodipo said, these recommendations by the EPA, these standards that are set are for adults.

So when they're talking about this is over for adults, Obviously, children have different systems, much more delicate systems. So just keep that in mind. So let's continue now because it seems like everywhere you look now, people are really concerned with the toxins and the chemicals in food. Here's Daily Mail. Here's an investigation they did. You might want to pay attention to this if you drink bottle water.

This is Daily Mail graphic reveals the bottle waters with the most cancer-causing forever chemicals. These are these P-FAS chemicals. They do not degrade in the environment. They're around forever. and they give us this infographic here we're going to go through these bottles individually so 0.1 part per million per i'm sorry per trillion is what is recommended by most health professionals anything over that you're probably not going to want to ingest that in your system a lot of issues this causes cancer is the big one but there's a huge amount so let's go into these bottles here

topa chico mineral water that's a glass bottle by the way 3.9 parts per trillion that's 39 times over the limit de sani 0.2 parts per trillion two times over the limit. Smart water, same thing, two times over the limit. Aquafina, again, two times over the limit. Then we get to Perrier Sparkling Water, 1.7 parts per trillion, 17 times over the limit. Ascentia alkaline water. Point two parts per trillion, two times over the limit. Deer Park, 1.21 parts per trillion, 12 times over the limit. And then we have Fiji water. 0.05. So that comes under the limit. It's the only bottled water that came under the limit there. And so we, Fiji water is the only one they tested.

Not a lot of good odds there if they're just grabbing water off the shelf and testing them with these things. So something to keep, we have baby food, we have bottled water. There's a lot of other things that can be tested. We know that the environmental working group has done cereal. I know moms across America has done a lot of other things as well. So it's important to look at these to shape consumer behavior if you don't want these kind of things in your body or your children's body. And this is what Florida is doing. can do this, any state can do this testing. It's not very hard. It doesn't cost a lot of money.

I want to point out just right now, Jeffrey Jackson, one of the great things that we do here in the High Wire is all you have to do is, you know, give us your email, which is right on the main page at the High Wire, and we send you the transcript to this entire show, every video, every article. You want to, oh, I didn't catch it. What bottles was it? You'll get the video, but you'll also get the actual documents themselves. There you just go scroll down the page where it says Brave Bold News, just put in your email. We don't share it with anyone else. And then usually by Monday of every week, you can get every single video, every single article, everything that we discussed. This is what, you know, sort of truth and transparency. This is our charter with the

high wire. We like every other news agency to do the same thing. Don't just tell us what the expert said. Show us your evidence. We are showing you our math every single week. And that's also because I don't want people to have to go out and say, well, Del Bigtree said or Jeffrey Jackson said, I want to be able to read the article. And frankly, the whole article, not just the excerpt that we took out. Go ahead and read the entire Stanley Plotkin letter slash study that he put together with Walter Ornstein. It's super interesting. And if you think we're cherry picking, then call it out. That's what transparency is all about. That's what news and information is actually supposed to be about. We call it the high wire protocol. And we're asking every single

network and news agency in the world to adhere to the same principles. Show us your work. If someone says that there's a placebo trial, if you say it, prove it. Where is it? Post it, print it. That's what we're doing on the high wire. I want to talk about a conversation that's a little forward looking, but it's coming quick. We've been talking about this before, but this is this rapid rollout of artificial intelligence. And just see of context. We came out of the COVID pandemic and AI was dropped in our lap. Coincidence? Who knows? Maybe history will show that. But it's dropped in our lap and all of sudden it's aggressively accelerating into every aspect of our life. And we as citizens are going around, looking around going, wait a minute, this thing is moving really fast. We've got to have

some big conversations here. One of them is about jobs, employment, and universal basic income. And an interesting point, Yvall Noel Harari. He is an historian. He's also really likes the he had he had a point that I wanted I want to really spotlight here take a listen okay now you can think about the AI revolution as simply a wave of immigration of millions and billions of AI immigrants that will take people's jobs that have very different cultural ideas and that might try to gain some kind of political power and These AI immigrants, these digital immigrants,

they don't need visas. They don't cross the sea in some rickety boat in the middle of the night. They come at the speed of light. And I look, for instance, at far right parties in Europe. And they talk so much about the human immigrants, sometimes with justification, sometimes without justification. They don't talk almost at all about the wave of digital

immigrants that is coming into Europe. And I think they should be much, if they care about the sovereignty of their country, if they care about the economic and cultural future of their country, they should be far more worried about the digital immigrants than about the human immigrants. I mean, it's a good point, right? Like, focus on the real issue. And it's a trippy thought, right, that for all the immigration and what it can do to jobs, what if it's millions of immigrants that I think you could argue you have the intelligence

of a Nobel laureate and are going to work for less than minimum wage? And yet we're just all looking and complaining about other issues. And this one is, as he says, moving at light speed right now. Absolutely. And I want to read something that puts a fine point on it. In fact, I read this and it really stopped me in my place. So this is an article called The Great DeCoupling. The title is White Collar Displacement. ignites 2026 UBI Firestorm. It says the United States enters 2026. The long-predicted AI revolution has transitioned from a Silicon Valley slogan to a disruptive economic reality. For decades, automation was a specter haunting factory floors and warehouses, but the last 18

months have seen a dramatic shift towards the white-collar cliff. This displacement has catapulted universal-based income from the fringe libertarian experiment to the center of the 2026 political agenda. It goes on to say the significance of this moment cannot be overstated, unlike Like previous waves of automation that replaced physical tasks, the current agentic era of AI targets the core of the middle class professional identity, cognitive reasoning, and project management and specialized knowledge. As corporate earnings reach record highs due to AI-driven operational efficiency, while entry-level professional hiring has plummeted by nearly 40 percent in some sectors, the debate over who

owns the wealth generated by artificial intelligence has become the defining issue of the year. So as we are given AI to transcribe our Zoom calls and make some better meme images with Google Gemini, corporations are using it to vastly accelerate their efficiency and thus take people out of the job market. So the question is, are we stumbling into a universal basic income? And we have the state of the union address that's going to be on February 24th by President Trump. And a lot of people are looking forward to that and saying, is there going to be conversation about an AI dividend or something that's going to be given to the public,

some kind of stipend or something because of this job displacement? And that would really be the first specter of this universal basic income we're seeing. And again, I'm going to point to Florida here because we have a lot of governors and people that are standing up in politics and wanting a different change here.

This is Governor DeSantis in Florida. He took the X. He said, why would people want to allow the human experience to be displaced by computers? As a creation of man, AI, will not be divorced from the flaws of human nature. Indeed, it is more likely to magnify those flaws. It is dangerous. This issue, I think, is going to become, you know, more and more major topic on the high wire,

because it's concerning me. I have a son that's 17 years old is a junior in high school. My daughter is 11 years old. And I'm trying to imagine what the future looks like for them. I'm trying to imagine, am I in the same position? to guide my children forward for their careers and their ideas of who and what they want to be. Am I in the same position my parents were at? Because, you know, my son talks about, you know, perhaps being a lawyer. And I am, and what freaks me out is really, I imagine there'll still

be lawyers standing on floors of courtrooms, at least for, you know, the near future. But what about all the researchers? What about all the entry-level jobs coming in paralegals or all the work that you could do, you know, whether it's an internship? Why? Why is any lawyer going to bring on an intern to research other cases? Can you do some case studies? I mean, when AI is going to do that better than anyone can imagine. You know, why is anyone, how much of medicine is going to get wiped out? If your child wants to be a doctor, if the doctors mostly have become, you know, essentially

agents for the pharmaceutical industry, almost virtually, you know, how much of the medical profession is just, here's the drug for that problem. Here's the drug for your reaction to that drug for that problem. Oh, you have another problem? Here's the three drugs. And we know that's what's going on. AI can do that way better. It's certainly as well as any doctor.

That job's gone. So to your point, all of these, what used to be what you wanted your child to go to school for, they seem to be the one. Those careers are almost in the firing line more than a plumber, more than an auto mechanic at the moment. I know Elon's working on some robots to do that stuff. know how far down the line, but I'm in a quandary right now on, you know, what is it I want my child to be good at? Right now, I'm like, you just better be good at surviving, being creative, being able to think outside the box to Bob and weave because your world is about to be

decimated. And then you think about universal basic income. Let's just take away the greatest motivating factor all of us had that got us off of our bed, whether it was in college or after college or going out to get a job, and that's survival. You know, survival is what kept me alive in New York when I was, you know, trying to get that job waiting tables while I was pursuing a career in the arts, simply having to survive. That was taken away. How many people lose really the will to fight or live? How much of the society will be, what, smoking weed and playing video games?

And I guess the great overlords will keep voting for them to get a raise to do that. more UBI for the people that aren't working? I don't buy it. Yeah, and what's it replaced by? That's the question. What replaces that drive if in the monastery system is not perfect? I think you and I both agree on that, but what replaces that drive?

Is it creativity? Is it some type of blissful life? Or is it more of a dependence on who's giving out the UBI, which is most likely going to be the government? And that's the recipe for disaster, as we've seen throughout history. Yeah. Well, Jeffrey, I, I,

Appreciate the reporting. Fantastic work. Again, I think this is going to be a super interesting year. So many things are moving really, really fast. And I love that you're just keeping it all. I, you know, eye in front of us. Let's not worry, you know, yeah, immigration, but what if immigration is coming light speed and it's coming after all of our jobs in a different form? We've got to keep our eyes on all that. Great reporting. I look forward to talking to you next week. All right. Thank you. Right. Well, look, I say it at the top. this show, there are no sponsors for this show. You are our sponsors. This is an experiment in media, you know, much of my team, my executive producer came over from CBS where I worked on the daytime talks to the doctors. Our director of an inconvenient study came over from the doctors.

We all had a dream. Imagine if what we were reporting, we could do something about it instead of just complaining about it. That's what this is. The informed consent action network doesn't just report to you, we get involved. We fight in courtrooms for places where we see an issue. We believe in your freedom. I'm not just saying I am complaining about the desire for authoritarianism by mainstream media. We are doing something about it. We funded the lawsuit that brought finally over years of fighting freedom to Mississippi and the right to choose. They can opt out based on a religious exemption in Mississippi, something that had been taking. from them in the 1970s. We are deep in that fight now in West Virginia. We won the case. We won

against all the lawyers there, but of course, pharma and all the funding. God knows who's behind the 20 lawyers on the other side of the aisle are marching this straight in to, you know, to appeal. And we're in an appellate court now. So the fight continues. And in order for us to stand in that courtroom, remember, there's no money to be won here. These are not. not court cases that your average lawyer would take up. And frankly, no one thought anyone would fight for you because who's going to fight a lawsuit that doesn't pay us any money? Who could spend millions of dollars fighting for freedom? You know, where's that money going to come from? Well, that's what you've made possible. That is what the high wire is doing. That is what Aaron Siri is

able to do. One of the greatest attorneys in the history of our Constitution in this nation is fighting for us through ICANN. We have the Pfizer. data, all of the Pfizer data. Yes, we're America's public health watchdog. We have the Pfizer data. The book, Pfizer papers by Naomi Wolfe was only possible because of you, the Moderna data, and knowing how many injuries, how many died for real, not just have to take their work for it, happened because of you, the V-Safe data and the dashboard that you can, you know, look through and figure out what their own app captured as far as injury on the COVID vaccine. We were informing you of how safe that was in real time because your donations. And so I just want to ask you,

the beginning of this year, why don't you be able to look back as like an investment? Instead of buying a little Bitcoin today or some ETH, why don't you invest in the high wire and I can, and the work that we do here? God knows your funding papers, your funding cable networks, for them to lie to you and fight for authoritarianism. Don't you want someone fighting for your freedom and talking about every week. Just go to the highwire.com, go to the top of the page, donate to ICANN. We would love it if you would become a recurring donor. That just means this is how much $26 a month.

You may maybe skip a lunch, maybe intermittent fast once a week or once a month and decide to do something about your health in many different ways. But that recurring donation, we're asking for $26 for 2026 to everybody that is a sponsor and donor donor to ICAN. I want to thank you for making all. that we've achieved here possible. You don't even know everything we're involved in. We can't even talk about all of it and the lawsuits that are ongoing 90 as we speak. Just, we'll make it super easy. Just type in 72022 on your phone. Text us. 72022. Type in the word donate and we will send you

out, you know, I'm going to respond to you and send you a link so that you can get involved with donating to this amazing work that we're doing here in Jeffrey Jackson and Aaron Siri. get to tap yourself on the shoulder and say, I did that every time we have a legal win. All right. Also, I want to just, I want to point out that, you know, we have a great store with all sorts of great T-shirts for the high-wire, how you high-wire. I mean, I run into people in airports that are wearing the high-wire shirt. And by the way, if you're wearing a high-wire shirt in an airport, I will come up to you and say hi. If you're wearing a hat, I will come up to you and say hi. If you knew how much it was traveling, the odds that I'm going to meet you are better

than you think. But I want to point out, this is one of the favorites. It's one of my favorites. While AI is now studying everything you're doing, probably listening to you through your phone, even when you think it's on silent or you've got an airplane mode, who knows? This is a Faraday bag. And it's a great gift to even start, it's a conversation starter. So you can just go to our website and order a Faraday bag fits all of the different cell phone sizes. You stick it in there, especially if you have a conversation that you really want to be private, but also block all those EMSs, keep that out of your life. There's so many great things about this. It's a top seller, and you can get it right now at our store. Okay, several years ago in the middle of, I actually

something was like April of 2021. I had a sort of surprising health scare. I was running all over, talking about COVID, talking about these issues. Then I thought I caught COVID. I was really weak. I was having trouble walking across the room. Luckily, some friends of mine, you know, sort of forced me to go to a heart doctor. I didn't end up having a heart issue, but that heart doctor, through blood tests, discovered that my hemoglobin was down to 4.8. They said to me, I mean, got an emergency call in the morning. It was a Thursday morning. I was supposed to be heading the show in about an hour.

I was not feeling very good, but I'm a guy that's like, the show must go on. I'm going to be there. And this doctor said, you aren't going to any show. You need to get to an ER right away. You need emergency blood transfusions. Your hemoglobin should be somewhere between 13 and 17. You're at 4.8 mandatory emergency infusion start if you're below, I think of a seven at the time. So I was at 4.8.

It was a serious emergency. And I had an issue. I didn't want blood from people that have been, you know, vaccinated with the COVID vaccine. I don't want that spike protein in my body, that man-made manipulated product that was never properly tested. Don't want it. Don't need it. Even though I was like, you know, really on the verge of death, luckily a friend of mine called the blood bank here in Austin. And there was only, I think it was seven total units.

I'm B-negative, which I guess is pretty rare. So in all of Austin, only about seven units. and they don't track whether or not there was a COVID vaccine. Luckily, the person at that blood bank made some calls and found one by the course of the day. Meanwhile, I was saying, well, look, I know people that have negative blood. My wife is oh negative. I could get her blood. And here in Austin, Texas, they said, we can't process it fast enough.

It would take 10 days to two weeks to process your wife's blood. I called a friend who has a clinic down in Mexico in Cancun. I said, are they testing blood there? Do they know whether there's a COVID vaccine? He said, let me look into it. As it turns out, they were testing for it. Always amazing when they're more thorough than we are in the United States of America. And he said, and we can turn your wife's blood around in probably under four hours.

So I flew to Mexico. My wife went with me and I went down and started getting transfusions in Mexico. Oh, it was a great headline. Top antivacters unhinged quest for unvaccinated blood leads into Mexico. Look at this. Dell desperately needed transfusion, but first he had to track down the blood of a donor who hadn't been vaccinated. And his doctor friend of Mexico was ready to oblige. So it made headlines.

It's weird the things that make headlines. But look at that. I mean, that dude right there didn't know he was dying, totally green, no oxygen moving through my blood. I think that's only four transfusions. I needed 10, about four in, I was feeling a heck of a lot better. But this is an issue. Should I have the right to have blood for my wife and people that I know? Should it take, why is it that concierge medicine is much more available in Mexico

than his here in the United States of America? These are questions that are being asked right now, and they're very important for all of us, whether it's about a vaccine issue or some other blood issue may have. This is a recent hearing on a law in Texas. Take a look at this. Blood is not something most people think about until they need it, and yet one in 70 people will require a transfusion each year. So this is no small thing,

especially if you have a chronic disease like these girls have or a condition that requires transfusions regularly. In situations where someone has a rare blood type or particular blood disease, often it can be difficult to find high-quality blood that may be necessary for them to receive a transfusion. My daughter sitting here next to me were born with a rare blood disorder called beta thalcemia major. It's a disease where they do not make any blood of their own

and they require transfusions every month for the rest of their lives. I was born in China with a disease called thalcemia. I had to live in an orphanage until my parents could come and bring me home. When I first got home, I was really, really sick. Every two weeks I had to go to the hospital to get blood. I still felt awful, but then we found some incredible donors who matched me exactly. I started getting blood. I started getting super fresh blood. After I started getting blood from those wonderful people, everything got better.

I was adopted from China when I was three years old. Sadly, when I got adopted, I was very sick, because the orphanage I was in couldn't take me to go get blood. I was adopted after my sister when I got my first transfusion. They found out I have harder blood to match than my sister. One time they gave me bad blood that didn't match exactly, and I had to have my first transfusion. And I had to a bad reaction. I couldn't break and I had bumps all over me. After that happened, my mom told the doctors I was going to get special blood like my sister. It was hard to find my special blood, but my mom finally found enough. And after that, I stopped getting sick at the time too. Direct donation is the collection of blood with the intention of it going to a specific individual.

Unfortunately, many hospitals and blood banks are recently refusing to fulfill a physician prescribed and order otologous and direct donations, despite the fact that they are legal, safe, and have a long history of prior use. Two years ago, our lives got turned upside down. Carter Blood Care called me out of the blue and told me that our donors could no longer donate blood to our girls anymore. Even though for the past 10 years, they had agreed to let us do that. Almost immediately after their first transfusion with anonymous blood, their health rapidly began to decline. It was so awful. I slept all summer long. I had itches. I edged all the time. I had terrible sores in my mouth, and I even told my mom I couldn't live like this anymore, which made my mom cry every day.

When they took our donors way two years ago, I got super scared. Fave got super sick, and I just was too tired to do anything. All I wanted to do was sleep. I prayed and prayed every day that we would get our special blood again. There's a growing number of situations where entities within the blood donation industry have made the business financial decision to override the doctor's order for the directed donor blood, effectively keeping the doctor from practicing medicine in the best interest of their patient. We had a change blood banks, hospitals, and doctors, which was a little scary, but I got my special

butt back. Now I feel great. For the past 18 months, the girls have gotten their direct donors back, and they've absolutely thrived. It's mind-blowing to see the positive changes in them compared to 2023. I'm in the junior high. I play volleyball and basketball. I'm a cheerleader, and I have enough energy to run track this year. No one at my school would ever know. I'm at my school. Whatever know I have thalesema. I'm so happy. I feel like a normal kid now. I love gymnastics, but probably the best part about getting my special blood back is having the energy to annoy my family with my constant giggling and goofiness. I also talk a lot. The worst part about not getting my special blood was saying my mom cry and worry so much. I don't ever want to go

through that again. Well, obviously a very important hearing. I am joined now. It's my honor and pleasure to be joined by Liz James, who is the founder and president of Blessed by his blood. And Tanya Lair, the mother of the two beautiful kids that we saw there, Tanya, Liz, thank you for joining me. Thank you for having us. Liz, you know, I think about back in the movie's car accident, you know, television shows, you'd people would be like, oh, you know, find neighbors and friends that had the right blood type so that you could donate blood and help the person out. the system seems to have changed.

But tell me a little bit about, before we get started, your company blessed by his blood. What is it? So we are, and first of all, thank you for having us today. We are 100% not-for-profit cooperative, meaning we know there's nobody that gets a salary or any benefit from this other than we know we're doing the right thing. Okay.

And what we do is we match donors and recipients for people who have chosen to abstain from, mRNA technology. And we are nationwide. So nationwide, if you want, if you need a blood transfusion, you match people that have the same blood type. Is that essentially that works?

Correct. We work within our cooperative membership. And we're faith-based, although you don't have to be of Christian faith to be a member, but we are modeled after John 1513, which is no man has greater love than to give his life for his friend.

And we jokingly say, you're not giving your life for just giving a pint of blood and a couple hours of your time. And we've just had some really beautiful stories come out in the last two and a half years since we've been doing this. You know, I never would have thought I would need a company like yours or a nonprofit like yours until, you know, I went through the health crisis that I did. Tanya, what was this debate this taking place about?

So basically when we adopted our two daughters, we found directed donors who had been donating blood for our girls for 10 years. And there was zero issues. The girls were thriving. They were healthy. They were doing great. They were actually healthier than other patients who have the same blood disorder in the wide DFW area because of what we were doing.

And without reason, suddenly one day they called me up and said, hey, sorry, your direct donors can no longer donate blood for your daughters. There was no explanation as to why, no, nothing, just your cutoff. End of story. And so this bill that we were created that Liz actually went to, we hadn't even met each other. I didn't even know there was a bill. She was fighting for this right to, you know, something that we've had in this country since

1980. She was fighting for this bill and for all people who need chronic transfusions or if anyone needs transfusion from, you know, an operation. if they have cancer or anything, that they would be allowed to choose their donor, which we have been doing since the 80s in this country. Are there states where, you know, like here in Texas, what are you actually fighting for? It's really not a state-by-state problem. It tends to be a blood center-by-blood center problem.

And what we have is even a corporate entity making medical decisions in a blanket way. One-size-fits-all, which is what I'm completely against. This is exactly right. And not just that, but taking away the right for the doctor to practice medicine as they best see fit, as well as the patient's own rights. I mean, if you're saying you do not have the right to choose and you're stuck between a rock and a hard place, the hard place and the rock being, if you don't receive a transfusion, you will die, that is quite a conundrum.

And it's also not a great time to have to make that decision. I mean, you're under stress already. And one of the things that doctors should be doing and anybody in health care should be doing is creating less stress in a patient, not more stress. If you're in a car wreck and you're bleeding out, you're going to get whatever you're going to get. You know, unless you have something on

that says you're Jehovah's Witness or something like that, which the Jehovah's Witness and there's a protocol called the Jehovah's Witness Protocol. But if you're Jehovah's Witness. What is that protocol? Yeah, what is that protocol? I'm curious how do they survive a situation like that? Well, in some cases they don't, but they absolutely do not take tissue or blood. Okay.

But as anybody else in the public can also opt into the Jehovah's Witness protocol and the Jehovah's Witness protocol is a little bit different depending on the situation is because the question is why do you need blood so for somebody like faith or melee who don't make red blood cells it's not it would not behoove them to receive an erythropoetan promoting product that would that would promote the production of red blood cells because their body doesn't make it but there are other things that they might be able to do not for the girls because they have a very specific problem going on. But for somebody who's going through chemotherapy or who has anemia, there's transexamic acid,

there's platelet producing drugs, there's iron infusions, there are lots of other things that can be done depending on the individual. And you can ask for those things too. There's radial embolization, which, which, where they can embolize certain vessels. There's also something called cell saver technology where you can, if you know that you're going into a surgery, they can actually harvest the blood as you're bleeding out,

clean it in like kind of a dialysis cleaning situation, through a profusionist, and then put it back in. That's actually the safest way you can receive a transfusion is for them to clean your own blood and just put it right back in again. Interesting. What is the argument that's being made? your daughters are giving this incredible testimony. What arguments being made?

No, sorry, you know, young ladies. So if you watch the rest of the hearing, you can hear, because all of the politicians asked these people from that particular blood bank, why. And their biggest thing that they said is, well, people lie. And the people that are... Why? Directed donor blood is not safer than the voluntary blood donors that we have. They have a two to seven times higher risk of infectious diseases.

And the critical elements when you donate blood is to fill out a donor questionnaire and also the testing that we do. But directed donors are incentivized to donate, and they have been found to be more likely to not be truthful on that donor questionnaire. Now we do test all blood for infectious diseases, but there are window periods for each infectious disease, HIV and hepatitis C, 10 days, hepatitis B up to 24 days. So it's possible for a donor to be infected with these viruses and not test positive. That's where this donor questionnaire becomes very, very important because we're evaluating

the risk. So if a donor is incentivized to donate, they may not be truthful. And this is why you see the increased risk of directed donor blood. And so the people that are closest to you are motivated to donate for you, and so they're going to lie about their extracurricular habits. And that is just wild to me, because let me just tell you who our donors are. Whenever we brought the girls home and they were not thriving, our hematologist at the time actually came to us and said, listen, your girls have rare antigens on their blood. They're difficult to match, and we don't always have a

bag sitting on the shelf ready to give one of your girls. And if we do, sometimes the bag that they have is going to expire the next day. So if you give a patient a bag of blood that is fixing to expire, you're giving them empty red blood cells that do them absolutely no good, and all you do is create iron overload, which is a big problem for chronically trained for patients because iron collects in every major organ that you have, and there's absolutely no way to get the iron out except to bleed or take really dangerous chelator medications. So she said, if you find some donors, you're that match her daughters exactly, then we can solve this problem

because they can go in and donate the week before, we'll always have the blood on hand, it'll be fresh, and they'll do great. And so I had a mission, and I did it. So I didn't ask close friends and family. I did a Facebook poll that was public, and I asked people if they had any kind of calling to come do something good for these little girls

who were not thriving to help us. People came out of the woodwork, because at the core of every human being, we all are created to do good. And so people genuinely, I feel, want to be good people, deep down, everybody. And so these strangers came out of the... You believe in humanity too. It's kind of the whole point of my perspective today, right?

And so these people came out of the woodworks to help us, and we tested hundreds of donors. And we didn't find hundreds of donors, but we did test that many. And we found a few that matched exactly, which was really, really hard to do. And it didn't happen overnight. It took us a while to find these donors. But these donors faithfully, some of them I have yet to this day to meet them face to face. Wow. And they, you know, I don't have any money.

I have seven children. We don't have gifts to give people. So I just thank you so much for everything that you're doing for us. That is the text message I send and it's genuine and they know it. And that is it. They've never met my girls and they don't care. They genuinely want to help our kids and that's it. but this blood bank says that, oh, well, they're going to lie.

What's interesting, and I'm just going to add this, is that I was writing up here with Liz, and she got a phone call from my blood bank, and they said, hey, we know you donated a couple weeks ago, but we need some platelets. There is a shortage of platelets. We'll give you $2.30 gift cards if you'll come do it right now, right now. We need it right now. And if you do that, we're also going to put your name in a hat over our all expensive. paid vacation trip to for two to the Super Bowl.

Yep. Come on, come on, let's do it. And she said, you know, she couldn't. And well, why not? But you need to. And so like... They were pretty pushy. Yeah.

And I actually get that call about every three or four weeks. But what's crazy is that they're incentivizing anonymous donors. They're incentivizing everybody. I mean, the entire process is anonymous. The fact that you'd lie is though somehow that lie is going to permeate blood that's going to be tested for and all the issues anyway it's going to go through the same blood tests as anyone else and why is why is anyone that knows you or doesn't have any greater propensity to lie than someone that's trying to

pick up some ticket but that says to me there's huge funding behind it there's something bigger than what we're seeing this isn't just about oh we're a blood company we want to like help people donate blood where where's the cash cow that I'm not seeing so the cat this This is very important, and this is what people don't understand. I think blood is maybe the only industry where somebody is giving something away altruistically, and it is turned and sold. The United States supplies 70% of the world's blood products.

Around the rest of the world. 70% of the world's blood products. In terms of commodity, it's ahead of gold and coal. Really? And in addition to that, only about 20% of blood total that's collected in a community actually stays in the community. But it's not just sold overseas, it's sold to Big Pharma, and it's sold for research.

And the big pharma component is really interesting. And I have quite a lot of experience in it. I'm a pharmacist. And that I realized back in 2000, it was about 2012, is about 2012, the biologics, which is a class of pharmaceuticals that is the fastest growing, most profitable aspect of pharmaceuticals that we have now, about 10 to 20 percent of those biologics are actually made from human blood. And that in itself is concerning because it's not just like if I give blood, it's not just my blood going into one person's

pharmaceuticals, it's batched in vats. And so it's literally untrackable. And that creates a whole other set of problems. Is it, I mean, so when people donate blood, how much value can that have? They're giving away football tickets. Do we have a sense of, like, overseas, is blood worth more than it is here?

That is very interesting. So contract prices, and they are, the, The blood industry is very tight-lipped on pricing. I have been able to acquire some pricing from various hospitals, and on average, a contract pricing runs about $700 a bag. But if I'm donating to you, and it's a direct donor situation,

that barcode bag belongs to you. If it's an anonymous donor bag, they can look at my bag and say, oh, there's some something unique about this bag, I have, I have like all of these antigens, perhaps I'm unvaccinated, whatever. I know I will only get $700 by giving it to you, Dell, or I can make $4,000 because of these unique properties by donating to this pharmaceutical company who is looking for those

particular things or somebody overseas or whatever. And on top of that, I will say I was at an event a few months ago talking to a doctor and one of her patients had gone overseas to have a procedure done. She said that she wanted unvaccinated blood on standby and they said, well, that will be an additional $70,000. Wow. So I don't know. That's an anecdotal story. Sure. But she came back without information.

So that, if true, and I believe it probably is, if you know, that's an anecdotal story. true that says that of course all blood is different I mean and and there are so when you go and donate blood they're studying it and it starts getting categorized and that's exactly right that's exactly right I'm curious with your daughters you said that once they went on to the sort of the the pooled blood if you will like not direct donor that they started having health issues what is wrong why is that blood not as good do you know where it's coming from or why they would be having health issues? So according to where they were going, they said that they matched it down to the last

antigen. So I hope that they did. But I did read the expiration dates of the bags because I was very curious at that time what it was. And the expiration date on one of the bags was two days from the day we got it, even though they assured me that they were going to have the freshest blood available and they didn't. And so for a person who gets chronically transfused, you need the freshest blood. You also need blood from a healthy donor.

So another thing we have in our population is the most people that donate blood are usually over the age of 65. And why is that? It's because you're retired and you're like, you know what? I got nothing better to do. I want to give back, okay? But the 20, 30 and 40-year-olds don't typically go donate. Why? Because they're busy.

They're working. They don't want to take two hours out of their day to drive and then sit there and then have to drink some juice and do all the things you have to donate. It's just not convenient. Yeah. And so those are the people that don't. don't donate. So basically when we got a bag of blood that was anonymous, I don't know who it came from, you know, but the girls hemoglobin was tanking. And so a pre-transfusion hemoglobin for my girls, for them to actually be able to thrive, needs to be above 10. There's was coming in at 7. That's not compatible with any quality of life whatsoever. A normal hemoglobin for a person who does not have a blood disease for a female is about 13, for a male's 14 or higher. So they had no quality of life. So they laid around. all of it all summer long. One of my daughters got fever blisters. Well, that comes from a particular virus. That virus is not one of the viruses that's... Somebody lied.

Yeah. It's not one that's tested. Right, sure. So there's, you know, there's certain diseases that they test for in the blood, but there's a lot of them that they don't. And the CEO of this particular blood bank that we were having issues with went on stage and said, there is a 10-day window for HIV that we don't know. if someone donates. There is a 12 to 14 day for hepatitis C, and there is a 24-day window for hepatitis B. And that is a random donor off the street who decides I want to go do a good thing today and donate. My donors have been doing this for 10 years. So if they had one of those problems, they would have been screened out by now. So their arguments are completely invalid. They make

absolutely no sense. They also argued that it was so expensive. Like, this is so much more expensive to do this. And, you know, basically they're tagging with a special little tag and they're putting it on a shelf. And the blood that goes to the hospitals, blood goes to hospitals all the time. So you're not hiring an extra courier or paying those fees or anything. So there's no extra cost. The only extra cost that I had in that particular situation is they made me pay $111 to donate my own blood with a money order. I could not do a credit card, a check, or anything. How to be a money order. Well, obviously, this is something that I think we all need to be focused on. Again, this is just about, I think, sort of corporate capture of things that we think should just be wide open

and free, especially here in the United States of America. How do people follow the work that you're doing? They just go to... It's www.bless byhisblood.com. Okay, awesome. Look, if you guys will stick around, I'd love to have an off-the-record. I'd love to know what it's like to adopt out of China that's got to be quite a ride and sort of what inspired you to start. Thank you. I want to thank you for joining us today. Thank you for having us. Absolutely.

Look, you know, our founding fathers said if you want to remain free, you're going to have to remain vigilant. These may seem like bizarre stories until you find yourself in a situation where you actually need blood or you need freedom. You need the right to choose your doctor. You want your doctor to be able to do whatever they want to do, not what's forced down by some corporate infrastructure that doesn't have you personally in mind. This is about concierge. This is about living the life that each one of us deserves. Remember, this country is founded on the

principle of the individual. How dynamic you are. We recognize you unique. We recognize that your body isn't exactly like your neighbors. We recognize that you may want to make different choices. That is what the high wire is perpetually reporting on. It's what we're standing for, what we're fighting for for you. So when you donate, you continue to not only, you know, fight for the things that you know you care about. How about the things that you didn't know might be an issue until maybe it's too late? We're looking at those things too. One of the great ways you can donate is we still have our terrorist project, which is we're adding to the high road,

which is this beautiful walkway a walk every single day that I come to this show from the offices to the studios here. The benches are gone, but you can still choose a brick. And we hope that once you choose that brick, you can come and watch the show and find that brick yourself. This is my favorite brick of the week. Hey, everybody. Well, this beautiful walkway is about to extend onto the terrace. And this is my favorite brick of the week. Always fight for freedom of choice, the Malin family.

In fact, that's really what this show has all been about. You've been watching it. This is more than just vaccines. This is more than body autonomy. me, this is a fight for freedom. It is truly what the high wires involved in of what I can stands for. So I hope you'll join us in continuing to fight for freedom. Of all the nations that should celebrate freedom of medical decision, medical freedom, it should be the United States of America, whose founding doctrine is based on freedom. Well, what happens when you take a medical freedom advocate

and you put them ahead of HHS, they don't just bring freedom back to this country. They are that beacon of light and shining hope for the rest of the world. And that's what happened in an announcement this week by Robert Kennedy Jr. Take a look at this. Today I want to tell you about a letter that I just sent to Germany's Federal Minister of Health, Nina Warkin, because what's happening in Germany right now demands a clear public response from the United States of America. I've learned that more than a thousand German physicians and thousands of their patients

now face prosecution and punishment for issuing exemptions from wearing masks or getting COVID-19 vaccines during the pandemic. When any government criminalizes doctors for advising their patients, it crossed the line that free societies have always treated as sacred. In my letter, I explained that Germany is targeting physicians who put their patients first. and punishing citizens for making their own medical choices. The German government is now violating the sacred patient physician relationship, replacing it with a dangerous system that makes physicians, enforcers of state policies. Your health is no longer your doctor's priority under this system.

Your doctor instead is serving the welfare of the collective as determined by unelected technocrats with no medical training. During the COVID era, governments across the world expanded their authority. Even in America, doctors were unjustly attacked for challenging the status quo. Germany followed that same pattern, and now doctors who raised questions or challenged official directives, faced conviction, the loss of their licenses, and even exile from their professions. Germany has long held a respected place in the global community as a nation committed to democratic values and human rights. Policies that suppress dissent, that silent speech, that criminalize medical decision-making, undermine that legacy.

A confident government listens to its citizens. A free society protects the rights to think, the rights of question, and the right to choose. In my letter, I made it clear that Germany has the opportunity and the responsibility to correct this trajectory, to restore medical autonomy, to end politically motivated prosecutions, and to uphold the rights that anchor every Democratic nation. History will record how leaders respond at moments like this. Thank you. What an incredible statement, and it really points out concerns we should all have.

You know, if you've watched this show, sitting at this desk, have been countless doctors and scientists that actually saw the truth before anyone else did, said that the vaccine was never going to stop transmission. said that you were going to have blood clots. The leading heart doctor in the world most published, Peter McCullough, had sat right here. He sat here and warned people, this is raising your risk of myocarditis, paracoditis,

all which has been backed by, was backed by science then. Now there's even more science that exists. But how does a free society allow the persecution of science? We have watched that in the darkest times throughout history. And even darker is when the media gets behind it it becomes a propaganda machine for that authoritarian government attacking free citizens, real science, real scientists simply because they have a differing opinion. And I want to point this out, without freedom, you don't have science.

Without freedom, you don't have health. Because ultimately, one thing I know to be true about the history of mankind and especially of science, I can't think of a single circumstance where the consensus and the body of science made the altering shift and change that evolved that science practice. From Galileo, we threw them in jail. We wanted to believe we were the center of the universe, and when we didn't get what we liked, our authoritarian government said you should be arrested.

Certainly, we should have evolved from that. Certainly, we should recognize that the evolution of science and medicine and the advancement of society relies upon doctors being able to step outside of the norm, step outside of the consensus and offer a different position and offer science that can be repeated. And if that science does repeat and does show that that mask is incapable of stopping a particle as small as a coronavirus, then it should be, you know, not mandated upon you. And certainly a doctor should be able to write an exemption like those that are now under threat in Germany. And if a vaccine doesn't stop transmission, then why do you have to take it?

If it cannot protect your neighbor, why would that doctor lose their license? And when you start seeing all the harms caused by this vaccine and we're doing an investigation now, look into the future, it looks like our concern of prion disease, you know, which is essentially a form of mad cow disease, maybe being caused by this vaccine. We're doing a deep dive. I'm not going to bring it to you until we have more information. But we are continuing the research because, you know, we have to know what's happening inside of our society. We have to know if we're in the clear, but more importantly than anything else,

we have to learn from history, and it has never been intelligent to rush science and to arrest the scientists that have a dissenting perspective. Open market, free speech. That's what America is based on. And I would really love to see news and media begin to support freedom instead of authoritarian controls which clearly are being funded by large moneyed interests. The Highwire doesn't work that way, and we hope that others will follow our lead. This is the work that we do here, and we're excited more than ever to continue this work because this may be the most important year in the future of our species. I hope you'll stay tuned in to our work, and I'll see you next week on the Highwire.