The Highwire with Del Bigtree - Episode 460: MOVING THE NEEDLE

Episode Date: January 23, 2026

A major court ruling in Canada has declared Prime Minister Trudeau’s use of emergency powers against the trucker convoys illegal, including freezing bank accounts and silencing dissent. Is this a turning point for government overreach worldwide? Del and Jefferey Jaxen report.Jefferey Jaxen examines growing claims from Senator Rand Paul that the Department of Justice may be blocking accountability for Anthony Fauci, despite mounting evidence of suppressed debate and destroyed records.Plus, Del sits down with pediatrician Dr. Joel “Gator” Warsh, who once trusted the vaccine program, until “the science” no longer supported it. Can honest conversation restore trust and reveal common ground?Guest: Dr. Joel ‘Gator’ WarshBecome 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 is time for us all to step out into the high wire. You know, when I say us all, we're one of the few news programs that is broadcast all around the world. And so much of what we're reporting on affects the world. Also, we report on what's happening when it's not just in the United States of America. And every once in a while, there's a nation that gets out ahead of America, believe it or not,

and does the right thing and maybe affects the entire world. I was just up in Vancouver, Canada, visiting up with some sponsors and donors up there that have made the high wire possible. And we're talking about one of the biggest news stories that affected COVID. And there was a huge ruling right around the corner. But before we get into that, what was the big event in Canada? Do you remember the Canadian truckers? We are in the middle of TransCanada Highway. And as you can see, the long, epic convoy is passing by.

A lot of you don't realize the magnitude of this convoy and what we are actually standing for. As of yesterday, we were well over 60,000 trucks strong and growing every day. It's time to stand up. Don't let our freedoms go because we'll never get them back. On the way to Ottawa, every overpass is packed with Canadians. Look at this right here. This is not a fridge. People believe that the government has overstepped with mandates, and they're here to exercise their democratic right. We've got all mandates for all Canadians completely abolished.

We've done what we've been told to do, and enough is enough. And we're here to make sure that the world knows that we're behind people who want to get back to the way it was not the new normal. What we've seen in the last year with demonization of people, the hatred that has been spewed from the highest levels is completely unacceptable. And the people have had enough. I would argue that the Canadian truckers was probably the single most successful and effective act of rebellion in COVID. the greatest protest anywhere in the world. And we had some big ones here. We had defeat the mandates here in America, which were great events.

About 40,000 in Washington, D.C., and nearly 30,000 in Los Angeles. And we saw some protests in England and all around the world. But this one seemed to grab the hearts and minds of everybody. Didn't matter what country you were in. The heartfelt, you know, energy behind these truckers, risking their careers. careers and of course it was all about the fact that they wanted to force vaccinate them in order to do their jobs sitting in their trucks all by themselves what difference would it make well it shut down you know public spaces and they were there and eventually it was declared that you know it was a

I think a national emergency and they tried to bring in some of the war powers acts I guess if you will those emergency acts that were used all around the world to lock down you know free citizens to bring in authoritarianism, which seem at the heart of it to be the whole underlying goal of this. And this is, you know, the leader at the time, Justin Trudeau, talking about doing exactly that. We're going to turn this into an authoritarian regime because we have an emergency. The federal government has invoked the Emergencies Act to supplement provincial and territorial capacity to address the blockades and occupations. The scope of these measures will be time-limited, geographically targeted, as well as reasonable

and proportionate to the threats they are meant to address. Of course, it ended up being anything but reasonable as people started seeing that the, you know, the GoFundMe account. Here is Freedom Convoy. GoFundMe, seizes funds of Canada occupation. And then they went after the bank accounts. Canadian authorities freeze financial assets for those involved in ongoing protests in Ottawa. That was not just the truckers having their accounts frozen, but people that were donating to the convoy.

We've really never seen anything quite like that. Certainly it went further than we saw what was taking place here in the United States of America. Well, there has been a court case ongoing, and now the appellate courts just ruled. This is what has just happened in Canada. just a few days ago. This is January 16th. The federal government loses Emergencies Act appeal.

Court says use during convoy protest was unreasonable. It goes on to say as disturbing and disruptive the blockades and the convoy protest in Ottawa could be they fell well short of a threat to national security,

wrote the three judges on the appeals court. So this was the appeals court. They'd already won in regular court. There was no evidence that the lives, health, or safety of the people living in Ottawa were endangered, as annoying, stressful, and concerning as the protests were, reads the court's decision.

This is a massive decision. I would imagine the government's going to try to take it all the way to the Supreme Court and see if they can find one court that would agree with the decision to become an authoritarian nation. Now, I also want to point out that, you know, Justin Trudeau is no longer the prime minister. Neither is the head of New Zealand or England, all of these people, Joe Biden, everybody that forced mandates at this level and brought this worldwide authoritarian regime, so many of them aren't even in the political sphere any longer because the people spoke out. Now, it's really unfortunate what's happened in Canada,

and Canada maybe fared worse than most around the world. So it's ironic that they had the greatest protests, probably affected laws, and the energy all around the world, but they themselves still find themselves, you know, under, in many ways, an authoritarian perspective on vaccination. So we're going to continue to talk about Canada. I'm going to continue to go up there and support their right to freedom because they are just too close to neighbor to America. We just cannot stand for this.

We've got to, you know, stop authoritarianism everywhere that it breeds. I guess you could go as far as calling collectivism. communism, all these things that seem to be hot button issues now all around the world. And if anything, affects our health, certainly the inability to control what goes into our own bodies and the bodies of our children. This isn't a national problem. It's currently an international problem. It's why the high wire is proud to be broadcasting all around the world. We've got a great show coming up. Dr. Joel Gator Walsh. Joining me, this is a pediatrician that started in the mainstream, but slowly but surely watched the foundations of medicine that he had

been trained in started crumbling around him. We're going to see where he's at now. And is it possible to find? Is there a convenient middle that we can all land on in this debate that is now, you know, gripping America and the world? But first, it's time for the Jackson Report. It's really great to see, you know, courts still working, right? That there's a, a, a court system in what looked like a nation that was lost in Canada. I'm glad to see they can count on their court system many of the ways that we do in the work that we're doing with Aaron, Siri and our lawsuits here in America. Right. And it works. Justice, human rights, it's in the books. You just follow the letter

of the law and things tend to work out. Yeah. I want to talk about something, going back to that COVID response, that hard, heavy-handed COVID response, as I'm seeing the joke go around online, around online, the idea of natural immunity has been known for thousands of years throughout humanity and it was somehow forgotten right around 2020 when COVID happened. And it wasn't maybe forgotten as it was suppressed. So just to bring people back there, the Lancet, scientific consensus, anytime you see these words, you have to, your spidey sense has to go up, but they put this out in October of 2020. Scientific consensus on COVID-19 pandemic,

we need to act now. It says, any pandemic management management management management, strategy relying upon immunity from natural infections for COVID-19 is flawed. This was signed by top medical experts. Rochelle Olinsky, this director of the CDC, goes on to say, furthermore, there's no evidence for lasting protective immunity to SARS-CoV-2 following natural infection. This was before the COVID shot came out. October 2020, COVID-shot first goes into the arm in December of 2020 in the United States. So they're saying, forget about it, don't even think about it.

In fact, remember too, as we know from Peter McCull and others, forget about early treatment, forget about everything. Just wait for that vaccine. Well, now we have internal emails from Anthony Fauci. This is the headline here, Daily Caller, exclusive Fauci privately called natural immunity data impressive before forcing jabs on Americans. Let's go right to these emails. August of 2021.

So the vaccine mandates were well into effect at this point. They were being given out. They were starting to be pressed, heavy-handed. Fauci writes an email to Francis Collins, to CDC director, Weschel Rolinsky. And the subject of this email is post-infection protection versus vaccine immunity. You can't get any more clear than that.

And he says this, he's looking at Israeli data. Remember, Benjamin Netanyahu, leader of Israel, he basically was the first to jab his population with the Pfizer vaccine. So there was a lot of interest in how this open-air experiment would work. People were studying those people that took that jab. And so Fauci

she gets some studies on the Israeli data on natural immunity. He says this, the data as reported in the news article looks rather impressive, despite the caveat that it is a retrospective study and the testing was voluntary. However, it is conceivable and possibly likely that those who have had a serious systemic infection develop a high level of immunity that even surpasses

that of full vaccination. Wow. Wow. Well, possibly likely. Okay, possibly likely. Possibly likely, it's better. And by the way, Jeffrey, we were reporting on this. I know we're going to talk about all the way through.

But the vaccine program has forever been attempting to achieve the incredible, robust nature of natural infection. It has never, ever achieved. We've said this during COVID. I will still say it. We have never seen a vaccine that performs better than surviving a natural infection. We can argue how dangerous that natural infection was and all the other things. But what you cannot argue is the fact that it always has provided more robust protection, longer lasting, deeper, more thorough, rejection of the infection.

And so this would have been an anomaly. This COVID-19 vaccine rushed under the market would have been the first time in history of vaccine performed better. And we know there was no way they had taken the time to do the science to prove that this was an anomaly, the one of a kind that is finally doing better than natural infection. And now we're finally being proved right that they weren't as stupid as we thought they knew better. Exactly. Fauci saying rather impressive, behind closed doors, publicly, not even giving any credence to natural immunity. It's the shot. It's the shot. It's the shot.

It's the shot. So in that same email string, you have John Brooks. He's the CDC's chief medical officer of the COVID-19 response. And he puts together kind of like a meta-analysis of all the data to that point of natural immunity. What do we know? Because this looks rather impressive. He says, let me put this together. This is what he says. Okay, so it seems now for at least three very different analysis of different data that at least MRI vaccine effectiveness is about as good as infection-induced immunity. But the immune-induced immunity wanes over time, especially that induced by Pfizer's vaccine, whereas infection-induced may be more durable up to at least the four to six month mark.

So remember at the time, that's early on. They really only had data up to the six month mark. So he's basically saying this vaccine, this Pfizer vaccine wanes, but maxing out what we know right now, natural immunity is going the distance. So what conclusion does he make? Does he say, we should study this more, we should maybe balance this?

Maybe we should test people that have natural immunity so we don't have to force the vaccine, the experimental vaccine on them? No, this is the conclusion. that Mr. Brooks makes, Dr. Brooks makes, he says this. The good news here is that boosters look like a solution may be. This will be a three-dose vaccine after all. Basically, he says we should offer boosters because the vaccine's not working. Natural immunity looks really good. Let's just get people more vaccines. I mean, I think at the heart of it, Jeffrey, people are seeing what my beep has been

all along. Doctors and the scientific establishment is so into fighting nature, to doing better than nature already does, or if you're, you know, a religious person to do better than God created you so that even when it's clear, your natural body, your natural immune system performs far better than under this vaccine regime, their answer isn't, well, let's just back off and let people have natural immunity. No, let's try three boosters or four or five or seven or nine, and now we're at ten. This is how crazy establishment medicine and science is. They will never give up. They will never admit they're lost, you know. And that's, it's really, really unfortunate and quite scary. And I don't know how people are going to ever get back to a place of trust.

And as, remember, as they kicked off the mandates, they had data showing natural immunity was better. So whether it's conflicts of interest or just religious dogma at this point, you really don't want these people running your public health leads when a once in a lifetime pandemic comes in because they make those decisions. In fact, here's Paul Offutt, in retrospect, having a moment of clarity on this very topic. Take a listen. In February of 2022, I was asked with three other immunology, virology types, to participate in a conference call about whether or not natural infection should count as a vaccine.

In other words, for those areas that were still mandating vaccine, which was many in early 2022, whether they should be able to say, look, here, I was naturally infected. here. This should serve as my vaccine card. And that meeting was held with Rochelle Olenski, Tony Fauci, Vivek Murthy, from, you know, Surgeon General's Office, and Francis Collins. And then me and three other immunology biology doctors. We voted on it, and it was sort of two to two, basically. I mean, I was one of the, I think, natural infection should count for obvious reasons. I mean, actually, you're making an immune muscle for viral proteins. You in many ways make a broader cytotoxic T-cell response, I think you're better off in many ways. So I saw Dr. Fauci at a meeting maybe a year

ago or so, because I was already getting out there saying, I think we should target high risk groups, where I was getting a lot of pushback from public health people who felt that I had gotten off the bus. Because, see, that was the whole feeling in this. You know, you're either on the bus or off the bus, and there was no in between. So I'd gotten in the way. I said, Tony, am I wrong? Am I wrong in making? He said, no, you're right. We should target high risk groups. The problem is, do you say that? It becomes a nuance message, and a nuanced message is a garbled message. If you really want to make sure those groups get vaccinated, then you recommend it for everybody. I mean, he is literally admitting we will lie to you. We will lie. We'll do whatever it takes to get you to vaccinate.

We don't want the complications of having to say, well, if you've already had the infection, you're immune, because then we'd have to test. I mean, what's unbelievable about this and so infuriating is they were literally testing us like two, three times a day if you worked in Hollywood. Preschoolers couldn't go to school without being tested. But God forbid, you say, I don't want the vaccine. Can you test me to see if I'm telling you I've infected? But go ahead and test me and I'll prove it so I can opt out of the vaccine. No, we can't do that.

We will test you for every other reason that makes your life a complete and totally, you know, inconvenience. But God forbid we test to see if you're naturally immune. And Jeffrey, I want to point out that Paul Off at the Liar and all the people, Wulenski, And not only to say they will lie, they will get the Lancet to publish a lying journal article. They will lie through peer-reviewed science. This is why we can never, ever let these people off the hook. And lastly, by the time he is discovering this, by the time Biden is mandating this product so that you can go to work, odds are this virus has already swept the entire world.

We were all already naturally immune, if anything. There was no science on what the risk would be taking this after you, you know, had developed immunity. Good chance. It maybe took away your, your broad-based immunity that we've gotten into many, many times, and then narrowed it down to just what they're vaccinated for. This is such a disaster. And it is so, you know, incredibly infuriating.

We knew it. But now to see it right before our eyes and they're admitting it, maybe even chuckling about it, Jeffrey, and then to think that idiots like Gavin Newsom in California is going to break away from the CDC's recommendation and not give this to children. No, no, no, no. We're giving it to kids. It looks like Hawaii wants to follow suit right now. And, of course, Connecticut, you've got this West Coast contingent, East Coast contingent, because we plan on staying stupid and being dangerous to our population despite any science. We will lie.

We're sticking with a lie. We're sticking to it. Yeah, it's really an anti-science danger to their populations with those governors that are pushing these COVID shots on children at this point. But I want to stick on Fauci for a second because Ram Paul, Senator Ram Paul, was recently on Joe Rogan. And the conversation came up of why is Fauci still a free man? Why is he walking around?

And this is what Ram Paul had to say. Take a listen. Good question. Under the Biden administration, I sent criminal referrals for Anthony Fauci to Merrick Garland twice and I sent them evidence that he had lied to Congress, which was a felony. They just ignored me. I've been working with Bobby Kennedy and he's been very helpful on this. I have good relationship with him. He's given us a lot of information and we've looked at the communications and in Anthony Fauci's communications, we now have evidence

that he was telling people like Francis Collins, read this and destroy it. You can't do that. The executive branch, when they communicate, they're required to keep their communications and they're required to do it on government devices. So we have this evidence, and I've summarized it again in a criminal referral to Trump's Attorney General, and I still haven't gotten action. But there's a couple reasons we should do it. One, he shouldn't get away with lying. He shouldn't get away with destroying records.

But two, we should check the pardon. Is an auto pen pardon valid and is a pardon a retrospective pardon back 10 years that doesn't mention a crime? Can you give people a pardon for everything they did in 10-year period? I can't imagine, and I think the court might narrow that, but it doesn't happen unless the Trump Justice Department will do something. And I've been sending them referrals and I can't get them to do anything. I can't guarantee they'll win. They might lose, but they ought to go to court.

Take this, take it to court. You know, it's interesting, too, because just right in the back of what we said, one of the main things that woke ran Paul up was he had an infection very early on. And when they kept trying to force vaccinate him in orders to go into, uh, Congress and, you know, and be on the floor, he said, I have had the illness. I have immunity. I'm not against the vaccine, but I don't personally need it. And of course, he's been on the front row of, you know, proving that Fauci lied under oath on gain of function. We now know it. He is now talking about these emails where we see saying destroy this afterwards. I mean, this is a, this is a criminal that was in our government. And it's a really good question. Are we going to live in a world

where the president just says, I blanket, you know, protect from any liability, anyone that worked in my administration from, you know, during it, before, after, you know, in the years to come, you can do whatever you want because you're never going to go to court. It just doesn't make sense. And I think that we should be challenging. And you would think that of all the presidents of all times, President Trump would be, you know, chomping at the bit to, you know, prosecute this and see what we know. It's curious why we're not.

Yeah, and this is a topic we've been tracking for some time now with the new administration in there. Also a new Department of Justice. They reshuffled the deck at a lot of those levels at Department of Justice. We've been watching. We've been paying attention. And this is a conversation for the Make America Healthy again people because they've been watching too.

And I hear it everywhere I go. So let's go into this topic, this investigation. And I don't know if I know the answer to it, but I'm going to try to put some puzzle pieces together and hopefully we can build on this. So the Department of Justice is now headed by the Attorney General Pambondi. Pabondi in her Office of Government Ethics Public Financial Disclosure Report, which everyone had to, you know, if you're going into office, you have to fill this out, Kennedy had to fill it out, everyone has to fill it out, take a government position.

In there, on line 7, she worked for a law firm, or she actually was contracted by a law firm, Pansa, Marr, and Maynard, and they represented Pfizer. And she was awarded money for that, or she made money for that. Over $5,000, that was compensation, exceeding over $5,000, I believe it was $200,000 for that year. So that's just a data point. We're going to keep on because you hear Ram Paul there saying, I submitted this criminal referral to the Biden Justice Department. Okay, well, kind of a different way they did things back then during the civil rights abusing

COVID times and lack of informed consent. so on and so forth. But he said I submitted to the Trump Justice Department headed by Bam Bondi and has heard nothing yet. So what's going on there? Well, if that was just a one-off thing, okay, maybe there's a lot going on, which there probably is. The Department of Justice is a massive organization with a lot of sub-organizations under it and sub-offices. A lot going on, not making excuses here. But then we see these ducks start to line up in a row of questions. And so I'm going to put those out here. So we have in 2024, September 2024, federal court rules against EPA and lawsuit over fluoride in water. This was a huge MAHA hot button topic is water fluoridation in the United States.

Remember, we had studies came out that showed it lowered IQ in children. So this was a citizen's petition that went to court that they lost, the EPA loss. The court said you have to go back, you have to basically reformulate either the regulatory actions or you have to come out and find a way a path out of current water fluoridation paradigm we're in right now. Out of nowhere, we have the Trump Justice Department come in, makes this headline. Trump administration fights historic fluoride ruling. So we go to Michael Conant. He's the lead attorney that is putting forth this legal action against the EPA. He saw this all the way through and he puts out this on X. After several extensions, the Trump administration had decided to appeal the federal court decision ordering EPA to

address the risk posed by water fluoridation. He goes on to say, rather than use the court decision as an opportunity to finally end water fluoridation as most of Europe has already done, the EPA will spend its time legally challenging the court's order. Connick goes on to say the decision to appeal the court's order was not made by the HHS or secretary Kennedy. It was made by the Solicitor General of the Department of Justice who reports to Pam Bondi and the White House. It goes on to say Kennedy has been clear with his part here. So what's going on there? Why are they stepping in front of this? This seemed like a slow-pitched softball home run. this water fluoridation out, it's been going on for a while. The science is adding up. We have a

court ruling, a court win. All EPA has to do is go back and make the changes the court ordered. But then we have this story. We've been reporting on for a couple weeks now. Trump administration sides with bear in seeking Supreme Court ruling in Roundup fight. Remember Bear is losing and has been for almost a decade in court in states, losing cancer cases, showing that glyphosate, their roundup product causes cancer to the tune of billions, and their stock price has plummeted. They're trying to stop the bleeding. In one last final appeal, they're appealing to the Supreme Court saying, please take this up. We need to stop this. And the Trump administration steps in. In fact, the Solicitor General, who reports to Pam Bondi,

steps in and says, you should take up this appeal. Well, this is kind of the breaking news here. Reuters puts out U.S. Supreme Court to hear bears bid to curb Roundup cases. They're going to hear this. There is no date set. I'm hearing perhaps this summer, sometime around July. We're going to have this Supreme Court hearing. So again, you have the Solicitor General. So with the fluoride case, with this case, you go in and you see who signs these appeals from the Department of Justice. And I want to go to the Department of Justice site map of all of the offices, all of the sub offices within here. And a lot of it is coming out of the Department of Justice Environment and Natural Resources Division. That's who a lot of these people who are signing these appeals are originating from.

Of course, the Solicitor General, it is his job, as John Sauer, his job is to put these forward. He's kind of the point man on this, and his job as a Solicitor General is to step in on these legal arguments. So you're going to see his name on those. But it's really this Environment and Natural Resources Division. So the question is, which I don't know if we know the answer to yet, is this Is this Pambani wielding authoritarian power to kill all these massive Maha initiatives and not to prosecute Fauci? Or are there other organizations? Are there stay behind networks? Are there small, you know, cutout organizations within the Department of Justice that are running this outside of the view of the entire department and also outside of the view of the administration and which way the current wind blows and what the people elected Trump and Kennedy to get done? That is the question that we leave our viewers with, but something is not right in the Department of Justice, at least when it comes to the Maha agenda, because these are massive pillars that are not being, I mean, these should be easily pushed away, and they're not. They're being trampled on and they're being brought back with the fury.

They're going out of their way. I mean, it'd be one thing to just look the other way, but to go out of your way and block initiatives that are moving forward or force Supreme Court to look at something that they have no interest in looking at. And it seems to be well decided in courts that this stuff is causing cancer. We're talking about glyphosate and Roundup. We know it's causing cancer. It's losing cases. What was it you just reported was the Congress took out of the latest bill, sort of the liability protection, even our, even our guns. government is backed away from getting involved here, but yet the Trump administration,

it's the heart of Maha, make America healthy again, appears to be just lowering the bar to make America healthier, you know, as long as it doesn't take away toxic chemicals on our food, toxic chemicals in our water, we'll do the best we can. I'm sure, I mean, what we see is the complications of the work that Bobby has to do in there because you couldn't have someone more outspoken on fluoride, you know, both during, you know, his life before public office, but even in public office. And of course, glyphosate is a huge part of the work he's done too. So it's disturbing when we're getting, you know, two different stories, you know, conflicting with each other right inside of our own government system.

Absolutely. And now I want to get into some science here as the last segment. And this is a story we've been tracking for a while. And we're going to continue to build upon this because this is a flashing red light. the science community, also HHS in general, they're going to have to step up here. This is the headline of the Daily Mail. Dementia time bomb warning, a scientist find Alzheimer's proteins in long COVID patient's blood. You go into this article, it says U.S. researchers analyzing blood samples for more than 225

long COVID patients found significantly increased levels of tau, a protein closely linked to Alzheimer's and other forms of dementia. Abnormal clumps of tau can form tangles inside the brains, nerve cells disrupting communication and driving the memory loss and cognitive decline seen in the disease and the leading cause of dementia. So we go in this study and, you know, just caveat, the researchers went out of their way not to write down which people were vaccinated or unvaccinated. So just throw that out there. Which is, by the way, one of the reasons I think they vaccinated everybody. They wanted to make sure there was no control group for studies exactly like this. If everyone's been vaccinated,

then long COVID's a natural function. If we can say, look, the people that didn't get the vaccine aren't suffering along COVID at the same numbers that those are vaccinated. And there is some ability to do the science. They are avoiding it. But I think the blanket vaccination was we don't want a control group that can make our decision to force this product out there look bad. So here we are and you know, you watch all these really, you know, inconclusive studies in many ways if you're not going to get into the details. What are we talking about? Does it happen after vaccination or just infection. Right. And remember, they actually vaccinated the control group in the original vaccine

trials for COVID. Exactly. Just that as a caveat as well. Now let's look at this study here. So we look at the, it's basically they're using blood-based biomarkers that detect Alzheimer's disease and the pathology of the Alzheimer's disease, this buildup of these abnormal tau proteins. And they find this. This is what they write. Longitudinal analysis revealed plasma tau 181 levels increased by 59.3 percent follow

and COVID-19 onset in participants who developed N-PASC. This is basically neurological long COVID. And it says that were worst amongst participants reporting central nervous system, symptoms persisting greater than or equal to 1.5 years. So people that had long COVID for basically 1.5 years or longer, they found that 59.3 percent increase in these tau, these tangled fiber proteins, which are kind of a hallmark of Alzheimer's disease, So this isn't the first time we heard this. We've been reporting on this for years. Take a look.

We've been hearing about the microclots, all the clotting. Look what this article says. In contrast, when sprite protein is added to platelet pore, what's the third P? Plasma. With and without rombin, a major increase in dense anomalous clotted deposits with an amyloid nature. There's that word again, amyloid, which is at the heart. of Alzheimer's were noted, referred to as amyloid deposits. So this is what they showed in.

This is fascinating because we get a visual. In these platelets, you see the blood platelets there, they put them in contact with spike protein, and by G, that is what those platelets turn into, this tangled mess of amyloid proteins all binding together. We were looking at clotting. That is also at the heart of Alzheimer's in neurodegenerative disorder.

degenerative disorders. So now we know the spike protein can cause this. Multiple, multiple studies being done all over the world on this. The article that has everyone talking right now just came out. Here's the headline. A potential association between COVID-19 vaccination and the development of Alzheimer's disease. The mRNA vaccine grip exhibited a significantly higher incidence of Alzheimer's disease, 1.225. That means an increase above one being standard, so a 22.5% increase in Alzheimer's disease amongst the vaccinated. It went on to those that had mild cognitive impairment MCI, 2.377. That's a 137% increase in mild cognitive impairment caused by the COVID vaccine. So, you know, just-

We're always on at first, Jeffrey. I mean, it's really great to be able to do this, right? I mean, as soon as there's an article, we have an international body of scientists. I just want to point out, this is how this works, Jeffrey. It's not just you and I. We have teams and people around the world looking at this, you know, triggering us and saying, you'll be the first ones to talk about this. Here's this new study that just broke.

We're bringing it to you. So when you're tracking, when you're with the highwire, you were getting this information, not just this week when this new study came out, but the very first time, you know, the original studies come out. We're on it. You know, that is, you know, and look, it may prove to be wrong, but you now know there's a signal, there's something looking at. But then when you start seeing, oh, my God, more and more studies are finding the same thing that the highway reported, you know, nearly two years ago, just makes you think there's one show you should probably watch when it comes to your health. And, you know, during COVID and beyond, we have been one of the

outlets that leads the science. So we were one of the first people to tell you that they didn't test a shot, COVID shot to stop transmission in the disease. You would have known that. We were the first people to, one of the first people, to really raise the alarm and show you the science behind the mildcarditis signal. That probably helped a lot of people. And now we've been raising the flag here. We're raising it real high. And this is kind of a warning to the science community. They need to step up here and look at this. And let's go into that study. At that time, that was a breaking study, the out of Korea. Korean study. looking at that mild cognitive impairment in Alzheimer's disease. And they did test vaccinated versus unvaccinated with MRNA.

And this is the chart from that study that you were reporting on at that time. Wow. And you can see the cognitive impairment there in the red, that's MRNA vaccine. And the Alzheimer's disease is on the right, that's MRNA vaccine. You can see it's kicking off these diseases, these neurodevelopmental diseases and people quicker than they actually could, should be happening. So on this investigation, I want to add some data points in it. So remember Operation Lockstep, this was just a coincidental exercise that they did before COVID of a respiratory disease that came out of

China. How did they know? Well, Johns Hopkins also did another exercise. They released this in 2020. It was reportedly in the works. It was planned around 2017, 2018, but this actual exercise released in 2020. This was the spars pandemic. And in their fictional time window, it was they chose 2025 to 2028. So what did they do? Well, this is what they chose in this fictional story that they were kind of wargaming. And they said the CDC team confirmed that the three patients were in fact infected with a novel coronavirus. They chose that. Interesting, which was dubbed the St. Paul acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus or spars COVID after the city were the first cluster of cases that had been identified. So it wasn't Wuhan, it was St. Paul. But they go on

to say this, they created experimental vaccine. they pushed it out. And it says this, nearing the end of 2027 in their exercise, reports of new neurological symptoms began to emerge after showing no adverse side effects for nearly a year, several vaccine reciprocline slowly began to experience symptoms such as blurry vision, headaches, and numbness in their extremities. So another data point there, how did they know? Why do they know that?

Because now we're getting mainstream acceptance, really, of the misfolding and the amyloid formation of these proteins that has to do with COVID. And so just a quick background on the science of that, that's the current theory of Alzheimer's. You get these proteins, they begin misfolding. They attract other proteins that begin, that seeds this idea for these proteins that attracts the other ones that start misfolding. They form these amyloid formations like you showed in that picture on that flashback, these thick amyloid formation of proteins, and this kicks off kind of this neurodegenerative diseases, whether it's crudely, you know, Crutsville-Yacop disease or Alzheimer's or just this.

These are all forms. I mean, prion disease, right? I mean, this is, this misfolding is, it's really mad cow disease, right? I mean, this is, you know, it's what makes cows go crazy. It's what we see in cannibals when cannibals would eat each other, when they start like losing. And once your proteins start misfolding, it's like dominoes. You can't stop it right now. There's no cure for this.

Is that right? My understanding is we have not figured out how to stop prion. disease or any form of it. Right. And the human prion protein and the amyloid beta peptide, they're basically omnipresent in the human brain. But something kicks off a folding process, whether it's genetics or environmental factors. And right now we're talking about the spike protein, the COVID virus itself. And so let's go into this study here. This was a study it wasn't really shown too much at the time. It was from Swedish researchers. And they did a table, top exercise, so basically in petri dishes and test tubes. And they found this. This is the title

of their study, SARS-CoV-2 spike amyloid fibral specifically and selectively accelerates amyloid fibral formation of human prime protein and the amyloid beta peptide. So they say this. We here provide evidence of significant spike amyloid fibral ceded acceleration. So the spike amyloid fibrales are seeding this acceleration in the human brain of amyloid formation of Crutsfield-Yak disease associated human prion protein using an in vitro conversion assay. So that's just a method they use to study this structural transformation from the prion protein into this pathogenic form of it.

But here's the kicker. It goes on to say this. By seeding the human prion protein conversion assay with other in vitro-generated disease associated amyloid fibrals, we demonstrate that this is not a general effect, but a specific feature of spike amyloid fibules. We also showed that the amyloid fibral formation of Alzheimer's disease associated amyloid beta 142 was accelerated by spike amyloid fibral seeds. So they're saying this isn't just an accidental effect downstream, but they're suggesting this is actually a feature. This is a main feature of this spike amyloid fibral. That's a massive statement

for researchers to make. And this is where, I mean, this is where the conversation and the studying should start. Our government should start this. HHS should pick this up immediately. This is a massive red flag. And as you've pointed out here, this is three studies in now from different parts of the world all looking into this. And I just keep thinking, meanwhile, you have the West Coast contingent, the East Coast contingent that's going to continue injecting this spike protein by choice into their citizens. It would be amazing to me if there's not a mass evacuation out of those states and people just saying, why they're hell are we doing something that the rest of the nation, frankly, most of the world now recognizes is not just futile, but dangerous.

It doesn't stop transmission. People are getting sick anyway, and you're still putting this out there. And then there's concerns for those of us that don't go near it. Is it still shedding on us? Are these, you know, I mean, this should have gone away. We should have hurt immunity right now, but I think it's being destroyed by the vaccine program. We're going to continue to just shout really loud against Gavin Newsom and all of these. leaders that are trying to break free of the science, the actual science that is not just coming

out of the CDC or HHS, but coming from around the world. Jeffrey, it's so important right now because, look, every child that is injured matters. Everyone matters. We cannot just let California go down because they have a dictator there that has no common sense, or Washington, or Vancouver, for that matter. in Canada, you know, children are in harm's way, and it's why we are going to continue to talk about this, and this vaccine is still on the market, still out there, still poisoning people. So I really appreciate this deep dive today, Jeffrey. Very, very important information. And also great to see that many of the seeds we've planted of truth are turning out to be really, you know, stable oak trees in the annals of science. Great work. All right. Thank you.

I'll see you next week. It's not easy to do a show like this. And I'm not like there are other podcasting shows out there or internet shows that will just, every time there's a red flag, just call it out. It's awesome, right? But sometimes you get it wrong.

Sometimes they get it right. They rarely ever apologize when they get it wrong. But when you look at the track record of our show, just seriously, if you just go through our website and see what we've done, then you realize we can stand by our accuracy, But it's what you have to understand is our process here. You know, all week long we're looking at breaking news.

All weekend we're seeing the breaking news. On Monday we get together with our international team and go over what's in the news. Jeffrey and I and our team look at what do we think are the big stories. And then we try to disprove those stories for the next several days so that we never end up here on Thursday delivering a story that didn't end up being true. We're harder on our own evidence than anyone out. We want to make sure we got it right. So we don't just blind ourselves. We don't just kid ourselves.

We get hard. It doesn't matter if it would have been explosive for our side. We don't ever want you to not be able to trust information. Obviously, you know, we're totally different than the United States government that tells you it lied to you and still believes that's its possession, you know, position. But I also want to say this. We've been working really hard on our website and our search engine is getting better and better and better. and better and better. So now,

it's one thing we've been working on, very difficult with these, I think we're on show number 460 today. 460 episodes of the high wire that we stand by

every second of every single one. But how do you get to all that information? You know, how many times that Pierre Corey been on the show? Well, now you can search Pierre Corey, boom, there they are. And you can fast forward through, see what he had to say.

What about diabetes? What does the high wire said about diabetes? Just type in diabetes and search. Boom. There it is. Every time we've discussed it, it's really exciting. It's going to get better and better. And it's the type of thing we're able to do when you donate and sponsor the work that we do here. Sure, it's great to have, you know, what is that? You know, 400, like at least a thousand hours, probably more of important information, historic information, and see how it's all come together.

But if you can't search it, what good is it to you? These are the things we continue to work on making better because you reach out to us. You say we would really love to be able to track the information, go back and look at things. It's hard to do it. So I hope you'll check it out this week. Go check out the search and see, you know, test it. And by the way, go to info at Ican Decide.org. If you find any issues that's not catching it, we're testing it right now. I just open it up.

I want you to check it out because it's better than it's ever been. I'm really excited about it. And also all the lawsuits that we've been bringing. You can, you know, get into all of that. So speaking of lawsuits, I can. there's nothing like us. We're the only ones that use one law firm all the time, Aaron, Syrian Glimstad. By the way, Michael Connett, that fluoride, you know, lawyer that we were just reading about that's going up against the Department of Justice and Pam Bondi. Yeah, guess who he works

for? He works for Aaron, Siri, and Glimstad. They bring in the best and the brightest in every single department, especially when it comes to your health. And that is the work that we're funding. We have 90 cases across this country in various stages of fighting for your medical freedom and your health and your children's health and your parental rights to make decisions for your children. There's no one like us. It's why we have the best track record and the best success. And it's why you never really hear us talking about, you know, exactly what case we're bringing so that we don't raise money off of the idea that we're going into a courtroom. we bring you the wins when we have them. We won back the religious exemption from vaccination in Mississippi back in

2023. They hadn't had it since the 1970s. We won it in West Virginia. Unfortunately, the annals of hell have opened up, and every lawyer from around the planet is fighting us there, and they've moved it into an appellate court. So it is the fight of all fights, and we need your help right now. That's going on this year. There are over 200 students that are being held out of school that do not want the COVID vaccine, for instance.

They're not allowed in without it. How crazy is that? Do you care about them? Do you want to do something about them? Do you realize if we win for them, we make it hard for every other state to attempt to take away our rights? This is how important this work is that we're doing. It's why it's so unique the work that we're doing. We're not just a news agency.

When we find a problem, we go out and get into court. courtrooms and say, we're going to fix that problem. There's no one you'll find in mainstream news that has ever done anything like this. So I hope you'll take this opportunity to become a recurring donor this year. You can't imagine how important this year is going to be. We want to also bring pressure on the Pam Bondies. We want to show that we're winning in courtrooms, that the culture is changing and you're not going to get away with fluoridating our water or putting pesticides and herbicides on our food. We're going to stand up and, you know, raise awareness both on, you know, this show, but also through courtrooms. So if you want to become a recurring donor, just go to

the top of the pages, the highwire.com, click on donate to I can and become a recurring donor. That helps us know how many new cases we can take on, you know, how much I can travel. So $26 a month for 2026. So if you want to, if you're, if you're, if you're, if you're, If you're just listening to a podcast right now, we're going to make it really simple. All you have to do is text this number, 72022. Just text that number and then write in the text, donate. And I will send you back a text immediately thanking you and giving the opportunity to become a recurring donor. Seriously, is this work that we're doing not worth, you know, $26 a month, you know, one dinner entree?

Maybe, you know, intermittent fast one of the 30 days this month? and say, I just saved children's lives by doing that, we need your help in every single one of you that join us, you make it more and more profound, more and more powerful this work that we're doing. I also want to say there's other ways that you can donate. How about going to the high wire store and shopping for some of our cool sweatshirts or t-shirts

or one of my favorite items right now is you can buy a stack of these. These have been a huge hit. This is basically a business card that has a QR code for an inconvenient study. And it also tells them if they don't know how to use a QR code, just go to an inconvenient study.com to watch the biggest film on medical freedom and vaccinations. I think maybe that's ever been done this specifically. We're in the vicinity now worldwide of 100 million views, but that's not enough.

It's just not enough. You know, there's seven billion people out there that need. this information. That pregnant mom that is in the produce aisle right now that you're looking at as you're listening to this, they need your help. They need some way to have a communication that isn't combative, isn't strange or awkward. Just walk up and say, I noticed you're pregnant. Congratulations. And, you know, if you're curious at all about vaccinating your child, because it's such a big topic right now, I really love this movie. Here's a QR code. You can just check it. It's free. Very, very informative. It's actually scientists that.

are now looking at this study. There's been so many of you have taken the opportunity, but just go buy a stack. Carry, you know, three or four with you, wherever you go, and recognize that you can get the feeling I get. When I go around and I know that people come up to me and say, you change my life, my children are healthier because of it. You can literally save people's lives. Every time you hand out that card, I guarantee you at least one in 10 of the cards you

hand out is going to lead to someone getting information. they never would have had before, and you can go to bed at night saying, you know what, I probably saved 10 lives this week or 100 lives this week. It's how important this work is. These products are terrible, especially the COVID vaccine. And this autoimmune disease crisis we're in, we don't need to be in it. And you were giving the opportunity to do something about it. I want you to feel what it feels like, to be even just a part-time activist. It's really an incredible experience. I want to thank everybody that sponsors this show, sponsors our legal work.

Everybody, people up in Canada where we can't even really work directly for you, but we get to broadcast a show all over Canada. It also gives us the ability to go up and meet with great folks like I did just over the weekend. I'm so proud of the work we've done so far, but it is not enough. There is more to do. We've got to start pouring cement around our accomplishments here so they can never be. take them away. Well, what happens if you've had cement poured around the foundational principles of science and medicine by medical school? But slowly but surely, you start realizing it's eroding.

Maybe you even pull out a sledgehammer and start breaking that cement from around your own ankles when everyone else is telling you, don't do it. Well, that's my next guest, who is bravely moving outside of the conventional wisdom that he was, you know, drenched in in medical school and has been making a journey into the deep, dark abyss of scientific curiosity, of vaccine hesitancy? I don't know. We'll see what he calls it. This is Joel Gator Warsh. Dr. Joel Gator Warsh. Dr. Joel Gator Warsh. He's a board certified pediatrician with a master's in epidemiology. One of the world's leading researchers and doctors. He's written books on parenting, books on vaccination.

And he is a much-needed voice of reason in today's polarized health debate. Unfortunately, vaccines have been one of the most controversial topics to the point where the word was basically censored off the internet, certainly on social media. And other than if you said safe and effective, you couldn't really say anything else. You can't ask any questions. I don't know about you guys, but I don't ever need to hear the phrase safe and effective ever again. When you go through training, what you are taught isn't really about safety.

Right? You really learn about, okay, here are the diseases, here are the vaccines, here's the schedule, so go do it. A vaccine doesn't have zero risk. So I think it's reasonable to say, okay, well, what are the risks from this vaccine? Does it lead to anything later? Do I have to do it now? Can I do it later? And that's a very fair question. Nothing has ever shocked me more in my life than when you actually go through the vaccine research when it comes to autism. I was always taught the sciences titled things have been debunk. You hear it so common. confidently discussed. It's really frustrating as a human being and as a pediatrician to see this division and to see people getting so angry at each other and fighting and not discussing and not putting the kids first. I don't feel like parents feel like they're being heard and they don't feel like their safety concerns are being listened to.

And it feels like it's about money and not about health. And that needs to change. Facts. Well, he's the author of a brand new book between a shot and a hard place. He's all over social media. one of the fastest rising stars in the conversation around vaccines, hesitancy, awareness, whatever you want to call it. It's my honor and pleasure to be joined right now by Dr. Joel Gator Warsh. Thank you for having me here. It's great having you. I've been getting a kick out of watching your journey.

And of course, we've met before, and I've had you on a podcast before, but not on the high wire. So for this audience, you know, tell me about it. your sort of medical journey into this vaccine conversation? So for me, I did all the regular medical training. I actually grew up in Canada, so I guess it's appropriate that I'm on this episode, since there's so much Canada talk. But I did residency at Chelms Hospital, Los Angeles. So a great Western medical program didn't really think much about vaccines at that time.

You know, we're trained about what the horrible diseases are, how great the vaccines are, here's your schedule and go do it. And that's really all that I thought. But I met my now wife during residency. She's very holistic minded. She opened up my eyes to a little bit of a different world. Started doing some training in integrative medicine and functional medicine. Everything you hear about it in medical training is all it's all woo-woo and out there. I went to some functional medicine courses and you're there and like, why aren't we taught this? There's nothing woo-woo about nutrition. Which is the biggest difference between sort of functional and, you know, alopathic or Western. It's just the way of thinking.

In allopathic medicine, where you're in training, everything is, here are the symptoms, here's the pill. It's very pharmaceutical-minded. You're not really thinking about root cause. You're not really thinking about, oh, you have a rash. Why might you have that rash? You're thinking about how do you treat that rash? What is that rash? So I think it's just very different.

And as soon as you start learning that, you're like, there's nothing crazy about this. Why aren't we thinking this way? Why wasn't I taught this? So I just got really interested in that, started practicing in that way. And very quickly, once you are in that world, you realize parents have a lot of questions about vaccines. And I realized very quickly I knew almost nothing about vaccines and didn't have the answers.

What year did you come in as a doctor? What year did you start your own practice? I've been in practice for a little over 10 years, about just a little over a decade. Okay, so prior to COVID, you're at it? Oh yeah, well prior to COVID. Yeah, I finished training a thing around 2013. Okay.

And have my own office for about eight years now. Okay. So as you're starting to see patients, I started having better and better questions and I didn't have the answers to those questions. So I had to start looking into it. And as you look into some of these questions, you start to realize that what you're taught or what we're not taught is really everything. Like I don't know the answers.

And so I started looking into it. The answers very much surprised me. And the more I was discussing it in the office, the more I felt that I need to look into it. And certainly as I was developing an interest more in vaccines, that was around the time when there was so much censorship. I mean, certainly before COVID and during COVID, there was just so much censorship. It wasn't something I felt very comfortable talking about outside of the office. I mean, I was even on secretary, well, back then he wasn't Secretary Kennedy, but I was even on his podcast.

And we talked about children's health, but not vaccines, because back then nobody really wanted to. Well, you were, I mean, I'm just thinking about the timing because you're in California, right, Los Angeles. And that's the same time I'm working on the doctor's television show. It's like 2013. but right around 15, 16, SB 277. I mean, you know, California became this powder keg for this conversation. It was, you know, SB 27, a law that's going to force vaccinate children in order to go to school. You're right there.

I mean, just entered in and now it's just like, you know, protests, you know, thousands of people wrapped around the Capitol. What was that? I mean, what effect did that have on you as you're watching? because it's one thing to have questions in your office, but California was like, you know, on fire over this issue. It made it very difficult to be a doctor because you couldn't have these discussions, you couldn't talk about it, you don't have options

for your patients, and the longer it went on, I mean, when a lot of that was starting, I was just very young in my career, but as things have moved along, I mean, we've really seen all of our options taken away. Like, you really can't give an exemption in California anymore, there's really no way to do it, unless somebody has a very severe,

reaction basically dies. And even then, it's really hard to prove it. So the options were taken away. And again, that made me very frustrated because there are patients that legitimately should have exemptions, that you feel like you should have exemptions, and you shouldn't feel like you can't give this person an exemption or you might get your medical license taken away. And that is the way that it is. I mean, there's no question. You cannot give an exemption right now in California. And I still think that's unbelievably infuriating. And I have patients that come to my office that You know, they swear by whatever the story was that happened to their young kid. And it's totally reasonable that they should at least be considered to have an exemption if the parent wants to do that.

And you still can't do it. It goes through public health. They just shut most of them down and then you get investigated for doing it. How do we have a system that's like that? There has to be kids that need legitimate exemptions. There have to be kids that have reactions to vaccines. There's nothing controversial about that. You can debate what's related to vaccines, but you certainly can't debate that kids could have a seat. could have myocarditis could have issues and nobody wants to ever admit that Phalaxis an allergic reaction I mean just simple there's no product there's no food on this earth everyone can eat yeah I had a kid a family that came to the office and

their baby it was around two months got vaccines that same day had a super heart fast rate over 200 went to the hospital they weren't sure what was going on everything calmed down luckily and and the parents were worried, oh, was this a vaccine reaction? Everybody convinced them that it wasn't a vaccine reaction, even though it was on the same day. So they, again, at four months, went back to the doctor, still hesitant, but doctor convinced them to do the vaccines again. They did. Same exact reaction happened. And Kit had super fast heart rate, went to the hospital, they were there for a day, everything calmed down after that. And still nobody was willing to say that that was because of the vaccines.

And at six months, they went back to the pediatrician's office, and the pediatrician was going to kick them out if they didn't do their vaccines again. And the parents were like, look, we're not anti-vaccine. Our older kids fully vaccinated, but this kid's clearly having a reaction. Can we not at least wait till we're older? Yeah. Still, they were kicked out. So I met them later on in their journey.

But it's like, how can you not sit back and see something like that and say there is something very wrong with our system where if a patient says that, that the doctor's going to dismiss that? If they come to my office, I still probably can't give them an exemption for that because You need documentation, you need proof, you need to show that it came from the vaccine. You can't prove 100% that happened after the vaccines, but come on. You have that story. Right.

What else are you thinking? And even if it's not because of the vaccine, shouldn't that be the person who qualifies under the benefit of the doubt to say, look, maybe this is not the kid that we do that is a sexual right now. The temporal association, close enough, everyone else is vaccine? What harm are they, you know what I mean? Is this one child going to kill our, you know, herd, community, community. And everything's about risks versus benefits, right? And in that scenario,

you have to look at that kid and say, this kid's probably at very high risk to have another severe reaction. Maybe they're going to have a heart attack and a heart's going to stop at this time. Should the parents not have the option to say, well, I understand that my kid could get whooping cough, but I think the risk is much higher than my kids are going to have a heart reaction like they did the last two times. Like that's basic medicine. And that's not anti-vaccine or anything out there. Woo. That's scaring things. parents into doing something that might cause their kid harm, that's way too far. We have to come back to some sanity. Which you are now, I would say, one of the leading voices, trying to navigate a

middle ground, a middle sensible ground. Here's your book, Between a Shot and a Hard Place, tackling difficult vaccine questions with balanced data and clarity. I've been watching your posts on social media around some of these decisions coming out of the CDC. Hepatitis B, you know, and then you've got the American Academy of Pediatrics, which is, you know, your organization, if you will, you are a pediatrician saying don't listen to CDC. That's not science, which has got to make it difficult. I mean, I, you know, and I'll be honest with you, I'm in a place where I have no forgiveness for doctors any longer.

There's just too much information out there. If you're not questioning it, you don't have a brain. I'm sorry. If you're not like saying, I just cannot just go along with a blanket, it's safe and effective any longer. We're way past that point. But let's talk about the American Academy of Pediatrics for a second. I think they're giving pediatrics a horrible name at the moment. What they're saying is there's no science to what is happening at HHS, removal of the hepatitis B vaccine, COVID vaccine, shared decision making.

You know, this isn't something that's going to be mandated on kids. How do they say that that's not scientific? I'm very, very frustrated of what's going on. I think everybody should be. There's no logic to this back and forth that's going on, the lawsuits. Nobody's sitting down having discussions. That's not going to help anybody. We're not seeing any real dialogue.

It's just anger, lawsuits. Oh, you're going to say this. We're going to do the opposite. And that leaves all of the parents confused. It doesn't move anything onto the next step. And it doesn't even let us know what to do as a pediatrician. Like I, it's so confusing right now. I think it's the most confusing time ever,

and I said that many times. I don't know what parents are thinking right now. I don't know how they can make a decision. It's so all over the place with what they're hearing, and that makes it very tough to be a parent right now, especially with a young kid. You're hearing all sorts of different things, and so what do you do with that?

I don't know. So I think the American Academy Beatrix is trying trying to take a stand against what's going on, but at the same time they're really making themselves look bad. I think we're really putting doctors in a place where it's very adversarial people don't like doctors anymore. They used to. I mean you can look at the statistics that there's in different studies that are quoted, but the recent one you know, 70% to 40% popularity before and after COVID. I think with everything that happened public health is destroyed in terms of any sort of trust and any trust in doctors is destroyed, and I'm seeing that more and more, even in just in the Facebook chat groups where I'm lurking in the background where people talk about things, and you're seeing all sorts of doctors not know what to do.

Patients are coming in at a rate of not wanting to do vaccines that's so high that they're worried that they're not going to have enough patients. I mean, I've seen that in multiple groups that doctors saying, well, should we change up our policies? because there's so many practices that don't take patients unless they fully vaccinate on the schedule. And there are so many people coming in that no longer want to do that, that it's creating discussion amongst the doctors about whether they're going to change it,

whether they feel like they need to change it, whether they could maybe prioritize some of the vaccines and those are the ones. So it actually, things are changing, because people are changing it, and I'm really shocked you see it, but it actually, in the real world, parents are more skeptical than they ever have been and that's pushing back on doctors to have to think about this

and i don't think that the lawsuits and what the american academy is doing ultimately is going to serve things in the best way we saw what happened when we mandate things nobody wanted to do it and very few people were doing COVID shots in the last year and i think the same thing is going to happen the harder the american academy pushes and the harder doctor pushes to force vaccines, the fewer people are going to do. That's not the solution. That's not the direction forward. The direction forward needs to be, here's the information,

here's the benefits that we see. Let's discuss the risks. Let's figure out what those risks are and let's try to find some middle ground of where that should be based on the science and data, as opposed to shoving it down people's throats, which seems to be where we're at. It seems like they're digging their heels in

and pushing back, as opposed to being like, okay, well, here's what Secretary Kennedy's saying. Here's what we agree with. Here's what we don't agree with. Let's discuss that. I rarely in an interview have like 20 questions that I'm trying to do like, how am I going to remember all of them? Because I want to get through them.

Because you brought up some things I have not thought about. But first of all, my first question would be this moment is very specific. American Academy of Pediatrics, this pushback. As you're saying, this is the hardest time that you can imagine ever having been a doctor. It's also one of the hardest times having been a parent. You've been posting a lot about that. You're talking about these conversations in your, and you're saying these numbers are climbing. So would you say, you know, anecdotally from your experience that this push by American Academy of Pediatrics to defy new CDC guidelines, which I think seem very sensible.

Let's join Denmark and other nations that are just having, they're not having outbreaks of polio, they're not having outbreaks of smallpox, the big fear signals, you know. it seems to be perfectly fine in other nations. Why don't we just reduce down to that? There is science behind that. They talk to the scientists that are seeing success there. But would you say that this pushed by American Academy of Pediatrics and Gavin Newsom, state of California, I think other states, you know, that are Hawaii's looking to join this defiance group. Is that, have you met anyone, any, you know, parents coming into your practice, that that is,

incentivizing them to take more vaccines? I don't think it's incentivizing people to take more vaccines. I think it's making people question everything because once they saw what happened during COVID and saw the public health messaging, now they're concerned about everything. I wouldn't put this all in the American Academy Pediatrics or many other organizations. I think it's just public health and mainstream medicine in general. I think American Academy is part of it. I'm going to push back because these states are saying we're going to use

the American, we're not, we're no longer going to make our vaccine program based on the CDC, we're going to make it based on the American Academy of Pediatric. So that puts it in a different position than every other agency or, you know, nonprofit or whatever out there. They do get a lot of funding from the pharmaceutical industry. But they're being put in a position, and they must be asking for it, use us as your reference. So I think they carry a lot of weight and they need to be, we need to talk about that.

But you also brought up something I find interesting, which is as a doctor, I hadn't even thought about this. You know, if you're a doctor that gives vaccines to those that want it and those that, you know, don't, you give them, you have a balance inside of your practice. We know most of the funding that comes into the pediatric practices through the sale of vaccines. You know, guys like you are being put in an unnaturally, you know, underpaid salary position because all the other pediatricians are saying, I'm not going to take you. So I'm assuming you're in this group, you, Bob Sears, others, where you have a line out the door of people that are coming to you to not pay for vaccines.

How do you make a living? Yeah, well, so first of all, we have a hyper practice, so we have a membership model. Okay. We also, you definitely do make some money from vaccines. I don't think you make as much as people think that you do because you make money off of visits too. So you are seeing patients and you get paid for the visit along. with vaccines, if you're giving vaccines. Generally, you can make a little bit of money

off of each vaccine. I think when it comes to vaccine, when people are talking about it, it's in the aggregate. So if you're doing a lot of vaccines, but you're making a few dollars, that can certainly add up over time, especially in a big system. A few dollars can really add up for that system for vaccines.

But for me, it doesn't really affect me all that much. I think if you were in a Medicaid, Medi-Cal type of clinic, it might affect you a little bit more because those margins are so small. But ultimately, you have, to do what seems right and there should be no reason that you can't see patients and have a financially stable practice by just seeing patients and letting them do whatever they feel like is best for their family.

So you're using more of a membership concierge model which we're hearing? But I can do that just like you said because we have a line up out the door, right? I mean I can't take 99% of the patients that want to come to us. Right. But you know, the other issue, you know, to bring up, because I mean, I don't want to make an example. This is the difficulty, but it becomes elit. does it not mean that that those of us that can afford to you know have a membership pay up front my insurance covers it great if not you know fine that's what that whole system is you know

I'm in you know I have a practitioner I go to but I just think what about all those people that are struggling to make ends meet probably using their last dollars if they're watching the high wire to buy organic you know which is I think incredibly important but then they're outside of this, you know, system, how are we going, what would be your recommendation to getting around, how do we get to a place where we're all getting equal care? Well, I think there are a few different ways. I think we would have to change the rules around kicking people out and discriminating. That would be one way to make sure that all practices are taking patients. But ultimately, the real way to get there is to get the research

that we actually need to convince the doctors of the science behind vaccines, and we can go from there. I mean, I still think we don't have the research. I think that the Henry Ford study, what you brought out is probably the best that we have. And even that is still not perfect. I mean, we need prospective studies, but we need 20 studies like the one that you showed. We need the Henry Ford research to be reassessed. We need it to be peer reviewed. We need the same thing at Harvard and Kaiser and in Denmark and wherever. And let's see if what they found is correct. If you start seeing that trend with good data, that would start to open up people's minds a little bit in the medical world. They wouldn't be able to

dismiss that totally, but we haven't even been able to get that research re-reviewed. It just, oh, you know, Henry Ford says it says it's no good. It's like, you have on camera the doctor saying he didn't want to get it published. And you could look at any of the research out there, and that study is certainly as good as most of, if not better than the vast majority of vaccine research that we have. There's no question about that. You can poke holes in that study. You can in any retrospective study. That's why they're not great. They're as good as you have, but the fact that we don't have 50 of those studies when we're giving more and more vaccines, you know, 30 plus vaccines to kids, it's insane that we wouldn't have that. And I think if we

did that research, if we did 50 studies, if we did prospective studies and everything was the same in the vaccinated unvaccinated group, everybody's tune would change, including yours, including Secretary Kennedy's. Nobody's here saying that you couldn't ever, have a vaccine that's useful or you're always going to have these huge risk with vaccines. The question is, what is that risk? And we don't have any idea what that is. And as we add more and more vaccines, you can't just assume that they're never going to cause a problem. That's insane. And that's what you see. When you talk to these doctors, they just assume that more is better, always. Every vaccine is good. And they never go backwards. And like you were discussing

with the COVID vaccine, there's no ability to look back in the past and say, well, you know, here's what we thought then, here's what's going on now. We have a disease that doesn't seem as concerning as it used to be. So, well, let's at least just say we could recommend it, but we're not going to require anybody to do it ever again because clearly the risks are not what they used to be and clear the benefits are not what they used to be. And we're just still not sure what the risks are. We can't possibly be. I think there, I think AEP is committing suicide. I think Gavin Newsom's committing political suicide on that one vaccine, especially. There's two, you've talked a lot about.

I think on all of them, definitely. But everybody knows the COVID vaccine is a disaster. Everyone knows it doesn't stop transmission. Everyone is starting to question if, you know, if I'm getting sick three times after, or friends that have seven shots and it's doing nothing to protect them. And more and more studies showing, you know, myocarditis, paracoditis, if these amyloid plaques and prions, I mean, God knows what future we have in this species. but forget about all of the doctors that have are just you know you know a part of a religious cult or whatever you want to call it you know hypnotized by their education you are not and and i appreciate that not anymore but i i question based on what you just said i know you're trying to find this middle ground you're saying parents are confused what is you know where is it you know and i've watched podcast you're in um Gary Brecker just recently said.

said, you know, one side is saying you take the vaccines, you're going to die. The other side is saying, if you don't take the vaccines, you're going to die, there's a middle ground. You know, we know there has to be middle ground. Do we know? Do we know there's a middle ground? Like, how, I know this is your pursuit. And based on what you just said, which you're right, there's frankly, almost no science on the safety of vaccines. There's certainly no dependable science properly done science. There's definitely no placebo-based before we even go out, you know, prospective study that was done correctly prior to licensing these products, and then everything's retrospective after that.

And that's, you know, vulnerable to bias. You know it. I know as you're looking deeper into it. So how, when you say I'm trying to find the middle ground, how do you go from the middle ground, which is clear vaccine injury has to be possible? COVID vaccine injury now documented. Hepatite, you know, then you have people complaining, and then you have the sickest children, which you talk a lot about,

autoimmune disease running rampant. Seems pretty obvious if your immune system's out of whack, maybe we should look at the product that is, you know, inciting your immune system. But then on the other side, no, you know, on the pro-vaccine side, frankly, nothing but bold, loud statements and no science. backing up at safety. So how do you pursue middle? Let me start here, because you mentioned this,

and I think it's so interesting. In the same week, I could get an email from a very pro-vaccine person saying that I'm killing kids because I'm talking about any sort of risks around kids. And that very same week, I can get an email from somebody who's very anti-vaccin, say, I'm killing kids because I'm talking about how vaccines might have some benefit. And so there are two very loud extremes. I think most people are in the middle. And the reality, now that I've been in this for a while,

a lot of people are actually much more in the middle. And a lot of doctors are starting to hear this. I think the best thing that's happened so far with Secretary Kennedy, no matter what you believe about him, is he's brought this out. And it's a conversation. You can't go back. It's a public conversation.

You can't say we're not moving towards the middle now. It's way over here and it's moved here. But you can't say that we're not moving more to the middle with discussions during hepatitis B, with changes to the CDC schedule, with discussions around autism. I mean, these things were never even talked about before. Most doctors were never even aware of it. They are now. They're aware of it. People are going into the office and not wanting to get vaccines.

Doctors are questioning what they should or shouldn't do. They're looking into it. They're talking about it. So we are very slowly moving in that direction. And I hope that as we continue to move forward, that's going to push the research that's actually needed to move the doctors. Because right now, I think the unfortunate part is whatever Secretary Kennedy is doing is very open to being all just replaced in a few years if he's not there. And that's not going to move things forward. Changing the CDC schedule is doing nothing. I think it's really great in terms of discussing because I think it's opening up that discussion.

But ultimately, if he says, okay, we're doing the CDC schedule, it's going to be this way. and all the doctors say, no, no, we're just going to do the AAP schedule, which is what was before. If he's not there in three years, they're just going to say, we're just putting it back. That's what would happen. So I think... But what would happen to all the doctors like you, and I think they are increasing? There's more and more doctors that are quietly starting to say, hey, look, I just met with one in Canada. I just had just watched an inconvenient study, and he said, I am literally saying to my patients right now,

I've got four pregnant moms that are wanting to know what my opinion is on vaccines. And he said, I am officially taking a hiatus from the conversation. I don't even know what to tell you. I am starting my own research. She said, based on your film, I've got a refrigerator full of vaccines, brought up meningitis as a concern. He's like, but I don't know what the safety of that. You're right. I mean, I am worried about meningitis, but I don't know how much harm that single vaccine can cause.

I don't know where to find that information. who's brand new to this, but very insightful, very thoughtful, and it was just a fascinating conversation. I don't know that this just swings back. Now, they'll use authority to swing it back, but you're not going to, you're going to go, hold on a second. I mean, would you change with your patients if suddenly CDC's back under, you know. So I think the schedule could change back.

I don't think you can put back the conversation. I think that has changed for good now. I don't think you can go backwards to the point. where people don't understand that vaccines can cause a problem. I think the real question is, can we get to the point where the science could catch up to the point where people are actually willing to do their studies and then willing to look at those studies

honestly and say, okay, well, here's where the risks are with vaccines, let's make better vaccines, let's use fewer vaccines, let's figure out where that balance is for our kids' health, or let's just at least not require them. I mean, it's a very easy place to start. Let's not force anybody to do anything. That should be, you know, the bar, the low bar.

Certainly, in a free country. And we don't, most places in America don't require them for school. Right. Those states are doing just fine. Most countries don't require vaccines to go to school. They're doing just fine. Well, I do, I would say, let me correct that for everyone watching is brand new today. Every state requires them.

They have exemptions. They have exemptions. But they're not very forthcoming about it. And if you just showed up, you won't know. They won't tell you, by the way, you can just opt out. You have to go out of your way to find that information. But you're right. There's only five states currently that just have no exemption whatsoever.

So it's a little different than not having a mandate. You have to sort of go out of your way. I'm curious because our nonprofits are called Informed Consent Action Network. I've been fighting just for informed consent. I want patients to be informed. I'm not, you know, I like you. I get attacks from people because I don't say I'm eradicating vaccines from the face of the planet. I'm not a vaccine abolitionist. I think I'm a realist. Pharmacetic industry is too big, and there's too many

people that just live in fear and will do whatever pharma says, and they have every right to do that. I really do believe in freedom. This is a free country, but you can't force your thought system on me. I can't force mine on you. But you seem like one of these doctors that is trying to get to inform consent. So let me ask you a question. Can I get a little test response here? If a parent says to you, what is your opinion, what should I know about hepatitis B? What does informed consent from a doctor actually sound like? And for everyone out there that has a doctor, I want to see if they think this is what they'd want to hear from their doctor. I mean, informed consent means having an discussion, to me at least,

it means having a discussion in explaining what we know and what we don't know, the risks versus the benefits of any procedure, whether that's hepatitis B or heart surgery, and then ultimately letting the parent make the best decision for them. It's providing them with information so that they can have it, so they can look it up. So what do you say in Hep B? I'm asking you. I'm asking you. What do I know about Hep B?

Well, I think you need to know the risk of hepatitis B so that, I mean, I guess it depends on which age your child is, let's say, for a newborn. If you are exposed to hepatitis B, then you could die. You could get cancer, liver cancer, be the two biggest concerns. you would need to know that the risk of getting hepatitis B as a newborn is extremely low. We're talking one in a million to one in seven million if you don't have hepatitis B. Is it possible that somebody could come and bleed on your baby? Sure, it's possible. Is it possible that you could bang into a needle as a newborn or have a wild baby party?

Yes, I guess it's possible, but it's very unlikely. So I think you need to understand what the risk is that you actually might be exposed to the disease versus what your risk is from the vaccine. And when we're talking about the vaccine, if parents want to get that discussion, If they want to look at everything, you can certainly get into how the trials run, how long the safety testing was. How long was it? The active was four to five days for the main vaccine. So I think that, or five to six days.

So I think that's important to know. They did follow them after, but it's very short term, mostly done in adults, so we don't have long-term safety data on hepatitis B. And I think that's important for parents to know as well. It doesn't mean that it's completely unsafe. We've been using it for a very long time. And you can argue whether what the safety data is. Again, I don't think it's been studying the way that we would know. know. But I think that's the part of informed consent that gets missed is there's just a lot

that we don't know about the long-term risks from these vaccines, which is what was discussed in ASIP recently and I think why they changed it moving it back because I just don't think we really understand what the risk profile is to giving a newborn baby a vaccine, something where the risk of them is extremely low. And that seems to be common sense to be. It's not just, oh, we're just protecting its hepatitis B. Because if you were to ask me as a physician, do I want a baby to get hepatitis B, of course I don't. Of course nobody wants the kid in hepatitis B and die. But that's not the full story. The question is if you're giving three million kids the hepatitis B vaccine and you're protecting maybe one kid who, you know, the parents didn't realize they had

hepatitis B or that fell through the cracks, I mean, that's tragic. You don't want that, but what is the risk to giving three million kids that vaccine? Are there some deaths from that? Are there some fevers? Are there some seizures? Are there some autoimmune conditions that they develop later in life? What does that look like? We've never studied that and you can't just keep giving kids vaccines on day one. We get vitamin K, RSV, hepatitis B, antibiotic ion, all in the first two or three days. How can you look at that and say there can't be some risk from that? Yes, there can be some benefits.

Certainly vitamin K can help prevent a blame bleed, but when you're doing multiple things on a one-day-old baby, there has to be some downstream effect from that. Everything has good and bad and we, there's no reason why we can't have the way we can't have those discussions as scientists and say, we don't want anyone to get a hepatitis B. We don't want to have a brain bleed, but we also don't want them to develop autoimmune condition. We also don't want a seizure. I appreciate that. If doctors were just speaking like that, I think we would be in enough, we would never found ourselves in, I think, the position we find ourselves now. When you watch what Bobby Kennedy is doing, there's been all the, he's not a doctor,

He's anti-vaccine, you know, and I mean, he's also made the argument. So was his wife on the view and others that I think there's only been two doctors in the HHS position. It tends to be lawyers, which is what he is. And I think he's super well qualified in that. He's been a lawyer fighting for health, you know, most of his entire career. But I want to ask you a specific question because obviously, you know, you're writing, you're being forthcoming, you want a middle ground. You want, you know, you'd love for the AAP to be open-minded.

Can we do some science? Why aren't we doing a Vax versus unvaccinated study? Why isn't all this happening? You want all that happening. Is there, you know, so you need Bobby to be successful at opening up this dialogue. Is there any way that he could do this better? If you wanted, like when you're watching what he's doing, I'm imagining you're hoping, I need you to open up the minds of the doctors around me.

those that trained me, the university system. Is there a way he could do this differently that wouldn't create this massive pushback by AAP and Gavin Newsom? And is there any, you know... I don't know if there's any way. I wish he could include people. I wish they could sit down and have conversations.

I don't know if they're willing to do it. It doesn't know. They're ever willing to do it. It's been offered. He's offered to show up ASIP. He didn't. He used to show up. I was just on the Charlie Kirk show with Aaron Siri.

And we offered Paul Offett to come to be a part of it and he wouldn't and I mean I hope that they'll some of them will be more willing to do it I don't think people like Paul for at this point they've not wanted to do it for so long but there are so many other people involved and many other doctors and and if I had a dream it would be that they would sit down in a room and talk about some of these things and do it openly so that they could say their position he could say his position and they could find some sort of common ground to work from he doesn't necessarily have the time to do that so that may be the problem is trying to get people

Trying to get people to... I mean, like, if he... I think he would do it, but I think that having those discussions would take a lot more time than just making changes. So I think he's doing what he thinks is best, but ultimately that's at the cost of including people that he needs to be the minions, the fighters of what he actually wants to do. To change the schedule, you actually need the people to change the schedule that are administering the vaccines. And right now, you don't see that. So I think that's where it's really tough for him, I would imagine.

I don't know. I've never spoken to about it, but I think that he's trying to do what he can do and he has only so much time for right now and he wants to get as much of it done and then he knows he's going to get pushback. But the better way to do it would be to actually have discussions. Well, the real better way to do it would be to have the data to back things up. But since he doesn't have that data because it doesn't exist, he has to do things based on what he thinks is best in the data. I think he's working on the data. So let's talk just as far as the data, if he does a Henry Ford style study, maybe millions of kids using some database whether it's Medicare or Medicaid or something compares vaccinated to

unvaccinated what would what would AAP have to see I mean would they have to be in charge of it I mean short of being in charge of it where they would accept the data we're looking at they would never accept anything that he does I would I don't think in the short term they would but it still doesn't matter because you still need that as a first step we need somebody to do it so that they can say here's what they think is wrong and then you say okay well here then give me your statisticians redo it show me where we did it wrong do it in a different way and then hopefully other places would start to copy that and mimic and we get

multiple I don't think any one thing that Secretary Kennedy does is going to change the minds of most doctors nor should it necessarily but it might but they're gonna hear about it they're gonna have to hear about the study they're gonna have to read about it look into it look how they did it start to focus on all here's how we would do it differently and that's the first step towards moving in a different direction because there was never even a discussion of that in the first place. So I think he needs to do it, and I think it will help.

No matter what they find, I don't think that's going to move the needle very much, but it will move it in that in that a little bit, and then hopefully we can get some follow-up from that. Well, I think it'll, I think it is, just like the Henry Ford study, is moving the needle, because parents and people seeing it are saying, why can't you do a study that shows me your side's right? Right. And I think as we get more and more studies,

sure AAP will continue to dig its heels in and force COVID vaccine on innocent children and lose more and more ground, more and more relevance. I think states are going to start, I think people will start leaving states over some of these vaccines. Like, it just doesn't make sense. But I do think the power is in the people, which is why we do what we do. The more people are just saying, I'm just not listening to you anymore because you doesn't, you're not in a reasonable position.

There's got to be reason around this. And I think that's what's ultimately going to change things. It's going to be the stuff that Secretary Kennedy is doing, but also it's the parents. The parents that keep opting out of the system or questioning it, it's going to be the thing that's going to force the doctors to say, parents are concerned about this. Where is the research that they want? Why don't we go do it? We're so sure that vaccines don't cause a problem.

What are we worried about to go do that study? And that doesn't make any sense. It's either clearly been done and they don't want to show what it is, or there's some sort of, weird logic around not doing it. Like, you would think the first thing you would do to counter what Secretary Kennedy says would be, all right, we went to Harvard, we looked at the last 15 years, here's the data. And that's never been done. It's still not been done in the last, you know.

It's insanity. Well, no, unless it's not. I think it has to done. But you would think that's what I'd make. I know. Let's let it be front pages in New York Times. But you have to ask yourself, since we know they've done it, because it would be so obviously have done it and they're not getting the response they want. Why are they so gung-ho on a

product that then is doing so poorly in comparative trials? All of that we could go on and on. I want to have you stick around for off the record. I actually want to talk about how well you're trained for infectious disease, childhood illnesses, because if people stop back saying we're going to see meals, we are going to see chicken pox. I want to know what you know about that. Have you had to do your own research? Are you ready for a chicken pox outbreak? or a measles outbreak, would you know what to do? I'm going to ask you that, you know, off the record. Where do people follow the work that you're doing?

Probably the best place would be at Dr. Joel Gator on Instagram or X. So at Dr. Joel Gator at Instagram or X. The book is between a shot and a hard place. You definitely want to pick this book up. It's also great for people that are on the fence. You're wanting to just move into starting to think reasonably. Obviously, Dr. Gator is, bringing reason, maybe not as far as you are at this moment, but I think obviously one of those

great people that is giving, you know, people in the Republic of California an opportunity to, you know, change their vaccine schedule for their kids, which I always, I know that's risky. It's, it's honorable that you're doing it. So you want to check out off the record. Remember, you can only watch off the record if you're a recurring donor. I don't even care if you give us a dollar a month, but I want you to be involved. They're trying to get you to vote with your dollars. I'm trying to get you to feel what it feels like to be involved in a movement. That's what this is about. And so it's our gift back to you, just a little extra programming. And aren't you curious what he actually knows about infectious disease and are we ready for it? Should we start

seeing outbreaks because people are taking less vaccines? And what does that world look like? Also, there's other ways to donate. We still have a few bricks left in our terrorist program. You want to do that so you can come and visit. Maybe you could be live right now, watch this interview and get a picture with Dr. Ader, but, you know, first you have to have a brick. And this is my favorite brick of the week. Well, my favorite brick this week is right here.

To my lovely wife, who had the courage to stand for our children and to challenge me to seek the truth. You know, mother's instincts are probably the most powerful medical tool there is. Thank God for all of our wives, I think, that have led us in the right direction. Mom's, parents, making better decisions, being courageous to get outside of the box, the high wire is all about. All right, well, look, there's heroes in every side of a difficult situation. The heroes in Canada, the truckers that stood up, may have changed the future for the world,

yet Canada still finds itself in difficult positions. The work is never done. Freedom doesn't exist until there's freedom for all. And freedom isn't secured if the very next election could change our rights when it comes to freedom. When you see groups like American Academy of Pediatrics, when you see leaders like Gavin Newsom, you know, literally calling being anti-science right now. And I have said it, if you are pro-vaccine, if you're staunchly, pro-vaccine, you are now on the anti-science position. There is actually more data and science

around the risks as we're looking at this, especially around the COVID vaccine. We keep reporting on it. The lack of quality in the flu vaccine, which has now been denied. This is an anti-science. This is science finally being done. But by the way, if you have a problem with it, then get in a debate. Sit down with me or Dr. Warsh or Robert Kennedy Jr. were all open to have a that conversation. But as we look at the world right now, we've got to take our wins, we've got to solidify them. We've got to open the door even wider. We've got to push back against American Academy of Pediatrics. All of this, you know what, the pressure that actually changes the world? It's the people. You know, I could do this all day long, but if I'm the only

voice talking about it and you're all staying quiet inside of your houses, nothing changes. Frankly, when I watched the COVID situation take place and people would say, oh, I had to get the vaccine in order to hold onto my job. I always think, no, your job gave you an opportunity to find another job. Or why didn't you talk to everyone inside of that business? Here in the United States of America, roughly 30% of the people denied taking that vaccine. That's across the entire nation. All 340 million of us, 30% of us, said, oh, hell no. That means inside of your job, there was 30% of you, most likely, that weren't taking it.

But you didn't know who each other were because authoritarianism wins when you are silent. It wins when you're afraid to talk about it. It stays. And even when you might even be the majority in a conversation, which is, I think, where we're moving right now. I think American Academy of Pediatrics is now going to find itself in a minority position. I think Gavin Newsom is now speaking to less people than he, that agree with him. And I don't, I think they're like crazy. I don't know what's wrong with him.

But we don't know that if we don't talk. And so we let authoritarianism reign when we're not using our voices, when we're not standing up together, when we don't recognize that we're winning. They don't want you to know you're winning. And you can't know you're winning if you're staying locked. you know, afraid inside of your cave, just, you know, hoarding what little truth you're, you know, clinging onto. You've got to share it, which is why I really want you this week to take us up on this.

Please go to our high wire store and grab this card. This really is a game changer. Just what Dr. Walsh is talking about. And this Henry Ford study, we're not going to have another moment like this. I mean, this isn't just another movie. This isn't just another study. It's one of a kind. I don't know when we're ever going to have this opportunity again.

We're the opposite side, the pro-vaccine side, a doctor-scientist that says, I'm the reason we force vaccinate everyone that works at Henry Ford Health. When that guy does a study and suddenly we get our hands on that study and the whole world can see it and say, geez, when I watch this movie, this guy is clearly in hidden camera footage, which is super intriguing to listen to. but he is clearly saying this is a good study. I don't know how I would do it any different. It didn't

turn out how I wanted and I have tried and I'm not going to put it out because it will destroy my career. It will destroy the vaccine program. When Bobby Kennedy does this study and I guarantee you he will, they'll say well, I mean, he was anti-vaxed. You cannot say that about

this study. You cannot say that about Henry Ford. No doctor can explain this. They can try to poke holes in it But just like Dr. Peter Gutcha, one of the founders of the Cochran collaboration, has said, I've seen Henry Ford's complaint, but it doesn't explain these numbers. And the more people that see this, not only will you change their lives, the more people that will know that even the pro-vaccine side can't do a study that makes their product look good.

And once that starts happening, the more of us that know, the harder it will be back to put this GD back at its wrap it all up, lock it away, censor the rest of us that are still talking. We make that impossible when we share the truth, when we share the truth, not hide the truth, not hide from the truth, not covet the truth, share the truth. Do your part this week. Go buy a stack of cards and see how many people you can give it to. This is a game changer. We made this movie. I'm proud of it, but more importantly, Henry Ford did a study that is absolutely changing this conversation around the world. Let's be a part of it. Get involved until everyone around the world knows the truth.

This is just one of the many things the Highwire is involved in. We also have our lawsuits. Your donations make all this possible. Thank you for watching and share this show with everyone you know. And I'll see you next week on the High Wire.