The Highwire with Del Bigtree - Episode 476: IS VERIZON CENSORING ICAN? VITAMIN K EXPOSED & THE DARK SIDE OF SSRIS

Episode Date: May 14, 2026

Is Verizon censoring our award-winning film, "An Inconvenient Study"? ICAN investigates mounting reports that Verizon customers are unable to access the film’s website as the release continues to spark worldwide debate over vaccine safety research and scientific transparency.Then, an explosive Senate hearing livestreamed on The HighWire this week featuring a CIA whistleblower, Jefferey Jaxen examines claims surrounding vitamin K injections and infant deaths, and we investigate the extradition of vaccine researcher Poul Thorsen, now facing U.S. fraud charges.And lastly, Danielle Gansky joins the show to discuss being prescribed SSRIs at just seven years old and the devastating long-term withdrawal effects she says have impacted her life for years.Guests: Danielle GanskyAirdate: May 14, 2026Become 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? Action.

Good morning, good afternoon, good evening, wherever you are out there in the world, it's time for us all to step out into the high wire. Being on the high wire is about, you know, taking risks, bringing you the truth when no one else wants to. and sometimes that leads to censorship or destruction of free speech, something we talk about all the time. This is something that I really got introduced to the moment I made the documentary Vaxed. When we got kicked out of the Tribeca Film Festival, they said, well, we don't agree with the science that's in your film. There is New York Times, Robert De Niro, polls the controversial film vaxed from Tribeca Film Festival. Of course, this just made, you know, a tidal wave of negative

press that turned vaxed into an international sensation. So I'm not always going to complain about censorship, but we are used to it. There's topics that whoever, the powers that be, that they seem to want to block. And then, of course, when we started this show, the high wire and the COVID pandemic came along. Eventually, we lost our Facebook channel and our YouTube channel for saying things like we believe there was a potential this virus had a lab origin, not a natural origin. Go figure. Anyway, I think a lot of us feel like, you know, I remember all the doctors they were censored. You had Dr. Robert Malone. I think got kicked off of LinkedIn. If I remember, Kurt, oh, there it is. Maybe I've been too settled in absurd justification provided for why LinkedIn

kicked me off. The number one reason was the post where I called COI on Jim Smith. Anyway, we've seen it, we understand it, and we have put it in our rear of your mirror. We got Donald Trump as president. These days are over. We're back. We've seen the lawsuits where Joe Biden is lost, and we recognize now that our government actually did influence social media companies, forcing them or, you know, threatening them that they had to, you know, quell the voices that were not aligned with the government

and spreading misinformation, all of those things. But what if it isn't in our rearview mirror? What if we had evidence that we are still being censored? Well, I have breaking news for you. I have proof. We are being censored. Let me tell you how this happened. We have our film an inconvenient study that has now garnered over 130 million views around the world.

It's an absolute sensation. I don't really know if we were able to track what Vax did, but certainly an inconvenient study is reaching around the world beyond our sort of highest expectations. But this was a moment just a couple months ago where I was trying to show someone at an event, a very wealthy individual that was curious about the work that. I was like, well, let me show you, let me give you the website so you can watch my film.

And I punched in an incommentatistody.com and suddenly it said, server not found this film. Like, essentially, the website doesn't exist. So I immediately called our web designers and said, hey, guys, something's wrong with our website. Did it crash? And they pulled it up and like, no, we're looking at it right now. That led to several days of them telling me how I could refresh my phone or go back to factory settings because it was only happening on my phone. I was calling other people in the company. Are you having this issue on your phone? So then I'm like, only Del Vigree is being censored on his phone. Then all of a sudden, the website popped up the next day. It was like, oh, good. Well, then it was a month or two of this intermittent problem. It was up. It was down. Couldn't figure out what was going on. Again, I ran to somebody. very important, really wanted to show them the website. This was just a couple of weeks ago.

And once again, I could not pull up the website. And, you know, I called the web design team and I'm a passionate guy. I was passionate about it. I was like, dudes, come on. What is happening? So we launched a very serious investigation. And I wasn't alone. As it turned out, the team said, you know, Del, we're actually getting complaints about this. Here's some of those complaints. The Highwire contract form inquiry. I've tried numerous times over several weeks to get to the website for an Incompetient Study to order the QR code business cards. Every search engine comes back saying the webpage is not available. Another one.

Hi, I just bought a hundred pack of the Inconvenient Study Promotional Cards, which I love. I've got you guys doing this. But the website doesn't work when I open it. And on and on and on. Same problem. But why is it intermittent? And then we finally figured it out. It looks like it's Verizon.

an internet provider. Let me show you how we discover this happens, because I want you to test this too at home. But what happens is, let's say you're on your internet with your phone and you punch in an inconvenient study. Your internet might be provided by AT&T or Wi-Fi or, you know, yeah, we're on Wi-Fi.

So it comes up. But then you shut off your Wi-Fi and just go on your Verizon phone and do the exact same thing. And suddenly what happens, boom, this site can't be reached. I don't know about you, but have you ever heard of a service provider blocking an entire website? And not even saying like, you know, this website has broken some rules. They haven't sent us any information, but just saying that the site doesn't exist at all.

I can't imagine how many millions of people have tried to watch this film and have been thwarted because Verizon is blocking us. We sent a letter to Verizon just to make sure we were not. like kind of crazy. We said we're having this issue and this is what they told us. There are no blocks on the F-I-OS H-S-I-Landline network. There does appear to be one in the wireless network. We do not have control or review rights. So now we have been playing a game for the last week or so where they're sending us to apartment upon department and no one seems to know why it's blocked. They won't help us, Verizon doesn't care.

So we just put out a press release. We are demanding answers, the award-winning film and Incommunist study being blocked by Verizon. We think this is unprecedented. If you've heard of it happening before, I'm really curious. But here's what I would love for you to do, because I happen to have, I think, the greatest attorney on the planet Earth in Aaron Siri. And I said, Aaron, I don't know if there's a case here or not, but should we start collecting all of the stories of people who believed that their provider, that they're paying is giving them access to the entire internet, just not, you know, instead of just the ones Verizon apparently wants to have up, he's like, yeah, why don't we do that? So here's what we're

going to do. I would love it if you would test your device and tell us what happened. Even take a screen grab. If you get that, this site doesn't exist. Will you please upload it and text us at 72022 and write in the word Verizon? There might just be a lawsuit here. We're not. sure we would really love for Verizon to just fix this issue. My understanding is their connection to T-Mobile might be affecting your T-Mobile device. But wherever you are, whatever you're using, just give us a little check, will you, and just text us and let us know. And you're going to get a little form to fill out so that we have this nailed to the wall. This is about our community coming together. Because honestly, what is this world going to look like if your service

providers start deciding what world they want you to believe you live in. Every single day we're using our computer to do research on something, whether it's just a food product or, you know, anything. But what if that research is being limited and you don't know it? You're not getting all the opportunities. You're not seeing all of the facts. This would literally be the end of freedom and we wouldn't even know what's happening. We're being dropped into our own thought. bubble once again or somebody else's thought bubble. I think this is really a problem. And for those of me like, what is he even talking about or why would they care so much to censor this website? I don't know. Good question. Here's the film that they apparently still don't want

you to see. The health of American children is in crisis. When we're talking about an autoimmune disease crisis, shouldn't we look closest at the one product designed to alter our immune system for life? There'd be one easy study to rule it out, compare vaccinated children to unvaccinated children. As fate would have it, Delmet, Marcuservos. He agreed to do the study. This could be one of the most valuable studies in the field. 4.47 times the amount of speech disorders. Learning issues, developmental delays. Over four times more likely to have an asthma diagnosis. Five and a half times risk. Amongst the unvaccinated group, they were zero. If this is true, we are systematically making kids sick, very sick. Only one problem. They're not going to publish it. They left us with no choice.

I'm going to bring hidden cameras so that no matter what happens at this dinner, I can prove it happened. What do you think about the study you guys have done? I think it's a good study. The way they can do the study better? I put it out just nowadays. It's the right thing to do. but I just don't want to. Somebody's going to come back and they're going to say the study is flawed. The unpublished Henry Ford analysis is fundamentally flawed. Because there's a political agenda to me.

I'm not going to do it. Publishing something like that, might as well retire. I'd be finished. Sick. It's really sick. I know obviously like really original. This is an inconvenient study for the entire vaccine agenda. So for whatever reason Verizon is censoring this website now,

hopefully they'll change that, but I really would love it if you would continue to download those cards. We'll make them work one way another, even if we have to start another website. But right now, we really want to see how big a problem this is. So if you can help us with that, be a part of our watchdog community. Once again, just check your phone. If you're having the same issue, turn off your Wi-Fi, see if your phone's doing what we're saying, grab a screen grab, and then load it up to 72022 and write in the word Verizon. And we'll send you just a little form.

be super easy to fill out. I don't want to waste too much of your time, but these are the types of things. These are these little threads that we discover along the way, like the Henry Ford study, whoever expected going to dinner with the head of infectious disease because some friend knew them would turn into what this film and what this study has done. And I've been talking a lot about this study, just really quickly. Why is it so important? I mean, there's like almost a dozen other vaccinated versus unvaccinated studies. I think this film and this study exemplifies the scientific method because in this situation, I didn't go to someone on my side. I wasn't sitting at dinner with a scientist that agreed with me and said, hey, let me run that study for you.

I was having a disagreement with a scientist that said that vaccines are the greatest invention in the 20th century, that he believed wholeheartedly in them and would never want to do anything to hurt them. And I said, well, look, this movement's growing. My film Vax has changed this whole conversation. So I would recommend that you do a study and prove me wrong. Who is ever, honestly, what scientists can say that? I handed the entire thing to our detractor and said, prove me wrong, do it. I won't touch it. And he produced the most damning study we've ever seen of the vaccine program. This is a once in a lifetime moment. I doubt any other scientists will even be allowed to venture into this space now that they've seen what actually happens.

You've got to ask yourself why no other regulatory agency or major medical system in the world has been able to do the most obvious study known demand comparing backs to unvaccinated and showing us that the vaccines that they said make us healthier actually make us healthier should be the easiest study in the world. Anyway, censorship, control, controlling the world we live in, controlling the narrative was, I don't think, ever more brilliantly placed under a spotlight than this Tuesday in a Rand Paul hearing that, yes, we streamed live. And you would know it if you were just signed up to our email list. You would have been watching it live on Tuesday of the CIA whistleblower.

But please, if you want to be on top of actual breaking news and what I think is probably the most important hearing there's ever been, just go to the bottom of the page there and just type in your email and you will always get notifications. You'll get all of the things that we talk about, all of our evidence, all the science, every article we talk about, not just the clips. We're not cherry picking. You get to read the whole thing. But most importantly, it pops up and says, and I didn't. I forgot this thing was happening. I was driving my car.

I was like, oh, my God. We're streaming this hearing. Folks, at almost any other period in time, I guess, back before the Internet, maybe 1960, I imagine this hearing happening where our entire country was locked down in a way we had never seen before. Human beings quarantine. Children not allowed to go to school. Their entire, you know, some generations of kids will never recover. Their scholarships to sports disappearing. What do you want to know and make sure that we did everything exactly right? Wouldn't you want to hear from someone in the CIA specifically dealing with the science behind this pandemic?

If a whistleblower came forward, wouldn't you be glued to your TV? Honestly, this hearing should have had everyone in America watching. I'm just going to show you the opening six minutes by this whistleblower. I think its whole openings, like 11 or 12 minutes. You should watch this whole hearing. But check this out. I am a career CIA operations officer. And as you mentioned, I was on joint duty assignment at the Office of Director National Intelligence, Director's Initiatives Group, or the DIG, between March 2025 and April 26.

I was responsible for leading the DIGS investigation into COVID origins, anomalous health incidents, and unidentified anomalous phenomena. I'm here today to discuss the COVID cover-up, the national security implications associated with the DIGS investigative findings. and CIA refusal to comply with lawful oversight, as well as how we remedy these problems. Intelligence community leaders and senior analysts downplayed the possibility that the COVID pandemic originated as a result of a lab incident. Motives are difficult to define, given the scope of the digs review. Intentional or not, the IC's actions resulted in cover-up, wasted resources, and a failure to properly informed policymakers.

Dr. Fauci influenced the analytical process and findings by leveraging his position to ensure the IC consulted with a conflicted list of curated subject matter experts, public health officials, and scientists. This included some of the authors of the paper, the proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2, and other public health experts who have been in his orbit for the last 20-plus years. Some of the scientists were part of the Biological Sciences Experts Group, or the BSEG, an office of a Director National Intelligence Advisory Body,

whose members often receive considerable funding from NIAID and public health agencies. Since 2006, the BSEG consulted part-time on biodefense issues for the IC, while conducting government-funded research and holding academia positions, as well as maintaining roles in public health institutions and serving as members in the National Academy of Science. They received funding from NIAID and other agencies for vaccine research, USAID's Predict Project, the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, it even worked with Chinese scientists on coronavirus and other pathogen studies pursuing vaccines. There was no oversight monitoring how this web of relations, influenced research, policy, and public health in any holistic way for over 20 years.

In fact, several of the BSEG scientists helped Dr. Fauci rewrite definitions of gain a function in 2015 to lift a funding pause on dangerous research. Dr. Anthony Fauci's influence over the IC's COVID origin analysis and the winning and unwitting role some BSEG scientists and IC personnel played in the cover-up exposed why this issue is of deep concern. Failure to address the United States government's inability to differentiate between public health and biodefense and the oversight-resistant ecosystem of life science actors has been fertile ground for increasingly dangerous continental United States gain of function research, as well as similar research conducted in U.S. government's supported labs abroad. This is a national

security crisis caused by the inability to provide real oversight. The systematic failures associated with muddled boundaries between biodefence and public health and an overly complex infrastructure have been exacerbated by documented efforts to circumvent oversight. CIA did not comply with lawful oversight during the Diggs investigation. The behavior significantly impacted Director Gabbard's implementation of several EO. issued during this administration and tasked to the dig. The CIA refused to provide information necessary to understand why analytical standards at the CIA were violated.

The CIA illegally monitored the computer and phone usage of dig personnel, their investigations, and contact with whistleblowers. These were Americans being spied upon illegally, while executing duties directed by the president and under the authority of the Director of National Intelligence. One CIA contractor assisting with the Diggs investigation into the events that transpired between 2022 and 2023 was fired by the CIA one day after meeting with the DIG. When the DIG ceased operations, the CIA also took back 40 boxes of JFK files and MK Ultra

files being processed for declassification by DIGC. and I gabbard. The legislative and executive branches will continue to be misinformed if this type of behavior is not addressed. The partial solution to dangerous gain of function has already been laid out in Executive Order 14292, improving the safety and security of biological research. We need a comprehensive review of government-funded, life science research, and a move back to pre-911 definitions of gain of function.

and WMD research, particularly in the IC and DHS. More broadly, we need effective oversight. We must hold agencies responsible for failure to comply with Executive Order 14292, and oversight must have teeth. You must be willing to pull the purse strings, and if necessary, convene another church committee. The results of our investigation would have been, Impossible without whistleblowers willing to come forward.

They are indispensable agents for reform. If you've just listened to that and think, yeah, all right, then turn off your television, turn off the news. We've been overly saturated. Maybe it's been dialed up to 11 for too long for you to recognize what's really happening here. You were talking about a career scientist, overrode discoveries by CIA, overrode documents that were going to come out. I mean, that was just his opening statement. The hearing gets deeper into all of these issues. The corruption you well know because you watch the high wire.

But corruption now by someone all the way on the inside. I mean, this was a dream whistleblower for Rand Paul and all the work that he's done to try and figure out what Fauci was really up to. So it was just a brilliant hearing. The one thing I want to point out, and I've said it, this is not a political show, but Representative Holly pointed out, not a single Democrat was in the room.

I mean, I grew up a progressive liberal. We didn't use to trust the government. That was sort of the position that Democrats held. I do not understand how there's not one ounce of curiosity enough to go and live. listen to a whistleblower for the CIA, which means he's risking his life. We know it. He's risking a lot to try and bring the truth, a truth that is so well known now. He's not even standing alone. But he's making the point that inside of this government right now,

inside of this CIA right now, without whistleblowers, you would never have any truth. That means the system in America of four and by the people is completely broken. We no longer have a system. They're not answering to Rand Paul. Rand Paul points that out. Senator Ron Johnson points that out that they're not listening to his request to understand what's going on. Thank God, Robert Kennedy Jr. handed him brilliant data, which we talked about last week for his hearing. Now we have a whistleblower coming forward. But we need such major reforms and changes. And honestly, if you're a Democrat, you're watching the show, I hope we are bipartisan as a show. Will you please reach out to your representatives and say, why is it? We have no questions about that debunkers.

we call that pandemic. You really think that was handled properly? Why aren't you standing behind a whistleblower? Isn't that we as liberals? Is it what we used to care about? People that come forward to tell the truth and risk everything to do it? What is going on in America? That's all I kept thinking as I listened this brilliant hearing. I hope you'll go back and watch the entire thing. And while it was going on, Senator Johnson goes, oh, look at this. The CIA is making a comment while this hearing is going on. CIA condemns Rand Paul, for subpoenaing agent who claims government covered up COVID-19 origin, nothing more than dishonest political theater. Political theater is a real whistleblower. The committee acted in bad faith by subpoenaing an agency officer for testimonies today without notifying CIA. Despite having already obtained closed-door testimony from the individual previously protested, the CIA Director of Public Affairs, Liz Lyons, in a statement to Fox News.

the witness testifying today is not appearing as a whistleblower. Oh, really? What is he then? In pursuit of the truth, but instead in response to the subpoena issued by Chairman Paul, by our government, by our representative. He's been subpoenaed by the people of America. That is how this system works. Liz, it's really unfortunate that you'll even go down in writing saying that you're against having this happen.

And no, behind closed doors is not the system. We as Americans want to hear what this guy has to say. And thank you, Senator Rand Paul, for having this hearing. Thank you, Senator Ron Johnson. And the, like, dozen to 15 Republicans that were in the room. I want to say this. Ron Johnson has said to me many times. There's only one or two of us in here, Del.

Well, now there's 15. So as much as I want to rebuke every idiot that didn't show up for what might be one of the most important hearings of all times when our rights were ripped out of our hands, here in America, let's do acknowledge the fact that it's no longer two or five or 10, but more like 12 to 15. So we're getting somewhere. We're winning. As I say, every day, the truth is gaining ground.

Every day, we're taking a new battlefield. We are not moving backwards in any way. We've taken no steps backward. So have heart with that, but recognize we have a lot of work to do. I have a huge, you can watch the whistleblower testimony here. Here's the Bitley whistleblower testimony. Share it with everyone you know. I'm telling you it's not even that long.

I think it was an hour and a half or something. So it really is mind-blowing. All right. I want to get deep into another cover-up on SSRIs. I've got Danielle Gansky. This is a beautiful girl who has been on SSRIs since she was seven years old. All she wants to do is get off of these things and wait to hear this horrifying story. than nobody wants to talk about.

What are the side effects of just trying to change your life and get off of this conveyor belt? Pharma puts you on. We're going to get into her story. But first is time for the Jackson Report. All right, Jeffrey, you know, I keep saying it. We got a pretty good track record of having been on top of all these things. I mean, there's almost nothing the CIA whistleblower said

that we haven't essentially gleaned from some other position to get to the truth. But boy, to have someone inside saying, yeah, no, that too, Fauci, no, that was Fauci too. No, Fauci wrote that. No, Fauci controlled that. Really unbelievable the power that one man had over CIA. Unreal. Amazing, amazing just committee hearing at that point. And it brings back to the words of John F. Kennedy, when he talks about allegedly shattering the CIA into a thousand pieces and scattering it to the wind.

Yeah. I mean, those ideas come in. But, Dahl, you mentioned Daniel Gatsky. She's coming on the show. You're going to interview her very soon. And she was put on psychiatric drugs at seven. And so she's not an anomaly. In fact, America has needed a culture change around psychiatric medication for some time now.

And this is actually what current HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., is trying to do just this week. Take a look. All right. The United States does not just face a mental health crisis. We face a dependency crisis driven by over-medicalization. The data is clear one in six American adults takes an antidepressant. One in ten children are on prescription medication for their mental health. 30% of college students report using psychiatric medications in the past year.

And in nursing homes, more than half of the residents are on prescribed antidepressants. That's not a marginal issue. This is a system-level pattern. pattern. Too many patients begin treatment without a clear understanding of the risks and how long they will stay on these drugs or how to come off of them. And that's not informed consent. Patients must understand the benefits, the risks, and the consequences of long-term use before they start or they continue and when they consider stopping. Without that information, consent does not exist. Right now, gaps in data labeling clinical guidance deny patients and physicians the full picture. Our policies will close these gaps. Once again, just so glad Robert Kennedy Jr. is there.

There's a lot of work in this space. It needs to be done. Yeah. Yeah. And great, great words. I mean, those are shocking statistics. But unfortunately, psychiatric medication has been one of the only tools in the toolbox. instead of just another tool in the toolbox for that industry.

And so what he's saying there is actually pretty revolutionary. He's going to issue new guidance for physicians on the risks of them, so there's full informed consent, and then also to understand tapering and deprescribing. But he's also going to add billing, so clinicians can be billed to help patients taper off these drugs or deprescribe them. That's something that's never been done. I mean, in fact, for the drug industry, it's how many drugs can we get out there, whether it's opioids or like GLP1, the O.

Olympics and things like that. It's how much can we get out there? We don't care about trying to get people off those. So that's pretty revolutionary. But let's go in the headlines here because Reuters has an exclusive. Apparently this was actually behind closed doors a lot, a lot tougher. It was going to be a lot tougher. Kennedy's health officials explored a U.S. ban on some widely used end in precedent. So they were trying to ban them instead of just helping clinicians taper people off. They just wanted them out of here. So this looks like a halfway maybe agreement that happened there. But anytime Kennedy makes a move, you have the media do this. And you can see this headline here. Psychiatrists say RFKA Jr.'s take on SSRIs is an oversimplication of the problem.

Well, I'll push back on that and say it's actually our federal regulators that have allowed this culture to come in that have oversimplified this culture. What am I talking about? Well, let's look at SSRIs. And let's look at really just a new study that came out. And this is it right here. prenatal serotonin reuptake inhibitor exposure and maternal depression symptoms are associated with altered fetal brain function basically what they're saying is when mothers are taking SSRIs or prescribed them the fetuses the babies in utero looking at MRI studies are shown to have altered brain and placental alterations the brain is not actually the brain volume is down in key regions and we have dr adam urato he was on the FDA's expert panel just last year trying to get a black box warning on these drugs for pregnant women. He said this on X about this study. He said, FDA must warn

the public. With this new study, there are now 13, yes, 13 consecutive MRI studies showing that SSRIs alter fetal brain development. He lists them below. He says, this is scientific agreement, common sense, basic science, and animals and human studies all show this. So it's not just a drug to help people. And sometimes it may not do that. I've seen that headline. We've talked about this a little bit. And You know, it's one of those perceptive things. I just thought who, I guess, for those mothers that are, I guess, depressed by being pregnant, they're going on SSRIs. That's sort of my brain thought, like, how big is that group of people when you look at this?

But when you look at Danielle Ganski, who's going to come up later and you realize how many, what Bobby's talking about, all of these girls that start at a young age in school and college, they can't get off of these things. So there's a whole generation that are getting pregnant and they're already on it. they can't get off. You know, if they do, they have these in crazy withdrawal. So what do they do and how's that affecting pregnancy? I just realized this has got to be a gigantic number, and I know you're

about to get into some of these numbers, but my perspective of just a headline has changed knowing that it's not like people are like, oh, I just started because I'm pregnant. It's like I've been on this since I was 13. Right, right. And no matter what the size

of that group is, any size is, too big for that type of adverse reaction without informed consent. Let's go to some other, you know, harms, issues, adverse reactions, whatever we call them. Here's another one. Here's the study. Let's look at this. Incidents of sexual dysfunction associated with antidepressant agents. It looks at over a thousand outpatients and it says this. The overall incidence of sexual dysfunction was 59.1% when all antidepressants were considered as a whole. Men had a higher frequency of sexual dysfunction, 62.4% than women, 56.9%, although 1,000, women had higher severity. Kind of a big deal if you're putting kids as young as seven on SSRIs

and, you know, 50 to 60 percent of them may have never be able to connect with anybody in the future, their husband, their wife, maybe informed consent on that. In fact, the European Medicines Agency actually took that somewhat seriously in 2019 after petitioners, researchers, and, you know, people that are harmed by this, force them, force their hand. Here's the actual new product information wording. from 2019 for SSRIs and SNRIs. It says they may cause symptoms of sexual dysfunction. There have been reports of long-lasting sexual dysfunction where the symptoms have continued despite discontinuation. So think about that. You stop the drug and all of a sudden...

Over 50% Jeffrey. You didn't just say, I mean, huge problems, huge adverse events when we look at vaccines. It's like 1%, 2%, 5%, it's like off the Richter's skill. 15, forget about it. One and two is having sexual dysfunction issues and what's happening? I mean, I would imagine if a parent's like, you know, giving it to their seven-year-old, like, well, they're not sexual right now anyway, not aware that your child's never coming off of this. They're on this the rest of their life. So that 50%, you're basically turning your child into a eunuch here. You're deciding that for them at seven years old. Yeah, yeah, absolutely. And they're not getting informed consent. They'll never have that form of connection that is a natural form of connection everyone else would have, naturally.

And the FDA had the same choice to do this. Around the same time as the European Medicines Agency, there was a citizen's petition, they ignored it. And what happened? They were taken to court. Here's the headline here, just from last year. FDA sued over inaction on citizens' petition. And it goes on to say the request of revision

seeks to warn of the drugs risk of sexual side effects, which may persist after stopping SSRIs. It may even be permanent. The petition was filed six years ago. The FDA has neither granted nor denied it. So here's here's, here's, is the issue with the agencies, the federal agencies, and Kennedy clearly is working to try to change this. But it's so known right now, just this one side effect that New York Times is actually

doing some good reporting on that. Here's one of the headlines here. More teens are taking anti-presidents. It could disrupt their sex lives for years. This is an open secret. And again, I go back to the oversimplication. It's not just Kennedy. This is our federal regulators that said these are safe and effective, just rare side effects here and there. Let's talk about the the entire basis for the serotonin theory of depression, the entire basis these drugs were developed on. This is the study that just came out a couple years ago, reported on it several times. They looked at an umbrella review. They looked at all the evidence out there, and they came to this conclusion. Our comprehensive review of the major strands of research on serotonin

shows there is no convincing evidence that depression is associated with or caused by lower serotonin concentrations or activity. They don't know how it works. They're making drugs for it, putting people on it. They don't really understand the serotonin system. does something with some people, but we don't know. So why are we banging this drum here? Well, AI is coming, and we continue to do reports on this, and it's going to take the status quo, and it's going to accelerate it. We need to change the status quo, because AI is coming in really quick. Here's what's happening in Utah. AI chatbot prescribing psychiatric medication raises red flags, you think? Let's go into this article here. The state's Department of Commerce

entered into a one-year agreement with the telehealth company, Legion Health in March. Utah said, it is waiving professional licensing requirements will forego enforcement during the pilot, so as long as the company adheres to the state rules for telehealth providers. Okay, what could go wrong there? They quote, John Torres, he's a doctor, he's the director of the Digital Psychiatry Division of Beth Israel Dignan's Medical Center here in Boston. He said he's concerned that the program is being tested on state residents. Well, I think we're all concerned about that, John.

And he says this, quote, it seems like no one has done even basic research on this. He told Medscape medical news. Do patients want it? Do clinicians want it? Will it be useful? Where does it work? Where does it not work? What is it good at?

What is it bad at? We don't know, but we're going to find out. And how fast are we going to find out? It says in this article, under the company's agreement with the state, the first 250 refill requests, must be reviewed by a licensed physician before the prescription is sent to the pharmacy. The following 1,000 requests undergo retrospective review by a clinician, and thereafter, AI system is monitoring. AI system is fully in control. So, I mean, you got to think about, what's that, 1,250 prescription refills. I don't know, how fast does Utah go through that in a

week, a day? So at that point, they're just unleashing AI prescribing psychiatric medication refills for a year. Really, no human review at that point. What could go wrong? Well, hopefully someone could do something about this. And it seemed like the FDA was maybe on its way of doing that. We saw these headlines now about Maritime. Marty McCari, the now former head of the FDA. McCarrie is out as FDA Commissioner. We see headlines like this. Trump's FDA chief is out after angering pharmacy

CEOs vaping lobbyists and anti-abortion activists. Well, for the first two, that's where he was put in there to do, put some friction on Big Pharma and vaping lobbyists. So Donald Trump released the text. Marty McCari allegedly sent him upon his resignation. And he put this on true social. It says this during my tenure, Marty McCarrie. He says, I announced 50, 50, 50 major FDA reforms.

Joe Biden's FDA had none. He says, I'm extremely proud that we reduce drug review times from a year to one to two months. He said that put forward new guidance to advance psychedelics, introduce a new plausible mechanism for rare disease drugs and change estrogen labels and tell women the truth about menopausal hormone replacement. These are all great things. We're hoping that whoever is put in that position now moving forward is going to continue this pressure on industry.

It has to happen with artificial intelligence coming in. The status quo needs to change rapidly. Well, what's amazing, Jeffrey? And I've been saying it if you are a doctor out there, you made a big mistake when you sort of allowed yourself to become just nothing more than a drug pusher, which is what most medicine is now. You've been reduced to just doling out drugs. You don't have actual solutions.

You're not talking about, you know, cause. You're just talking about symptoms. And it's one drug. Well, that didn't work. Try another drug. Still side effects. We'll just give you this drug plus that one plus to take care of the side effects. And that's what you've become. That's what medicine has become. And medicine, as I've said, is about to get ice cold. It's going to get so inhuman because those doctors are all losing their jobs.

This is just they'll push back for a little bit. Jeffrey, you know how this goes. But unfortunately for like everyone in medicine, especially the doctors, the big beer, the ones that make the money, the big hospital owners, all this, they don't want to pay for employees that they don't have. do. AI can deal drugs just as well as any doctor, probably better. So the days are numbered. Honestly, I think that the medical profession is going to be one of the most ravaged by AI will certainly have some serious issues to it. I hope what it does is drive people into

human health, you know, where human beings touchy like chiropractors, acupuncturists, massage therapists, where they actually are going to talk about, the root cause and work with you and you'll have eyeballs in the room instead of a digital readout that's just telling you what the computer thinks you should do. It's just, it's inevitable. I don't really see the purpose in doctors. They don't have any understanding. They're not detectives. They are literally just doctor Googles himself. They're saying, what does the CDC say? Or what does pharma say? What is the last drug, you know, pusher came in here, tell me is the new drug I'm supposed to give out? That's all they're doing. It's not real talent to that.

But anybody can do that, especially AI. And as we're speaking, absolutely, and as we're speaking about the science, many people in America were kind of holding their breath this week, waiting for the indictment of Anthony Fauci. That didn't happen. We got a door prize, consolation prize. We got Paul Thorson. Here's the Department of Justice.

This is their press release. Autism researcher extradited from Germany to face federal charges of stealing CDC grant money. Let's go on into this press release. It says, according to U.S. Attorney Hetzberg, the charges and other information presented in court. From 2009, the CDC Division of Birth Effects and Developmental Disabilities, awarded over 11 million to two governmental agencies in Denmark to study the relationship between autism and exposure to vaccines. Kind of a big deal. In 2002, Thorson, who had worked as a visiting scientist at the CDC when it was soliciting

the grant applications became responsible for administering the research money awarded by the CDC. Well, that's a problem. And I want to bring people back to Bill Posey from Florida, really grilling heads of the FDA about Thorson at the time that this embezzlement happened and this criminality happened, trying to really stop it at that point. Take a look at this. All right. Clearly, definitely, unequivocally, you have studied vaccinated versus unvaccinated. We have not studied vaccinated versus unvaccinated. That was, okay, never mind. Just stop there. That was the meaning of my question. You wasted two minutes of my time. What steps is the CDC undertaken to ensure the integrity of the research that was performed by Dr. Thorson, who, as you know, has been indicted for misconduct and misallocation of resources? So, Dr. Thorson, who was a co-investigator on a couple of studies that came out on autism, was really just one

investigator. And that body of evidence related to vaccines and autism. Have you gone back to validate the variety of studies he participated in? I mean, you know this guy is a humongous scumbag, one of the most wanted men on earth, and you relied upon him for data to determine whether thimerosal had a negative effect? So two studies don't conclude a body of work. The body of work that's related to the relating vaccines to autism is a large collection of studies? You told me you only had two studies relating to vaccines, vaccinated and unvaccinated, so you must figure two studies must have some weight. In the course of answering this,

one of the witnesses told me that the fugitive doctor had been involved in a couple studies with CDC. And I have information here that he was involved in 21 of the 24 studies. And I would like to submit that to the record, Mr. Chairman. Without objections to order. Thank you. Wow. Just for people that maybe are seeing that for the first time, I think that was the Dan Burton hearings, really important hearings. Bill Posey has been, I don't know if that was Dan Burton, but it was very important hearings.

Colleen Boyle was one of the worst scientists ever hired by CDC. She came in, you know, she was originally hired to cover up Agent Orange, all of the military that were having sicknesses from having been around the Agent Orange that was dropped in Vietnam. She was brought in by the CDC to refute their claims and make sure they didn't get paid out. That is the beginning of her career. It ends somewhere around here where she is a part of the autism cover up. And the science she's pointing to, 21 of the 24 studies, none of them Vax versus unvaccinated studies, which would be the only way to really get to the bottom of this. You have Paul Thorson, a known fugitive liar and bezler in the middle of those.

So really, really important to understand what you're looking at. at there. Yeah, and I want to say too, Bill Posey, he was just a rock for this entire community of autism families and he really pushed this forward in government. He was a true voice of the people and we got word that he passed recently, so I just want to give, you know, yeah, a big thanks to all the work he did and I think we're better off because of everything he did in government. And, you know, going back to, I think, what was it, the giant scumbag, slime ball. I don't know what he called Thorson, but looking at Thorson,

he did author some papers here, somewhat relevant papers to our audience. Look at this one here. This is the New England Journal of Medicine. Not a small outlet. A population-based study of measlesel months rebella vaccination and autism. And shockingly, it says, in conclusion, the study provides strong evidence against the hypothesis that MMR vaccination causes autism. Oh my gosh. And then here's another one, thomiricol in the occurrence of autism. And of course, same outcome on that one. So at this point, he is a criminal. He's been indicted. He's been extradited to the United States. He's facing charges and facing trial. There is a lot. I mean, we spend a whole show on the evidence of people that have been indicted and charged for criminality who's had their papers retracted.

And just like Bill Posey said, 21 papers have to deal with autism. So this is a body of evidence that Thorson is involved in. Let's look at just a couple examples here. People who've had their papers indicted because of embezzlement and other criminality. Here's Aaron Kant. She had 15 papers retracted. She was a pulmonary physiology researcher. Here's another one, Melena Penkawa, again from Denmark, nine retractions.

She's a neuroscientist, embezzlement, document forgery, fabrication of evidence. So this is, it's a precedent. And I think Thorson is well in this space of a precedent to have these papers at least extremely scrutinized, if not retracted at this point, because it was criminal activity. And that'll be the end of the molehill or mound of evidence they had. We hear about the mountain, of course, Aaron, Syria has already had on the stand, Dr. Stanley Plotkin, the highest ranking scientists on this issue, admitting he doesn't have science that shows the D-TAP vaccine, for instance, doesn't cause autism. We've had Catherine Edwards, the co-author

on the vaccine Bible that Plotkin put out. She admits multiple vaccines, no science that shows that they don't cause autism. We have absolutely want to, you know, talk about, you know, debunking a lie. We have debunked that lie. And now the last little remaining sliver that they were clinging to, we are indicting and, you know, going to put on trial the man behind all. of that for just ridiculous science. So I like our position, Jeffrey. You know, I was just talking to my sister. We've come a long way in the last 10 years. I remember talking about Paul Thorson with Andy Wakefield when we were making faxed. And here we are. We used to be, you know, it seemed like we were fringe then. Now more and more senators are opening up and

realizing the CIA lied to them during COVID. More and more people are questioning vaccines. nine out of ten people aren't getting their booster shot for the COVID vaccine. You have to imagine pharma and its controls on this world is clinging to the very edge of a cliff. And we're just about to put our boot and push them off the edge with everything that's going on right now. It's an exciting time. You know, one of the things that I want to talk here about an injection. A lot of people have been writing to our show to talk about, ask us to talk about this to research it. And we're seeing in the headlines now.

And I say an injection, it's not a injection. vaccine. It's an injection that a lot of parents that have newborn children, this is probably the first injection they face from the medical community, the choice they have to make. And here's the headline out of a local Fox News affiliate, Vitamin K shot refusal at birth linked to rise in infant bleeding deaths report. Well, this is the vitamin K shot, of course. And, well, let's just start here. Why would someone refuse, again, not a vaccine, just a vitamin shot. Why would someone refuse that for their newborn? Well, let's go. go into the package insert of this shot and let's look as just read it. Here's a black box

warning right at the top. It says warning in capital letters, hypersensitivity reactions with intervenuous and intemuscular use. And you go down and you read there, it says fatal hypersensitivity reactions including anaphylaxis have occurred during the immediate and immediately after intervenuous and intemuscular injection of vitamin K injection. Well, you go down a little further into this package insert and you see this section 5.4. for aluminum toxicity. It says warning, again, in capital letters. This product contains aluminum that may be toxic. Illumum may reach toxic levels with prolonged perinatal administration of kidney function is impaired. So there's just a couple reasons that parents may want to be

cautious and have been cautious in the past. But let's look at this Fox News headline because it seems concerning and it says a report. Well, where did they get this report? Well, it's from Publica. An outlet's done good work. We've reported on them before. We reported on what their findings were. Well, look at this headline. Babies are bleating. Leading to death as parents reject a vitamin shot given at birth. Well, it's kind of a shocking headline. You go into this article, let's look at this paragraph. It says in 2024, for example, more than 700 newborns died from spontaneous bleeding

in their brains, which could have been complicated by liver disease or prematurity. Still, six medical specialists and one official at the CDC said meaningful portions of those deaths likely were caused by vitamin K deficiency. Okay, there's a little bit to unpack here. So first thing we'll talk about is 24. I'll read that line again. I mean, I hope we're teaching you how to have a red flag go off, right? Now, I want you to imagine you've caught your kid with their hand in the cookie jar,

and they're about to explain to you that it wasn't them that took the cookie. You know how that sounds, right? A lot of maybes and ifs, ands, or buts. Listen to this. Still, six medical specialists we do not name, and one official at the CDC, and someone who called themselves the brothers, you know, of the sister of the guy that said, I mean, come on, that isn't science.

That isn't even reporting. What a joke that is. So, okay, a few people have suggested that perhaps maybe under certain circumstances, okay, we got it. So, bull's an article is what we're talking about. Sorry, I just, I had to call it what it is. Go ahead. And it's appeal to authority too.

So first of all, there's no, it's that more than 700 newborns. So there's no link, there's no hyperlink, there's no footnote. No one can really verify that, just we said. And then, well, how important is that? Well, we have some experts appeal to authority. We're not going to name the experts. Just trust us. We talk to experts and they said there's a meaningful, likely, possibly situation.

So let's just go right to the federal data. So the CDC actually tracks this data. So newborns inner cranial bleeding, you go to CDC Wonder, that's their data. set collection and you put in P52. This is the code, the ICD10 code for intercranial bleeding for newborns. That's non-traumatic and you pull up the numbers. Interestingly, they only have 2017 to 2023 so no 2024 numbers. So ProPlovica don't know where they're getting this but it's interesting and we take those numbers and we graph them. So in 2017 you can see here it's about 319

2018 it goes all the way to 2023 where there's about 271 so if you look at this graph for P52 inter-caranial bleeding, not traumatic for newborns, you would say, most likely that there's a downward trend. Okay, well, their article headline for ProPublica said, parents are refusing, the vitamin K shot is causing this. Well, let's look at a study in 2025 that really tracks this. This is the trends, 2025 trends in vitamin K administration among infants, and you can see this graph here of refusals. And you can see it is going up slightly. Interestingly, 2020, 2018, 2019, something happened there. It wasn't Kennedy. It wasn't COVID. Something kicked off this trend. We don't know what it was. But let's take those numbers from this

study of refusals and let's plot them against what the CDC is telling us from 2017 to 20203 that have been these numbers of intercranial bleeding deaths like ProPublica told us. And you see a chart here. In the orange are the refusals and the blue line that's trending downward are the non-traumatic hemorrhaging, intercranial hemorrhaging of the newborns. One could come to a conclusion looking at this chart that the more refusals actually brings it down. Now, we're not saying that, but these are the numbers. Certainly not what's being written to that article. And I also want to point out, Jeffrey, for those watching, we put up these graphs,

I really rarely tell you, we have a team of scientists that do this work for us. You're not going to find that graph on the site. we had a team that goes in. They find that, you know, that code was it P52. They get all of those numbers. They abstract those numbers. They do the mathematical equations to graph them out. Then they find out.

Then they go on, we find the articles that show the discussion on when this trend started. All of that's being put together. Again, you really can't imagine how much work goes into doing the show. And I don't really, we talk about Aaron. We talk about our great staff here. I just want to give a shout out to our scientists and mathematicians that bring us these powerful graphs that help us understand, you know, how much baloney is really going on in these articles. So there it is. It's trending down, not up, but okay. Yeah, and let's look at the science. Let's put that aside for a second. Let's look at the science of the vitamin K shot and the other ways vitamin K can be administered.

Here's a Cochrane collaboration. This is one of the most respected independent research organizations in the world. This is a look at all the literature from 2000. So a little while back, but regardless, they looked at prophylactic vitamin K for vitamin K deficiency bleeding in neonates. So it says this. Oral vitamin K improved biochemical indices of coagulation, because that's what vitamin K does. It stops bleeding, it clots blood, status at one to seven days. That's that critical window for classical hemorrhagic neonate bleeding. There was no evidence of a difference between the oral and intermedent.

muscle route in effects of biochemical indices of coagulation status. So you can take the shot or you can take oral drops, basically. A single oral compared with a single intemuscular dose resulted in lower plasma vitamin K levels at two weeks and at one month, whereas a three-dose oral schedule resulted in higher plasma vitamin K levels at two weeks and at two months than did the single intramuscular dose. So what it's saying there at that last sentence is you can take the shot, you can take a single dose by mouth. But when they looked at that weeks on end, They were actually having these infants who are actually having lower plasma vitamin K levels. This is not really what you want.

But they're saying if you have a three dose, and this is just common sense, if you spread it out over a longer period of time, you're going to have a higher plasma level. But this is all just research. Now let's look at actual on-the-ground data from people who have been doing this. This is a study out of Denmark, and they looked at weekly oral vitamin K prophylaxis. And it says this, a total of 507,850 live babies were born in Denmark during the study. study period, and that gives it November 1992 to June 22,000. Of these infants, 78% and 22% received oral and intramuscular prophylaxis, respectively. So it's saying there's 78% of those

over 500,000 babies were, the parents were saying, I want to do the oral vitamin K, which is interesting. Only 22% did the intramuscular shot. And it said weekly oral prophylaxis was recommended for all infants as long as they were mainly breastfed. But it goes on to report. No cases of vitamin K deficiency bleeding were revealed. None. This is getting an idea how rare this is the incidence was 0 to 0.9 per 100,000. A dose of vitamin K was regarded as having been given if the infant received a drop of vitamin K or was mostly formula fed that week because it's supplemented in the formula. And the prophylaxis was regarded as completed if the infant had received at least nine doses. So obviously they're expending that out a little further than just right when they're born. But let's build on what the Cockham collaboration did from the year 2000.

We have a study from 2021 that, again, pulled in all the literature, looked at everything on this subject, and the analysis, it called it analysis that the available research, vitamin K prophylaxis and newborns. And it said this, all newborns should receive vitamin K prophylaxis. As it has been proven that oral and intramuscular prophylactic vitamin K given after birth are effective for preventing classical HDM, that's hemorrhagic disease of the newborn. From older trials and surveillance data, it seems that there is no significant difference between the intermuscular and the oral regimens for preventing classical and late HDN, provided

that the oral regimen is duly completed. So big, you know, big conversations for parents here. So like we started this conversation now, why would someone not want to take the shot? Well, we looked at that insert, but why would someone opt to not do the oral vitamin K? Well, for newborn's liver disease, pre-matured, newborns, if they have an illness that delays their gut absorption and nutrient absorption, that's contraindicated for that oral vitamin K. Also for mothers who are taking enzyme-inducing drugs or warfarin that is actually doing the opposite of the clotting.

So that could be one of the reasons to avoid the oral K if you're medically indicated for those. But it's the first medical intervention, really not hepatitis B, but this vitamin K shot that parents are coming in contact with from. medical providers and hospitals because it's not a vaccine because it's considered a vitamin hospitals, bioethicists at the hospitals are often quicker to pull the trigger on child protective services if parents opt out of everything and just say I don't want anything I'm leaving. Here's a headline right this was just a couple years ago. Doctors took a newborn baby from her

parents after they refused vitamin K shot for her. Now the couple is suing the hospital. So there's big consequences on the line here. Our legal team gets calls about this often as well, what to do in these cases. And we're not here to give advice, tell you what to do, but just do your research on this. This is a big conversation that we're having. Well, I will say, Jeffrey, you just did some pretty good research. So did the medical science team that you work with and put this all together? That is one of the biggest things people ask me about.

What about the vitamin K shot? I had a reporter recently just asked me, what are your thoughts on the vitamin K? It really, we haven't done a deep dive on that. So I'm really thankful for that information. Jeffrey looks like, in most circumstances, at least when I look at that, oral seems like you don't have the aluminum, you're not injecting it. Why take that risk? There's zero risk to go with an oral dose, but obviously consult with your doctor and scientists. But really great information there.

And I just want to say to everyone watching, you know, when we get done with the show, when you come back, you know, within a couple days, we've cut out all these different sections. This is one of those, I swear, you're going to want to just grab that clip and send it. to everyone you know that's pregnant because it's going to be a huge question they're going to have. So, Jeffrey, thank you for doing that really deep dive. And we'll see you next week. Keep up the good work. All right, you bet. Thank you so much.

All right. Just really briefly, I want to address that last headline. You know, someone having their baby taken away from them because they didn't get the vitamin K shot. You know, we get a lot of calls like this for all sorts of different. reasons. I usually forward them off to Siri and Glimstad to Aaron Siri and his team to see if someone might need some legal help in this situation. I really can't tell you how to live your life, but I would like to just say when you're in a hospital, when you're talking to a doctor, it's not really a time to get into a debate over the value of vaccines or the value of vitamin K. You really just want to move through that process, use them for their expertise that they do have. have and and move on. People that go in just announcing to the world that they, you know, aren't vaccinating their child. I mean, can't tell you how many problems that can create. Also, things like vitamin K, don't wait till you're in the hospital to make that decision. That's

why I think reports like this are so important when you share it with someone you know that might be about to make this decision. You really, this is what you, when you're, you know, if you're out there and you're thinking of having a baby or you're in that process, this is what you want to test in the practitioner you're going to. I'm thinking of going with an oral vitamin K. What do you think of that? Get that conversation out of the way because it's like, oh, I wouldn't allow that.

Then you know it's time to find another practitioner while you still have time. Because if you get in that argument inside of the hospital, now that person might get defensive. And then you get a child protective services call, and now you're in a hole. You cannot imagine. I'm telling you.

You don't think this is happening. You can't imagine how often this is happening. I just heard a story. of someone, you know, who's, you know, 10-year-old or so had a cough. They decided it was been too long to get a culture. And then suddenly the question started, did they get their whipping cough vaccine? In fact, we'd like to see all of their medical records. And now the health department's involved.

And now the, you know, the person, one of the people in the family had decided that the best way to keep them in school in the state they were in, was to just sort of forge those documents. Well, well, how are they in school? You know, do not think that, I mean, I know we, we, we. We go through things. We don't take it seriously. We're kind of like screw them, screw the system. Well, when you're screwing the system, I would really recommend that you take a moment and think, worst case scenario, how does this go wrong?

Because the last thing you ever want to do is give the state or the government or the health department or CPS an excuse to take your child away or to put you behind bars. So please, you know, I'm not going to ever tell you sort of how to do things, but run that worst-case scenario because there are people that are experiencing it today as we speak and you don't ever want to find yourself in that position. It's why I recommend if you have children that are school age and you're dealing with that horrible situation, I love the people that stand in fighting those states, but frankly, I left California. Once I feel like my way of life is considered illegal by these lunatics, I'm going to move where it's not run by lunatics, where the way I want to

raise my kids is not illegal. There's no 25-foot wall around New York or or California. I think you have to think about these things when you think about how you're raising your kids. And what you should be thinking about if you're in one of those five states that you don't have those rights is, are you donating enough

to those that are fighting for you in courtrooms? This is what we do. I am trying to make sure that that whole map is just gold. That it's just golden wherever you live, not some red states where literally they could take your kids, away from you or put you behind bars because you don't want to inject aluminum into your day one

old baby. It's insane that we find ourselves in this situation. But no one is more successful. No one has more important lawsuits going on. No one has won back a religious exemption anywhere in this country except us. I can. Really, you and the high wire and ultimately Aaron Siri who does this work for us. You can't imagine how. how important and really until that day comes, then you realize, oh my God, this really was important. This is what we're doing. We are fighting for parental rights, for children's rights, for military rights, which is exactly what we have discovered in our legal update this week. Breaking U.S. military disability claims rose sharply after COVID-19 vaccines were mandated. They have the best

records there are in the world. They actually really track what every human beings doing in the military and recently acquired data, which we got through FOIA, clearly shows an alarming spike in cardiovascular neurological conditions amongst U.S. military personnel starting in 2021. The first year COVID-19 vaccines were mandated for all branches of the U.S. armed forces. Additionally, new evidence shows that as many as 598,000 service members may have experienced adverse events from the COVID-19 vaccines. You can be assured, look at the, look at these rates, active duty. These are all the different issues that went up, myocarditis, paraciditis.

They all look at, you can look at those years, and all of a sudden, huh, very interesting, all of those things skyrocket. They're pretty even. Look at that until 2021, then boom, it all shoots up. I mean, you can't get evidence stronger than that. We're going to do everything we can to make sure that Pete Heggseth sees that data. He's already, you know, talked about the flu shot. We want him talking about every shot that the military is being forced to take.

And we'll probably bring lawsuits in the future in regards to that. Standing up for our best, our brightest is what we do. I'm talking about the military and I'm talking about your children. So I really hope you'll take this opportunity right now to consider the fact that we can double your money today. We have an incredible match that's going through June 30th. We're trying to raise $1.5 million from you because it immediately turns into $3 million. That may seem like a lot of money, but you should put 90 cases in courtrooms around this country and say we're not walking away from these cases no matter how long you try to stall it. This is an expensive

work we're doing and it's only made possible by you. All of these wins are yours. You are the informed consent action network. And so you make it possible for us to make these announcements to have these incredible victories. So I hope you'll be, you know, donate right now. It's really easy. You can just go to the top of the page to highwire.com. Click donate to ICANN. Become a recurring donor is awesome. But if you just want to put in a giant match on that fund, you can do that too. you see the work, you see this show, you see the science, you see the graphs, you see Jeffrey Jackson. It's a one-stop shop here of truth, transparency, and we're streaming all of these incredible events that are happening in Washington, D.C., that no one else in media is covering.

So I hope you'll help us keep this work going. This is really an important time. I just want you to think about this. When you think about these stories, when you think about your rights, when you think about child protective services. When you think about the fact that not a single Democrat thought there was any interest in a whistleblower in the CIA talking about what Tony Fauci knew or didn't know and what the scientists really did know and what their publications were supposed to say when it came down to COVID, now think about this. It could literally be the next election that one of those people that didn't show up for that Senate hearing is your president of the United States.

So when you go, oh my God, Europe is losing their right to free speech, people are being arrested for just simply putting out a Facebook post. It looks like the EU is making all his decisions. The head of Germany has a deal with Pfizer. Guess what happens? The very next president could say, we love all that. That's now the mandate for America. The only thing that will help us in that moment is the law. The law that's being set right now, the precedence being set right now in the lawsuits that we're,

we were bringing. Do you want to see us bring all of them or just some of them? Should we just take a rain check on that and kick the can down the road and we'll deal with that when it comes? Because we really did such a good job during COVID. See how easily it was to not wear your mask, to get on planes, on buses, to go to work? I know you thought, well, wow, I'll stand up to the system. We couldn't. Now is when we stand up. Now is when we make the difference. Now is when we win the lawsuits. Now is when we build the impenetrable fortress. They cannot take down. That's what I can's doing.

We're America's public health watchdog, and you are making all of that possible. All right. Brace yourself for yet another incredible lie that is being forced upon families across this country. This lie that we can make your

kid better by adjusting their serotonin levels. It's happening at astronomical rates, but don't take my word for it. They're even admitting it in the news. Long-term use of antidepressants is on the rise in the United States. Over 11% of U.S. adults took medication for depression in 2023, and those numbers have only increased in the past two years. The American Academy of Pediatric shows the rate of antidepressants being prescribed to young people took off, but it was already growing before that. But what happens when a patient comes off antidepressants? About one in six people will experience.

withdrawal symptoms. I'm waiting off of an SSRI that I've been on since I was like 12, and it is horrible, and I'm just like really curious if anyone else has had this experience. We don't have clear guidelines as far as how to come off of these. And the withdrawal itself can actually cause anxiety and depression, which is the whole reason people take those drugs in the first place. My doctor tapered me off in just six weeks, which was far too fast. What followed was a severe full-body neurological crisis,

crisis, a nonstop living nightmare of physical and psychological torment. Unfortunately, most doctors do not recognize this as a late onset side effect of SSRI medications. And so they tell patients they have treatment resistant depression and they just stack more and more drugs on top of it. We've been blindsided, betrayed and maimed by the industry that we were told and instructed to trust. And now we've been offered no way back to our lives or humanities. But part of the problem is that the majority of those persons, experts who are prescribing

medications don't know much about mental health. Well, one of the beautiful voices in that news montage, Daniel Ganski, joins me now. Danielle, thanks for taking the time to join us today. Thank you so much for having me. I'm really grateful to be here and bring awareness to so much of this harm that's been hidden for so long. You were just a part of a great event that Maha Institute hosted. And I think I met you at another Maha Institute meeting just recently, and I heard your story,

and I really wanted you to share it. I want to point out that we would love to have been able to fly you out here and have you in person, but traveling is so difficult for you. Just tell me what happens when you try to travel, because we obviously didn't want to induce any more harm, but what's it like to travel? I mean, someone at your age should just be able to travel wherever they want. Yeah, so that's really difficult for me. me with all these health issues that antidepressants have caused for me. When I travel, my body

starts to shake. I just get in these almost like this neurological storm of like toxic flu-like significant pain and inner agitation and my nervous system just starts malfunctioning and I get burning sensations throughout my whole body. I'm just so sensitized that even little things like My mom sprayed some hair spray this morning, and that just made me feel so sick. I'm just so sensitive. Let's talk about, you know, when you first started SSRIs. How old were you? Yeah, so I was prescribed psychiatric medications at just seven years old.

It started in school after a teacher noticed I was a bit fidgety, easily distracted in second grade. So the school suggested that my parents take me to see a psychiatrist to be evaluated for ADHD. Looking back now, these were completely normal childhood behaviors and very quickly I was diagnosed with ADHD and I was started on a stimulant medication like Ritalin. Almost immediately, the very happy, sweet, silly girl that I had always been began to disappear because these drugs were very stimulating and I became agitated and moody and angry and angry and it was just completely out of character. So these adverse effects that the medications, you know, the adverse effects from the medication

were mistaken for worsening mental health problems. And then more drugs were prescribed to treat the very symptoms the drugs themselves had caused. So this spiraled into a cascade actually of antidepressants, benzos, mood stabilizers, and antipsychotics all before I was even 10 years old. And, you know, I was ripped off one drug. put on another, you know, my, I think what's most important, my parents were never given the full information needed to make a truly informed decision on my behalf before taking

these powerful psychoactive substances and the consequences of that failure have been devastating, not only for me, but for the millions of other young people who were placed on these drugs that were never properly studied for long-term use in developing brains. Could you, I haven't really had this opportunity and I, you know, and tell me to stop, but what does Ridland feel like? What did Ridland do for you? Like, do you remember, I mean, oh, it's, you know, as a child, like you said it, it made you agitated, which is a side effect of someone doing cocaine or meth or anything else like that, right? I mean, yes. Yes. And you're constantly on it, right? It's not like, oh, I'm down, let me take something. You're altering yourself to a perpetual

state of this stimulant, correct? Absolutely. I mean, it basically is kind of meth and it would cause this really intense high in the morning. It would make me really jittery and chatty, just like not very, it wasn't very natural, but then I would crash at the end of the day, like coming down from this unnatural state and I would just become a monster and what it would do to my body and how I would feel I would feel I would just yeah I would just turn into a monster I'd be yelling at my mom screaming at everyone it was so not like me um it was too much for my nervous system it was too much and nowhere in there did the doctor say maybe we've made a mistake I think that's a side effect the religious pull her back let's get back to where she's just you know what was it fidgety

Why don't we just go back to fidgety instead of raging monster, right? That seems like it would have been the smarter decision, right? But instead, he calls it a psychosis, and he's the one causing it with the prescription. Exactly. It was actually induced by the medications. So throughout my teenage years, actually, whenever I told the doctors how awful I felt, what I now understand were actually symptoms of these. adverse effects, I was told was my anxiety or my mental illness getting worse. I was diagnosed

with OCD and anxiety. And they said, you need to raise the dose of the antidepressant to treat it effectively. Like, every concern I raised was interpreted as proof that I was sicker rather than any recognition that the medicines themselves might be contributing to what I was experienced. And I was actually told that I had a chemical imbalance in my brain that needed to be corrected it with the medication. Of course, I now know this narrative of the chemical imbalance was never scientifically proven in the way millions of patients were led to believe, although it was a brilliant, effective marketing campaign pushed by drug companies, but the reality is these are powerful psychoactive substances that alter brain chemistry in ways we still don't fully understand. They're not

targeted cures for a scientific proven chemical abnormality. What do these benzos and these SSRIs, how do they feel? What are those doing to you when you're taking them? Yeah, so at one point in high school, I was actually prescribed such heavy doses of Xanax that I could barely wake up, let alone make it to school. I missed so many days that I actually nearly faced truancy

until my psychiatrist had a medically excuse my absences. There was periods, periods, where I felt emotionally flattened, numb, zombie-like, and other times from the stimulant medications that had these intense psychoactive effects where I felt wired, panicked, unable to sleep. I was down to 90 pounds at one point and generally felt like I was losing my mind.

And I think it's really in college where it became a real tipping point for me as I got older when I started to wake up and question the effects these drugs were having on me. Like, what if these medications are contributing to why I feel? so unwell. But unfortunately, I was always shot down by my doctor. You know, I would bring my concerns to him and he was just like, no, these fears were simply symptoms of my anxiety and OCD, and I actually

need higher doses of the esteri. I was completely gaslit. And the very harm that I was told could never happen is ultimately the harm that I ended up living through. It's absolutely unbelievable. So you find yourself in college, you know, I don't mean to be crass, but frankly, you hadn't been sober since seven years old. I mean, you know, it's a, we, we bust kids that go and buy this stuff for themselves as drug addicts, but as long as it's being prescribed, it's okay. You know, your parents are being gaslit. They can't figure out what's going on.

So when did you decide that you wanted to sort of make an attempt to just get off these drugs? How did that happen? Yeah, so I was actually 23. This was back in 2019. I decided it's time to come off. I want to see who I am underneath it all. Despite the fact that I had been on these drugs my whole entire life, all while my brain was literally developing. He tapered me off in just six weeks following the standard medical guidance doctors are taught to use. But this is actually far too fast and actually dangerous for most people. And for those who are not aware, there are zero official evidence-based guidelines for safe psychiatric drug tapering.

And the consequences of that failure was a severe life-altering, full-body neurological crisis and a profound brain injury that stole my life and has stolen the lives of so many. The withdrawal was so – it was like being dropped into a living nightmare of nonstop physical, psychological torment. My brain was on fire. Every sound in light and movement felt like an attack on my raw exposed nervous system. I experienced acethesia, which is an extreme chemically induced neurological state of like inner terror, agitation, restlessness. Your body can uncontrollably shake.

That's what you can see in some of those videos. It's really like a form of chemical torture and being alive just simply felt unbearable. And in the middle of this, your mother reaches out to your doctor looking for some guidance, saying it looks like she's having real neurological damage from this. I want to read this. This is going to blow your folks' mind. This is the response from the doctor. Nancy, thanks for the note, there is no credible evidence that SSRIs cause brain damage.

It is clear that there are discontinuation symptoms, which occur if a person stops the medication too abruptly. these resolve in a matter of weeks. Unfortunately, I'm sure that Danielle can find on the internet research quotes that proves in quotes, SSRIs cause brain damage. SISI's cause brain damage. SIE. It sounds as if Daniel's concerns are a symptom of her illness. The same gaslighting you'd had your entire life with everything. It wasn't, couldn't possibly the drugs, it's you. You have an imbalance in a problem. This is just yet another feature. of your psychosis.

Exactly. I went back to my doctor for help and told him, hey, I'm in withdrawal. He dismissed it immediately. I was even told, you know, he said, he said the medication could not be causing those symptoms that this isn't withdrawal. Withdrawals mild and short lived. And I felt completely trapped inside this life-altering crisis that no one around me seemed to understand or believe.

It was profoundly traumatizing to be suffering so severely. while being told the very thing that harmed me could not possibly be the cause. And I tried to explain what was happening to me and my suffering was pathologized and used as evidence that I was mentally unwell. I became bedridden and actually unable to care for myself. And the severity of what was happening was so life-altering that I could no longer function like a normal person in society. I could barely shower or eat.

I lost 20 pounds, the physical, it was just so overwhelming being 24 hours suffering trapped in my body with no escape. I was in and out of emergency rooms, repeatedly gaslit and dismissed. There was no medical support for people going through this because doctors aren't taught about withdrawal and how severe it can be. Was there anyone just telling you it's all in your mind that this was just anxiety that you weren't really having these symptoms like they're doing with COVID, you know, vaccine injury? I mean, it sounds so similar, by the way, to the injuries I hear from COVID vaccine. is a totally different story, but that neurological disorder,

and my experience is when doctors don't really know what they're doing, they then start blaming the patient. Did any of that happen with you? Absolutely. That's the whole time, like the doctor would call my mom and be like, listen, this is her underlying OCD. It's getting worse. She needs to be on this medication.

He had. No, and by the way, he actually, he was more than a psychiatrist. He was a psychopharmacologist, so he should have known better about these drugs. He had absolutely no idea how these drugs truly affect the brain. I mean, it was so shocking. And, you know, I eventually did have to reinstate the antidepressant because the withdrawals were just so severe. So severe.

And then after, you know, a year after that, I really, I was like, okay, I need to come off because the medication itself is making me feel awful, but I can't come off because the withdrawal is so severe. So, you know, I was shocked learning through this process that there's an enormous gap in medical care surrounding antidepressant withdrawal because doctors are trained to prescribe these drugs, but no education on how to help us come off safely. So I actually went to doctor after doctor desperately hoping someone could help me taper off safely but most only knew how to taper through relatively large dose reductions over a few

weeks that exact approach was was what had sent me into withdrawal the first time one psychiatrist actually told me that my desire for a slow taper was itself a symptom of OCD of wanting to precisely count and you know yeah it's I mean it was just so chaotic so with no real medical support I was forced to learn through online patient communities one um It's called surviving antidepressants, which has become a lifeline for millions of people trying to taper off these drugs because the medical system doesn't know how to help them safely come off. And I think what's important to know is pharmaceutical companies don't manufacture doses

small enough for gradual tapering that patients really need to come off. So people are literally forced to become their own pharmacist, counting beads from capsules, cutting their pills with razor blades, weighing tiny doses on scales just to reduce safely. And I, you know, I tried this. I tried making tiny reductions, but even the smallest dose cuts to stabilize my nervous system so severely. So, and it put me right back into withdrawal. And another doctor misinterpreted my symptoms as an underlying mood disorder because doctors

aren't trained in withdrawal. And he prescribed me an antipsychotic, a very heavy hitting one called Zyte. Iprexa. And after taking it, I experienced what felt like a chemical lobotomy. I couldn't, I couldn't speak anymore. I was getting lost in my own house. I had to relearn basic functions. My whole body went completely numb. I couldn't feel any sensation whatsoever. And that was really tough for me because the impairments erased so much of who I was, my creativity, my intelligence, my humor, I felt my emotional range was completely wiped away. And I only took that xiprexia for nine days, but in withdrawal, the nervous system is so sensitized and adding

more drugs on top of that can actually injure you further. And, you know, long story short, after stopping the zyprexia, of course, the antidepressant withdrawal was still so unbearable, so I had to reinstate again just to survive the withdrawals. And fast forward to this, today, I am now 30 years old and I am still trapped on the same antidepressant I was prescribed as a child and I desperately want to come off. But the withdrawal is just so terrible that even microscopic reductions of less than 1% put me into severe withdrawal. So at this point, it might take me 15 years just to come off. So many of these symptoms you talk about and it was part of this Maha Institute's imposing that Secretary Kennedy's

spoke at. There was another beautiful girl, Lauren Friedman, who gave testimony about the sexual dysfunction that's caused by this, another symptom. Let's just take a look at this video for a moment. I'm living with a condition called post-SSRI sexual dysfunction. Sexual dysfunction is one of the most common and reliable side effects of SSRIs. In fact, 50 to 70 percent of all patients taking these will have sexual side effects. What patients are not warned about is that these side effects can be permanent long after you stopped the last drug dose. And PSSD is not just low libido. It is a full nervous system injury in which you lose total sexual function neurologically

through essentially nervous system damage. So the hallmark symptom of PSSD is genital numbness. Yes, like complete loss of sensation in your genitals. For me, I clearly hate to talk about this, but my clitoris is completely numb as if it's the back of my elbow. I have no sensation internally. I'm 23 years old. Suffers also lose the ability to orgasm permanently, like for the rest of their lives,

and their libido entirely, which for me and what a lot of other people experience is like a sudden onset, like chemical asexuality that just never goes away. And in my opinion, I don't think it's sensational to say that this is a form of chemical castration, that it is permanent. But beyond that, PSSD is not just a loss of sexual function, but a loss for some people of emotional function as well. That has been the case for me. day it's been years from me I'm 23 now I can't feel love for my own mother which is the hardest thing on earth I can't feel a connection or love for my friends or even pleasure

and music which was the bane of my existence I was a songwriter since I was a child it was my outlet and it's been completely neurologically severed from these medications um it's this is maybe one is one of the darker stories I've covered, you know, I hear these stories, but to meet you, to hear these, is just incredible. Is there any, are you finding relief anywhere? Is there some light for you? Is there anything that's working?

You know, it really is, with these nervous system injuries, what I'm learning is it really just takes time to heal. There's really nothing you can do. I have tried many things, and I'm so sensitive that everything I try has just set me back. has just set me back and made me worse. You know, I do continue to experience life-altering symptoms that have not gone away. It's not a mild or temporary withdrawal that most people imagine. You know, for many of us, it becomes a long-term neurological injury. And, you know, there are still

periods when I become physically debilitated and bedridden holding on to hope that one day that I will be able to feel like myself again. And, you know, there's times when I become so disoriented it that I follow, it's really scary, but I fall into these delirious dementia-like states where I feel like I'm being poisoned and my mind is just not accessible to me in the way it once was. And I don't have my full emotional range. But, you know, PSSD is a very, you know, it's a very serious permanent, permanent neurological injury that can occur after taking an esterite. It doesn't even go away after the drug is discontinued and out of your body. And PSSD is, you know, and PSSD is sort of an umbrella term because it's far more far reaching.

So then sexual dysfunction, people lose all feeling and sensation in their genitals. But they also, their emotional response is completely shut off. And then they also have severe cognitive impairment and people have no idea that antidepressants in some cases neurologically sever these vital human capacities and core aspects of what it means to be alive. to be alive. You know, these are not minor side effects. These are fundamental neurological systems tied to the very things that make you you. So when these systems become damaged, it can completely upend a person's life. It's like being trapped a prisoner in your own body. And, you know, what's really scary about PSSD, it can even occur after a brief exposure.

It's been documented after one single dose. You know, people can't truly make a decisions before informed decisions before starting SRIs because the full scope of the risk is not anywhere on the warning label. So there's actually no way for patients to know that the general numbness, loss of emotional capacity, cognitive dysfunction, they experience could in some cases be irreversible and they've never adequately studied what long-term sexual or neurological changes may persist even after people stop taking S-3-R-I. So we don't really know to what degree it resolved. You said there's a group that's helping you where you're all speaking to each other.

If someone's watching right now, there's either going through this or they have a child going through this, do you have any websites or anything you'd like to share that you recommend right now that are, you know, helping on some level or at least giving a place where there's community? Absolutely. So for anyone looking to learn more, there's some incredible patient-led organizations doing really important work on this space. So the PSSD network is the main hub for information, awareness, and advocacy surrounding post-cessarized sexual dysfunction. So you can find a lot of good information on there, all the studies, how they share more

about how the FDA was sued over failure to warn about PSSD. And then to learn more about withdrawal, the Antidepressant Coalition for Education, which was founded by Morgan Stewart after her own experience with severe antidepressant. and withdrawal. And, you know, it's, it was really, the goal was to create it to help create evidence-based guidelines, withdrawal awareness. And it's really a great place to learn more about all of this. And you have social media. We can follow your journey as you continue to work your way through this. Yeah. So you can follow me on Instagram at Daniel Ganski. And I'm also on Twitter and TikTok and Facebook under Danielle Gansky. And I share online, you know, about the harms

of these drugs and share more about my story. And yeah. Well, Danielle, I want to tell you, I'm not really big on just pointing out problems. This is a big one. You've affected me very deeply today. But we have a lot of great scientists and doctors around the world that we work with that are watching this. I'm going to say if you, you know, if you're one of the friends of the high wire and I can and you know about solutions or ways that we deal with this, maybe it's underground, you're probably having your license under review if you had any effect in this space because pharma is so evil. But please reach out to us if you have a number. If you don't, info at Ican decide.org. I'm going to continue to investigate this and see if we can't help

you in some way. Certainly, science and funding needs to be dedicated to this issue. And I'm going to work on the media to make sure that no other kids are being put into this insane system. Thank you for sharing your story today. And you're in our prayers right now, seriously. Thank you so much. I truly greatly appreciate that. And one thing I just wanted to mention on the research part, We urgently do need NIH to fund research into the long-term effects of S-SRIs in people who develop these very serious antidepressant injuries like severe protractive withdrawal and PSSD. Because with conditions like PSSD, there are studies that are showing measurable nerve damage and tissue changes.

So we really want to understand the underlying mechanism of what's happening. So we can get treatment or recovery for those who are suffering because people who are living with these injuries, a lot of them are suicidal. I know many who have taken their lives from this, even young children. So it's really important that we get this for them and have Black Box warning, warnings clearly communicating these risks. Well, I think there's hope. I think you've got the right man as Secretary of Health and Human Services.

I am sure Jay Batachari at NIH is deeply concerned about this issue. I know these people. We actually have real human beings inside of these departments. for the first time, probably in my lifetime. I hope they stay there. I hope that they can withstand the assault by the pharmaceutical companies that are creating monsters like the doctor you're dealing with

and the gasoline that's going on. But there's work to do, but there is hope. And we've come a long way. Sharing your story is a huge part. I know you're doing it here, but you're all over, telling your story, keep doing that. Inspire everyone around you going through it to tell their story too.

These stories are what changed the course of history. And you're an important part of that. And I want to thank you for sharing, okay? Thank you. I really appreciate that. And I am so grateful for Secretary Kennedy and this administration and for all they're doing to take on these issues. And thank you so much for having me and being willing to have this conversation.

I really appreciate the opportunity to speak about this and help bring awareness to something that so many people are silently suffering through. So thank you. You're welcome. Danielle, take care. Take care. All right. Thank you. I just thought of a new lawsuit. I plan on suing the government on this. I know Jeffrey mentioned that there was some lawsuit against the FDA because they won't put a black box warning on the SSRIs talking about more than 50 percent of these kids are being castrated as that young girl described it or is going through situations like this

sometimes said you know I think Kennedy needs a force that he has to deal with we're that force okay that's how I plan on dealing with this I'm gonna get I'm literally walking out of here I'm gonna call Aaron Siri I'm obviously emotionally moved and I have to do something that is what drives the highway drives all of us here I cannot just listen to story and not do something. And so I want to say to all of you, you make that possible. You make it possible for me to walk out of here and go call the best attorney in the world and say, we're going to do something for these kids. We're going to change the world. And you know how we do that? We sue the government, which is why we're about to have fun with a new campaign on

T-shirts. For those of you, every one of you that donate one dollar, you make that possible. You make it possible all of the different agencies that we have won lawsuits. You're looking at them right now, HRQ, Air Force. I mean, look at this list. Those of you that have sponsored in any way you have made that possible, and we're going to add one to the list today. We're going to sue on this. I'm bringing lawsuits. So if you get excited about suing the government and be a part of that, while you go get a t-shirt or some of the merch,

because we're going to celebrate how we change the world. this. Because thousands of Highwire fans and medical freedom advocates like you, the informed consent action network has spent the last eight years taking the fight straight to the federal government. Want to know why you're donating to us? Because we changed the world. We change at least our government. We're America's public health watchdog. I-Can's gone toe to toe suing the biggest regulatory agencies in the country, holding them accountable, challenging mandates, and fighting to protect you and your children's future. We have now sued the State Board of Education. We sued the health department. The Pfizer didn't tell you the truth. And then we sued. And guess what? If you've

ever donated to ICANN or you're a monthly supporter, you sued the government too. That's right. Your support fuels the lawsuits, your donations make the legal action possible. You're not on the sidelines. You're on the team. And now there's a bold new way to show it. We're launching our exclusive I Sue the Government line. Hats, teas, bags, and stickers designed for those who believe freedom is worth defending. 23 federal agencies were taking the court. We don't care who you are if you are lying to the public. We're going to get to the bottom of it.

Every purchase strengthens the mission and every time you wear I sue the government, you ignite conversations and send a message that you're committed to real change. So head to the highwire.com shop and grab the link. boldest drop today. When we sue the government together, we're unstoppable. Donate, join the team, make a statement. Definitely go to the highwire. Dot shop. I told you we had new merch coming. I think this is going to be a really fun campaign. And man, if I find you in an airport or a restaurant somewhere in my travels wearing an eye sue the government, man, we're going to we're going to sit down. We'll have a coffee or a beer or a steak.

We're going to talk about it, but that's what, imagine the conversations you get to start with that. I'm sure not every day you're going to be in an I sue the government mood, but boy, when you're in that mood, wouldn't you love to have that shirt the way around? Go ahead, just ask me about how I sue the government. You make this possible. Look at the lawsuits that we've been involved in so far. 146 lawsuits have been filed. 516 documents have been produced with 8 million pages released by the government. We've sued 23 federal agencies.

We are the reason the Pfizer data exists. It's in your hands. Scientists are looking now. Naomi Wolf could write a book, the Pfizer papers, because of you. Because we won that lawsuit. We won the Moderna data, the V-Safe data. We won back the religious exemption. And we have a couple of cases in West Virginia.

We're in the appellate court, but we're ultimately going to end up in the Supreme Court on this. It's going to be the most important case in here. history when we get there, all of it you make possible. So I hope you'll grab a t-shirt, a hat, and start celebrating the fact. That's what makes America great. We get to sue the government. We can. It's legal. In fact, it's a really good way to get things done, especially for stories like Danielle's. Man, was that incredibly powerful? I cannot believe what we're doing to our kids in the United States of America. And I don't know about you, but as I I hear those stories and you think about sexual dysfunction and you add that to the, you know,

gender transforming drugs that take away their puberty. Why is it? Why is it that all of these things that they're fighting for, all the things that pharma seems to be really good at is all about reducing children? I mean, that's what this does. It's reducing marriage. It's reducing connection. It's reducing love.

It's reducing sexuality. It's reducing birth, procreation, the ability to create like we were created. I don't know. Sounds kind of dark. Sounds like we're up against something pretty big. But we're fearless. Yay, though we walk to the valley of the shadow of death. We don't fear evil here at the high wire. And neither do you. So I'm going to Europe. It's coming up. I want to take this, take AIS and any convenient study out there. Here are the dates. If you were watching this show from Italy, I'm going to be in Milan on May 21st, Padua on May 22nd, Rome on May 24th. We'll be screening. I'll be having great conversations. You can check all that out at the websites there, Zero Spike. And then I'm going to, actually, I'm joining Brian Hooker in Paris.

We're going to be in Paris and also Leon. So super-executive. excited to meet all of you, Highwire supporters out there around the world, because as I say, every time, wherever you are in the world, this is truth to you too. And we're going to keep bringing it every single week the way we do. And I'll see you next week on the Highwire.