The Highwire with Del Bigtree - Episode 495: AI’S FREE PASS, NIH FINALLY WAKES UP & CHILDHOOD DEATH BOMBSHELL

Episode Date: September 25, 2026

Epidemiologist Nicolas Hulscher joins Del after testifying before the Michigan House using the Henry Ford vaccinated versus unvaccinated data featured in “An Inconvenient Study,” and why he says findings like these belong before lawmakers, not behind closed doors.Next, the liability shield is spreading. First vaccines. Then glyphosate. Now, the people building AI want protection too, before they can be held responsible for what their technology does.Then, the NIH under Dr. Jay Bhattacharya says it will begin studying vaccine injury. After years of denial and dismissal, the government is finally putting those two words in the same sentence.And, Del has a conversation with physicist Denis Rancourt, a witness at Canada’s Allison Inquiry. He crunched the numbers throughout COVID. Now, he is bringing forward mortality data, including what he says is a shocking signal involving infant and toddler mortality.Finally, Dr. Bob Sears joins Del to celebrate “An Inconvenient Study” and the sea change happening among parents when it comes to childhood vaccines.Guests: Nicolas Hulscher, MPH, Denis Rancourt, PhD, Bob Sears, MDAirdate: September 24, 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 ICandecide.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. Welcome. Well, you know, you do a lot of things in media, especially with a company like the High Wire and I Can. And we've put out documentaries, put out series. but one of the little babies that just really took flight was an inconvenience study, the film that we made and put out last October.

I just want to celebrate the fact that, you know, people keep asking me, how do you know the world has changed? How do you know that a lot of people say, is there anything happening at all? Well, one of the things I know for sure is happening is when I put out Vaxed in 2016, the only festival we got in there, Tribeca, kicked us out of the festival. Well, an inconvenient study is having the opposite reaction. It is winning awards around the world. In fact, where I think at about 17 now Best Documentary, Best Investigation Awards.

And this isn't even the official selection laurels. We could even make this even bigger. But the film is just really opening hearts and minds and festivals all around the world, which says that this is now a topic people are very interested in. It's going viral. 100, over 100,000 plus downloads, 150, 40 million estimated global views now around the world. And please, I hope you are still sharing it, an inconvenience study.com. We also have the little cards you can download.

You can get them at our shop to go ahead and hand those out wherever you go. I love it. It's a great way to just walk up to that pregnant mom when you never knew what to say, just say, hey, I don't know, you know where you're at on the vaccine thing. but this this is a really interesting documentary about an investigation to the safety of vaccines. You may want to check it out and then just walk away. Trust me, the curiosity will do its job and it'll maybe allow God to step into that heart and mind and get them to do the right thing.

But one of my favorite things when sometimes it's a PowerPoint position that we put together or some talking points we put out or some graphs that we've launched or things like that. But when you see other people starting to use it, And one of the things I've been saying to the team, I see so many doctors and scientists now popping up in my social media feed, you know, and their argument in at least the videos that are popping up is there's a study that was done by Henry Ford Health. And they start walking people through it. They never mention I can. They don't mention me or La Hiawe or any of it. But that's what's awesome, right? It's so powerful that now it's just taken on its own life and is being used by people all around the world as it shows. should be. So one of the things that really just, you know, lit my heart up was when I saw Nick Holscher in a hearing, which was just phenomenal that he was walking through the data on Henry Ford. Well, this is just a piece of what that was like. Take a look at yourself. Today I'll be speaking on the unpublished Henry Ford vaccinated versus unvaccinated study.

In my expert opinion, this is the strongest, most comprehensive, and largest vaccinated versus unvaccinated birth cohort study, looking at chronic disease outcomes ever conducted. Okay, so it's the best of the best that we have so far. The final statistical measure was that vaccinated children had a 2.5 times. higher risk of developing a chronic disease compared to the unvaccinated children. After all that statistical modeling that they were supposed to do, and at the end of the 10 years, they did something called a Kaplan-Myer survival analysis. The vaccinated group, after average 10 years, from birth to average age 10, 57% of the vaccinated had at least one chronic disease, only 70%.

17% of the unvaccinated had at least one chronic disease. And so this is a very powerful study, and we actually published a peer-reviewed reanalysis of these data. So it's actually in the peer-reviewed record now, these data. Marcus Zervos is very well respected and has frequently done these sorts of epidemiological papers, many of which are in infectious disease and so I was very concerned when he was caught on that camera in that clip we saw saying I'm just not going to do it I'm not going to do it because I don't want to I don't want to suffer what McCullough did he said part of my reluctance to do anything is that nothing is going to come out of it other than me losing my job which I'd rather not see happen so why

is he concerned about losing his job for conducting a study he thought was good? Those are questions that need to be answered by Henry Ford Health, but they're not here, unfortunately. Well, it's my honor and pleasure to be joined by Nick Holster, one of the rising stars in the medical freedom space. You've been fantastic, Nick. It was really awesome to see you giving this testimony. First of all, how did this testimony come about? You know, how do, you know, how did you get into this, you know, this committee in Michigan? Yeah, well, thanks for having me. And I got into that hearing because Representative Brad Paquette in Michigan simply DM me on X. He said, listen, we're going to have Henry Ford Health here. We want you to come in and kind of debate them

on the findings of their own study, their own unpublished study. And so I agreed. I'm like, yeah, of course I want to come in there. This is going to be big. We'll finally have Henry Ford, their own researchers, talking about their own study, Marcus Zervos and colleagues. Wow. Unfortunately, they didn't show up. So this was set up as a debate. They were scheduled to be there. Then they found out you were going to be there. And just like you're a little bit newer to this. I've been at this 10 years and others longer than me, you know, 20 years. And every time we've ever thought we were showing up for debate, most of the time, the doctors all disappear. They don't show up, and this was another one of those circumstances, which is,

you know, which is really quite shocking. You would think if they felt like they had a winning hand, they would want to play it. So specifically, you were asked on this Henry Ford study, you say a couple of things in that video and in your testimony that I've been trying to articulate too, right? This isn't the only study like it. But you say, say it's one of the most important, the most robust, it's the biggest. But I think the fact that, you know, as we see in the footage in the film, when you have a scientist stating unequivocally how pro-vaccine he is, bragging about he's the reason everyone at Henry Ford system vaccinates, it really puts this study in a different place, right? And even Peter McCullough,

who you work a lot with, says in the film, if Henry Ford Health does a study and it comes out, you know, not well for the vaccinated, you'd have to take that very seriously. How important that is you, to you, because I think the question is really about bias in science. Bias is possible. It does affect how studies come out, does it not? Oh, most definitely. In fact, I would say in my estimation, bias affects a vast majority of papers, you know, whatever their predetermined conclusion is, they'll try and model the statistics in a way to show the outcome that they wanted to show. But I think it's very, very important an inconvenient study, your documentary, and that's the basis of all of this, right?

I mean, you've got Marcus Ervost on camera saying it's a good study. So the lead author himself is saying, yeah, I would have put it out like it is. I don't want to end up like McCuller. And so it's quite unequivocal when you have somebody of that calms. caliber saying that a study that found the vaccinated children are far sicker is a good study. And so that's probably why they didn't want to show up to the hearing because they did play those clips from an inconvenient study that are undeniable. One of the questions I've always asked, and you know, you're sort of outside of this.

You weren't in the middle of it putting it all together. But, you know, Marcus Xervos is the head of infection, infectious disease. This is one of their key players. He's not just someone that works that they're not aware of. He's running a major department. Peter McCullough knows who he is. He's world renowned. So why didn't the, why was in the response?

They have their complaints. We posted them on our website, the issues you're going to have, frankly, with any retrospective study, but shouldn't they? If science is working right, shouldn't science say to Dr. Marcus Zervos, shouldn't the institution say, we see what you are doing? doing here. We think there are some flaws in your methodology. We want to re and, you know, analyze this because this is an important study. And what I find shocking in the argument by Henry Ford Health is that they didn't, what they said is we didn't like it. Why didn't you fix it?

Certainly, you could, you saw the value in the conversation that's happening in the world today. The level of confidence in vaccines is an all-time low. The confidence in medicine and sciences is an all-time low. This is the type of study, which is why I thought Zervos did it. If I could show the vaccine you're healthier, it would certainly bring back confidence. Did they, what do you think happened there? I mean, wouldn't their natural response be to say, we're going to step in here and fix this study? Yeah, exactly. And that's, well, first of all, they should have acknowledged the study. The study was real. It was based on real children enrolled in the Henry Ford insurance systems. and it was real vaccination status.

They used the Michigan immunization registry to verify it. And so what they should have said is, okay, maybe there was these flaws here and there. Maybe there was 2,000 people in the unvaccinated, 16,000 in the vaccinated. Now we're going to acknowledge that this is a major safety signal and replicate it with more unvaccinated children in the next study. But the thing about this, Henry Ford,

birth cohort study that they did is it's actually as strong as they could do it. I mean, they exhausted all the statistical analyses you could do with these data. Yeah. And again, this was a birth cohort study. This is some of the strongest data because you're following children from the time they're born all the way through, you know, they cut off their plan with the insurance. And so you're capturing all of their visits, all of their vaccines. and you really do get a good measure.

You get a good capture of how sick these children get. And there was no analyses that they missed, as far as I'm aware. So it's actually very strong. And Henry Ford should be ashamed for not showing up. I also think in your reanalysis, and by the way, you went and you've gotten peer review on the reanalysis, which means you're bringing more importance to this data, not just this study, but this data, you're walking through the data.

What's fascinating about the way you did it is it made me feel like they actually did come in and run Cox proportional hazards and things to really try and suffocate some of the findings as best as they could because every time you see them attempting their own internal reanalysis, whether it was time in the program, it actually made this, the data worse. Like what we, what I realize we're seeing in, in the study that Henry Ford Health did, it looks like it's the most conservative you could be about the damage being done. There's certainly ways this study could have been done that make it far more dramatic in the injury column, what's happening to the vaccinated kids. And they've run, as you said, every way you could reduce

that, it seems possible. Am I, am I reading that correctly? Yeah, you know, you're reading it 100% correctly so basically this that's the the minimal amount of harm so the harm we saw in their unpublished study is the minimal amount that we're likely seen because they did run the Cox proportional hazards they took into account follow-up time and they ran all sorts of other measures that attenuated these chronic disease risks and buried some of the raw proportions and so that's where our reanalysis came in was we literally literally just stripped everything away and looked, what are the raw proportions, the raw

numbers between the vaccinated children and the unvaccinated? And what we found is simply put unequivocal. It's unequivocal. We found that all 22 of the chronic disease categories were higher proportionally in the vaccinated children. No exceptions. Many of these diseases were only in the vaccinated, including the vaccinated. things like ADHD and even diabetes.

I mean, cancer was 54% higher in the vaccinated children. Autism was higher in the vaccinated children, everything. And so it goes to show you that clearly something's going on here. And we have to remember it also corroborates approximately 12 other vaccinated versus unvaccinated studies that show the exact same pattern whenever you have an unvaccinated control group, the vaccinated group is always sicker across most health domains. Which is really shocking.

Do you feel like we're making headway? You're obviously out there. I see you working at least as hard as I am. You're traveling all over. You're giving testimony. You're peering on podcasts and news programs. A lot of, I think a lot of people that are at home are asking the question, are we making a dent?

are things changing? What is your answer to that from your view? Yeah, I think we're making a dent. We're making a very large dent. And people are waking up to all of these concerns with the vaccines. You know, and that is reflective in certain vaccination uptake collapsing. I mean, we know for sure with the COVID shots, it's like less than 10% of people are taking them now. And, you know, people are understanding that there are risks with injecting toxic materials directly into the body, particularly small infants. That's not supposed to happen, and that it will unsurprisingly contribute to chronic disease risk when you inject formaldehyde traces, neomycin, polysorbate AD, aluminum,

neurotoxin, as well as fetal DNA fragments, billions to trillions of them. And so that's not going to be good for health. Well, I appreciate all the work that you're doing, Nick. I love that you are, you know, not just, didn't just go watch the film, but you took that study. You've done reanalysis. You're presenting it around the world. It's great to see it. How do we follow you?

You are actually doing so much work, putting out so many studies. What's the best way to just stay on top of the work that you're doing right now? Yeah, you can follow me on X at Nick Holscher. You can also follow me on Instagram. and I also have a personal website, nicholas haltsher.com. You can see all of my studies. And the focal points.com,

that's our substack. I'm on there with Dr. Peter McCullough and John Leak. We post all of the breaking studies there as soon as they come out. All right. Keep up the good work, Nicholas, and congratulations on that incredible hearing. I'll talk to you soon.

Thank you. All right. Well, we have a really great show coming up. I've got Deney Rancourt, who we had on in the middle of COVID, He was doing incredible science showing that masks were complete baloney. But now he's one of the stars of the Allison Inquirer that just happened up in Canada, delivering shocking statistical evidence and data on rise in mortality in pregnant women,

in pregnancy and infants. We're going to talk to him about what he's found. And I also have the one that only the man, the myth, the legend, Dr. Bob Sears is joining me later to talk about an event we're doing together. But first it's time for The Jackson Report. All right, Jeffrey. You and I were just at a speaking event up in Michigan last week. And I just want to say, for anyone that missed it, you got to catch Jeffrey live, man. It was an incredible presentation.

Your stuff on polio was mind-blowing. I've watched your documentary. I've read the books. But there's something about that in-person experience that is so powerful. Yeah, that was a wonderful event. so many doctors and health professionals that are just doing amazing stuff outside, you know, kind of the mainstream paradigm. They're looking for the newest breaking alternative medicine out there and is changing lives and just look outside the box and support these people.

They're doing great stuff. And I want to talk about just piggybacking up the conversation you just had. There's some massive news with vaccine safety coming from our government. But before I get into that, I want to talk about over the last two weeks, the public may have noticed that there's a fear campaign going, and it's around artificial intelligence. And we're supposed to be scared. The same companies that have been developing artificial intelligence telling us it's going to save the world, cure cancer, do all these great things, all of a sudden said it's going to destroy us and maybe kill 10% of us unless it's regulated by government. It was kind of an about face. But when we saw Bill Gates come out and throw his weight behind that, we all knew something was up. This is the headline.

Bill Gates sounds alarm on an AI transition. He's calling for an international regulatory body, basically global government, to regulate this, unelected. And he wants them to step in there. So a lot of people are looking at this and scratching their head and going, I'm sure I trust this guy. Then we have Andrew Yang. Andrew Yang was a presidential candidate. He came out and warned claims the escaped AI agents polluted the web.

That's the Internet with self-replicating code. So maybe too late for the internet. I guess maybe we need IDs to sign on the internet now, so we have to prove we're not AI bots. But then we have Alex Karp. He's the CEO of Palantir. Palantir makes autonomous drones for the government. It also has commercial AI platforms, huge company.

And he was just interviewed recently, and he said, this is what AI companies need. Take a listen. Okay. So it's actually happening. This is reported as regulation, non-regulation movement. That's actually not what this movement is. It's like the view that I believe they have is these businesses have to be nationalized because if you don't nationalize them, every single one of my clients is going to sue.

You think that's what they want. Well, obviously, like if you have a business that presupposes unlimited risk, both vis-a-vis liability risk, vis-a-vis the clients, because I don't think any of our clients realize their IP was migrating, vis-a-vis the world, because you're saying, what is the liability risk for destroying 10% of the company, 10% of the world? It discounted into the present. Okay, but there's only one institution. And by the way, that's not actually what's happening. They want three institutions. It's going to be like Europe, Canada, and America. We migrate all the IP of America from our businesses to this institution.

Then the institution is going to get full liability protection. Liability protection. We've heard that before. Yeah. And again, just warning signs, alarm bells going off, going off. So we have U.S. Secretary of Treasury, Scott. He came out pretty reflexively and just shut that down. Listen to what he had to say about that.

Okay. Imagine these labs came out, or one lab in specific, a sitting employee came out, said there's a 10% chance of an extinction level event. But then the labs also said take the liability off of our hands. And we will not do that. I am in agreement with MIT professor who leads the AI lab up there, Daniel Huddenlocker, that it is humans who are responsible, not the AI, the hugging face incident, that is responsibility of the open AI management, not a bunch of agents. So what the president was saying is that we cannot say, oh, we absolve you of responsibility and the government's going to take responsibility.

These labs need to take responsibility for themselves. They can slow down anytime they want to. Wow. I feel like I'm like in the middle of it, like the ball, the tennis ball is like flying back and forth past us and almost hitting us, right? It's like, you know, what's going on here seems so big and yet it's just like this, this slapping it back and forth. But obviously we don't want liability protection on a product, if you will, or an entity and what it might do in the future. Liability protection seems like the worst idea in the world. But why are they actually? asking for? What are they really worried about? And that's exactly the point. What you're trying to describe there is what is artificial intelligence? These companies are peddling because the buildout is in the trillions. And basically, you're taking proprietary information, feeding it to the AI and other businesses are grabbing that information. It's this circular, circular conversation, I guess you want to call it. And a lot of people are saying, where is the actual revenue stream

here for that type of price tag? This article here, actually, actually puts a really fine point on it. The AI build out rests on hidden debt. It says the AI boom rests on an optimistic assumption. Demand for compute will continue rising almost without limit. I don't know how that's possible. Yet part of that demand may be less independent than it appears. The AI sector is bound together by a dense web of commercial relationships and strategic

partnerships. Companies invest in one another. They then use that capital to purchase goods and services from the very same firms that provided it. Well, that's not pretty, that's not good because we're resting our entire GDP and these IPOs that are coming forward on the development of AI. And we have Gartner, they did a forecast over the next couple of years of AI development. And they say worldwide AI spending to grow 49.5% in 2026. There's a quote there. It says, the build out of AI data center capacity is the largest infrastructure project humanity has ever taken. They'll think about, I don't know, the railroad

out in late 1800s or the highway build out in America or even the internet build out, they're saying that's way bigger than all of those, not even close. So this is where we're in this very obviously historical moment. And they have a chart here. I want to show people just the idea of these numbers. So you see that middle column, that's 2026. And at the bottom there, that's basically, you look at AI infrastructure. That's about $1.48 trillion. Total AI spending is $2.6 trillion. By 2027, and $3.6 trillion and on and on it goes. If you crunch all those numbers, everything above AI infrastructure on that chart is computing and data. And for basically for every dollar spent according to that chart on data, they're spending almost $40 on these data centers and AI infrastructure.

So that is the big part of this. So when you look at these data centers, it takes on a whole new purpose when you see those numbers. And this is Bloomberg here. Bloomberg writes AI data center spending to reach 32 trillion by 2050. So we're talking, I believe, the national debt's 40 trillion. So 32 trillion is what we're talking about. But the real question here is, do we need the data centers? All of the money is going into these data centers. And there's been a lot of obvious questions about the environmental impacts of these, the human impacts when they get plopped into these small towns, taking up farmland. An executive software engineer who builds corporate and government systems, major systems for the government recently testified in Texas. Listen to what he had to say.

What you need to understand is there is no need today for hyperscalor data centers for AI. The reason that we are having these hyperscalor data centers for AI is we have a series of software companies, in particular Palantir, in particular Oracle and others who are using 1980s technology. And the 1980s technology needs data. centers. We, however, who are building some of the most modern AI systems are able to take applications, and we do this regularly. With Apple computer weeks ago, we took an application that takes 92 hours to run in a data center, and we ran it on a computer you can hold in your hand in nine minutes. You plug it into the wall, and when you plug it into the wall,

it uses less power than a microwave oven. We are building. We're building systems today for the federal government. We're building systems for state governments. We're involved with one particular state government using this distributed computing technology and it's not just us. What you don't know and what people don't seem to understand is only America is doing this craziness with data centers.

It's almost like they're up to something. Only in America. There's a lot of... So many red flags in this conversation. So many red flags. I guess we're going to keep reporting. on this, but it seems like it's a train careening out of control at this point, and you have industry looking for liability protections. It's never a good sign. Well, you know, also, when we

look at this, though, Jeffrey, just for a second, what's really scary about it is we have a history now of watching this sort of too big to fail approach towards business. And it seems like, and we're reporting, I feel like we're reporting on two almost completely different stories. On the one hand, we report on people to say, hey, I can't do any of the things that the province think it's going to do. It's going to be a complete failure. But what does that look like if every company has hooked themselves up to it and has most of their data been processed by it? Suddenly goes, oh, sorry, it's not going to be as effective or accurate as we had hoped. And on the other hand, we're having, you know, still people running out of the building screaming,

I've just built Godzilla, look out, we're all going to die. And with both, like, credible information. But one of the things I find shocking, and you've touched on this before, is we're not paying for it yet. It's still, in many ways, everyone's using chat GPT for free. We're having it like work on our business, or maybe we're getting charged $25 an hour, you know, or whatever the case. But the reports are saying they haven't started charging. And when they do, it could be an astronomical cost just for what we're already doing with it, forgetting what the future of any need for data centers. And it feels like if we're talking

trillions in debt, are they not trying to put us all into a major debt together where we all then are now, you know, it's too big to fail. We can't let them fail. My company's wrapped up doing it. All of our companies are emails are interconnected. Our phones are interconnected by this thing. We're all interconnected. And now we're finding out we don't have enough money. It's going to bankrupt us. We don't have enough energy. we don't have enough water, whatever the case is, we're not going to be able to walk away from it, right? It's going to be, well, the government's now going to have to bring liability or fund this damn thing because we all bought in and no one ever was paying the costs.

Does that ring, I mean, that's what's starting to really freak me out here too. Yeah, but we've all lived, most of us, I think, lived through the 2008 financial crisis and the too big to fail on that piece. So that was just the banks. And that was obviously a massive part of our. society, but AI is in everything now. So what happens? Like you said, we're taking along this road, and at the end of the road, oops, didn't work out. Right. There's a big problem for everybody. Exactly. Yeah, it's so many elements to it, for sure. Yeah, yeah. The liability exemption piece.

So we're going to stick with that idea because it goes right into this next story here, vaccine safety. We have a headline coming out of science.org from the NIH, and this is exclusive, of new NIH research center on vaccine harms take shape. So it says in an internal meeting last week, so this is, looks like it's leaked, officials at the National Institute, that NAID, that's Fauci's old agency, discuss plans for a new research center on the NIH campus in Bethesda, Maryland that could start up in mid-October, science has learned. So pretty quick, around the corner. How it's going to be funded. The agency also plans to fund outside researchers to study adverse effects of vaccines, pickingbacking off existing studies of people with vaccine-related illness. So outside researchers

funded from outside the government, sounds like a great idea. No official really announcement yet from Kennedy, but this is, this sounds like this is Jay Bhattacharya. This is his initiative. And this is an interesting conversation because the government is now going to study vaccine safety. This is something a lot of people have been waiting for almost 40 years. Remember the 1986 Act, We have a subsection in there, and it was the mandate for safer childhood vaccines. And you can see this. It's 42 U.S. Code subsection 300A27. And it goes on to say, what's that tasking HHS to do to promote the development of childhood vaccines

that result in fewer and less serious adverse reactions and to make or assure improvements in order to reduce the risk of adverse reactions to vaccines? Remember, because of liability exemptions, liability protections, Congress said, well, if we're going to give this extraordinary power to pharmaceutical companies, Congress, HHS, our best agencies are going to have to make sure these vaccines are safe and submit quarterly, submit regular reports. Well, our attorneys at ICANN found out that they never submitted those reports. They never really did those safety studies. So this was in the MAHA report.

So the Make America Healthy Again report that was sent to President Trump and the White House looking at what they were going to do. This is what they said in that report in 2025. HHS in collaboration with NIH will investigate vaccine injuries with improved data collection analysis, including through a new vaccine injury research program at the NIH clinical center that may expand to centers around the country. A lot of people were really happy about that, but we saw nothing until now. This is the first official, I guess, announcement, although it's kind of unofficial. It's from leaked documents, but we're waiting right now for anybody at NIH or HHS to say yes, this is what's happening and we're going to do this kind of all eyes on

Badacharya at this point. Hopefully we'll see an official announcement soon. But this is good news. All the people have been vaccine injured and people that may experience these injuries in the future, hopefully this research initiative will help all of those people. You know, it's been interesting watching Batacharya in some of these Senate hearings that he's been in. He's obviously very careful with his words. He's a very articulate scientist And when they try to nail him to the wall, you know, he says, I believe in vaccines, but I also know that it's a very rear issue. There are people being injured.

I do think it's good to go in and, you know, explore that. We are having issues with autoimmune disease and health. We should be looking at every possible cause. So he seems to be holding a very, you know, beautiful and important objective position on this. And I also have to say, Jeffrey, it feels like ever since, since Trump let that executive order out, basically mirroring the reduction in vaccines that Robert Kennedy Jr. had attempted to do, it feels like there's a floodgate that is opened, as though Donald Trump paved the way to say, it's all right for this administration and

everyone that we brought in to start talking about these issues, because you're now starting to hear about studies on autism. We're hearing about the interagency autism committee, and all of these things are starting to move. Bobby Kennedy seems to be talking about, you know, investigating safety on vaccines and things like that. So, you know, I hope it feels like a long time coming. But certainly if these guys have two more years in there at this pace, we might actually start seeing something happening.

Yeah, two years is a long time depending on what happens there. But Kennedy does not look like he's leaving anytime soon. So still a lot of work to be done in that agency and the agent's assistant. agencies of HHS. Awesome. Well, you've been incredible. The download is a, you know, raging success. So many people are talking about it now. If you are not watching the download or really short hits, usually under 30 minutes, 5 p.m. Pacific time with Jeffrey Jackson, hitting the breaking news over the weekend of what's coming in the week. So it's a great way to start out the week

and prime yourself for being aware of the world that you live in. Jeffrey. Great work, man. Keep it up. Right, thank you. All right, I'll see you next week. So, you know, when you think about all of the work that we're doing here at the Highwire, and I say this, so many of you watch that you're supporting, it's not just a new show. We're not just a new show. We are also perpetually in litigation, where we find things, we find issues.

When we feel like we've got enough evidence, we can actually nail it against the wall and turn it into action. And that's when we get active. And so we bring lawsuits and through Aaron Serian Glimstad and his amazing team. We also bring FOIA requests, which is where a lot of these lawsuits start. We start with, hey, government, can you tell us, you know, what you know about this or what evidence you have? There's all the legal wins that we've had with our legislative work. I think we're in how many, let's show all the different slides. Do we have them, the amount of lawsuits we brought, but also the amount of agencies that we've been.

in here we go. What suing the government for transparency actually produces 146 federal lawsuits have been filed. Wrap your head around that for a second. That is just since 2017. 516 document production secured. And when you think about Nick Holshore, you think about the Pfizer papers, the book that Naomi Wolf put out. The data we put out is just the beginning. Then other people, scientists, writers take it and get it out to the world. Eight million pages released. And a lot of those is the Pfizer data, the Moderna data, the V-Safe data. All of that is now in the hands of the people. And much of it, like the FDA had said, they wanted to wait for 75 years to release it.

It's in the people's hands. It's in the hands of the world. It is now in testimonies all around the world because of you. Because of your sponsorship and your ability to have us hire such an amazing team to not just investigate with our scientists and our experts, but to bring legal cases of FOIA requests. Our legal update is a fascinating discovery that just came out this week. This is September 15, 2026, our legal update exclusive.

Emails now reveal that the CDC safety signal analyses were dangerously incomplete due to a backlog of 70,000 COVID-19 VAERS reports. Now, think about the fact that they were using an experimental vaccine, that they were delivering to the entire world. They said that we know we're rushing on the market due to warp speed. We're going to be really thorough in our post-marketing surveillance, meaning this is, you know, these are like what the agents. These are the agents that have escaped into the internet.

We are now releasing a vaccine that was not properly tested, and we're going to give it out to the world. So if we see any issue, we have surveillance systems all over to capture that. Well, VERS is the biggest one. And so when we filing, this is an old, we've been at this for a while, when we finally got this information, look what we found out. Take a look at this. Through a Freedom of Information Act FOIA request, ICANN has obtained CDC emails from February of 2021,

showing that a CDC contractor was completely overwhelmed by COVID-19 vaccine injury reports, leading to a backlog of over 70,000 reports. It goes on. This is going to be, this is mind-blowing. CDC claimed that the vaccine. vaccine adverse events reporting system was a critical component of safety surveillance during the COVID-19 vaccine rollout. Reports submitted by individuals, health care providers, and vaccine manufacturers were supposed to be processed within days and used to quickly identify potential safety signals. By the way, we were giving this to people in real time. We needed real time information.

But by February 10th, 2021, less than two months after the first vaccine's rollout, GDIT, the contractor responsible for VAERS report intake, had a backlog of over 70,000 reports in just two months. An email from GDIT explains the magnitude of the issue. Listen to this. GDIT is unable to process all the incoming reports in a timely manner. This scenario is unprecedented, and incoming reports are significantly above the government's worst-case scenario estimate of 1,000 COVID-19 reports per day. GDIT is unable to process the worst case scenario of 1,000 reports per day. There's an average growing back law of expired unprocessed reports currently over 70,000.

And how is it adding up? The government's original worst case scenario estimate was 1,000 reports per day. Remember, worst case in Mario, meaning if it was worst case, we should probably pull this product. But the e-mails revealed that the CDC had to quickly adjust that estimate to 4,000 and 5,000 reports per day. Four or five times the worst case scenario. As a result, CDC had to up their report processing to 25,000 reports per week, had a cost of 21 million, and even then they estimated it would take many months to process the backlog. And yet, when you, you know, look at the real Peter Marks in our work on that,

all the videos where he's saying, we're just not seeing any safety signal. No, you have a report coming in saying, we are five times. the worst case scenario right now. We cannot handle the amount of injury reports that are coming in. We need help. Something is drastically wrong. Hang up. The phone is what our government did.

All of this is breaking loose now. It's breaking loose in every direction. The Fauci hearings, you know, pleading the fifth. Or you've got, you know, the extradition of Paul Thorson. Now your top scientist that did the autism studies is now under indictment. And more and more FOIA requests are coming out. You have the Allison, you know, inquiries up in Canada with mind-blowing data and some of it we're about to hear here in just a minute.

But all of this, I want to ask yourself, where would we be if Highwire hadn't been reporting all this from the beginning? Where would we be if we had not been on top of this all the way back in 2017 when we started suing the government? When we learned how to sue the government when no one had done it in this space before, When we realized the power we had, when we discovered how many of you would actually step forward and fund lawsuits that would never pay us any money, there's no payouts that are coming from these things. These are lawsuits that they never thought would happen because who's going to spend millions of dollars when we're stalling them in court and obfuscating to stay in there until they finally get, you know, an ultimatum or an affidavit stated that we never did the science. Or we never followed up on that.

Or those documents don't actually exist, even though we've said there's mountains of them everywhere. We are in this incredible moment right now, really, to all of those. If you are not one of the people that has been sponsoring the Highwire and ICANN that has been at this, I want you to just sit down for a moment and say a prayer for those that did. Those that did step up when we were nobody, when we were just this, you know, oh yeah, the Highwire, this crazy little group of people that seem to think there's a problem with the vaccine program. those that were funding us then and made this possible so that when the FDA tried to block this data for 75 years, we were ready. And by the way, we all already knew at that point we had funding.

We were going to stand our ground, and we did and started changing the world. Well, we plan on continuing to change the world because AI is coming. What is the data on that? What do they know? Don't you want some FOIA requests on that? All of the things that we are talking about here on the high wire, we're doing. it to build, you know, all the information we can to start organizing lawsuits. But if we're going to bring those lawsuits, then we need more of you to sign up. We need more of you right now to say,

actually, I think this is important. I think what these guys are doing is important. I see the results. They don't just talk about it. They're not just whining about it. They're not just, you know, throwing together, you know, paperwork and complaining about it. They're actually getting out and doing something about it. That is our culture. That's what we're doing here. If you want to be a part of it, it would be great if you would just decide today to say, I'm going to start sponsoring this work. $26 a month would be awesome. That's we're asking for 2026. You can pick any amount you want. If you can only afford a dollar, then go ahead because it allows you to say, hey, I was in on that. I was a part of it. There's millions of you out there. If you all get involved, I am currently telling

Aaron, we cannot bring every lawsuit we want to bring. That's happening. It's in real time. Now, granted, you might say you've already got 90 lawsuits going right now. That's enough. Okay, maybe it's enough. But what's going to go down in two years? Where are we at when AI kicks in? Did we do enough? Did we have enough protections?

If they decide to bring another pandemic or end of the world scenario, do we have enough rights that we've entrenched through legal winds that we will be able to weather that storm? I personally don't think so. And that's why I would love to, you know, set Aaron free and say, there are no limits. The only limits right now is whether you decide you want to help us, whether you think this actually matters for the future of your family, of the generations on this planet. How important do you think this moment we are living in is? Think about that. Go ahead.

If you're just listening to this on a podcast right now, you can text me at 72022, write in the word, donate, and we will respond immediately. I'll respond and send you a text so that you can get in and become a recurring donor. If you are out there and you've done really well in life, maybe you've made a lot of money in Silicon Valley and a little bit worried about your conscience and what you've sort of set us up for, maybe you want to make a sizable donation or investment into a specific case that we could do. If you are one of those people that wants to do something extraordinary, maybe privately know that you got to have or make a big dent in the world, then just go to information. at I can decide.org. Send us an email and we'll respond to you. It's all completely off the record. We're a nonprofit. No one ever knows no matter how many times they asked me, believe me, they ask me a lot. Where's your funding coming from? I said it comes from people who care.

All right. I want to thank all of you that make the high wire possible, that make all the lawsuits possible. I think in this next year or so close, we're going to the Supreme Court, baby. I can feel it. And we keep talking about that. Very exciting. So donate so that we can make all that happiness that we can win. During the Allison inquiry, there was a scientist and a great researcher that we had had during COVID that got into all the data. He actually crunched every study that had ever been done. Remembered at the time of masks and what they knew they could do and what they knew they couldn't do. He was ridiculed by many in the scientific community, but now we all know he was right. And frankly, anyone watching this show knew he was right when he said it. Well, he just

started crunching. In fact, I think he's been years at crunching the data. Some of it on that VERS data that was backed up, you know, 70,000 documents and pages. But he's been crunching data in Canada, data in America. And he was one of the dynamic voices in the Allison Inquiry up in Canada. This is what that looked like. Professor Rancourt has a Bachelor of Science degree, a Master of Science degree, and a PhD from the University of Toronto, their degrees in physics. He has been a natural sciences and engineering research council of Canada international postdoctoral candidate

and prestigious research laboratories in both France and the Netherlands. He gives a researcher and interdisciplinary research and that was my question for you, is can you explain for the inquiry what an interdisciplinary researcher is? In my case, it means that I'm able to switch fields completely and become a top expert in different fields.

but also I'm able to combine fields to analyze a complicated problem using different areas of science. And so I want to reassure everyone today that I'm going to be sharing some data that is the most unquestionable. The states, the modern states, they count births and they count deaths. And so mortality is one of the most reliable things. There is an apparatus, a legal and administrative apparatus that counts deaths. Who died? How old were they? what sex were they in which jurisdiction did they die, when did they die to the day.

And this data is extremely valuable for figuring out what happened to a society during a major event. And that's the kind of data that I'm analyzing, that I've been analyzing for more than five years now. And a recent report that I wrote, an overview report, is entitled eight typical facts about COVID period excess mortality. COVID-19 MRI vaccination is the only measure that involved repeatedly injecting into the bodies of everyone whether you're healthy or not and including the sick the elderly infants toddlers preschoolers pregnant women at any destination period repeatedly injecting directly into their bodies a known cytotoxic substance the the signals i showed you today are screaming safety signals that needed to be acknowledged right away and used to change government and medical establishment behavior and it was

not well it was powerful testimony dan but so many of us were busy it was also of four days of testimony. I really wanted to shine a light directly on this issue and Deney Rancourt. So I am honored and in pleasure to say he joins me now. Hey, Deney, how you doing? It's good to be talking to you. I'm very well. Thank you. Thank you. It's a pleasure to be here. Great. How would you describe? Because you're not, one of the difficulties is it feels like when I look at this issue, when we've been trying to investigate it, There was a very poor attempt to actually connect, you know, collect data around COVID virus, COVID vaccines, the issues that were implicated in it.

I feel like we're all having to use all cause mortality data, cancer. Like, should I just ask you right up front, could better data have been collected in the modern age that we lived in, in the experience that we just had that was COVID? Okay, yeah, thanks for that question. I think the most robust data you can have is mortality data. As long as it's high resolution by jurisdiction and by time, and you know the age, sex, and so on. And you can know sometimes the health status of people. So I think that's the best data in the sense that you don't have to rely on diagnoses,

which are always subject to bias of the person making the diagnosis. So I think that's the hardest data that you can deal with. However, the thing that was not done that should have been done is to associate that mortality data so that we can know the vaccination status of the person who died. So not just their age, sex, and so on, but where they vaccinated, when they were vaccinated, how many times the dates and so on. That in the case of a pandemic that's declared in this way, there should have been an association made between the known vaccination database for citizens and the, the mortality. That would have been a huge plus for researchers. There are only eight studies, published studies in the world where they've succeeded in doing that for limited jurisdictions. So it's a very rare thing to do it, but it should have been done in a general way by countries,

especially large countries like the USA and Canada. And it was not. And so what you're using then, and this is something that I said in the middle of the pandemic, I mean, in the pandemic, I said I think there's a lot being hidden here, but you won't be able to hide the all-cause mortality, the mortality data. That will eventually speak to us, and we will be able to look back and see what happened here. And you're doing it in a detail that I don't know that anyone else has, but that's what you're working with, right? You have to make some assumptions.

Go ahead. Go ahead. Describe it. Yeah. Well, the thing to appreciate is that we've got this mortality, and we can do it by the very age of the person who died. and by their sex and we can know exactly where they died and even in which institution they died and so on so we've got this mortality data as a function of time we call it a time series and the important thing is

to see large significant changes in that mortality that coincide with things that are being done to people that's that's the secret we know that huge mandates are imposed we know that huge changes are to society and we can see the response immediately in the mortality curves. That's the beauty of it. So the big transitions that we see, let me give you just an overview. First of all, there was no excess mortality virtually anywhere in the world until a pandemic was declared by the world's health organization. So it's a flat line in terms of excess mortality. You declare a pandemic, you impose all these mandates and conditions right away,

you have all this sudden vicious propaganda and more. Mortality just fires up from that point on in many hotspots around the world synchronously on many continents. So this is contrary to the behavior of a spreading disease. This is equivalent to in certain jurisdictions you were imposing things, incredibly dangerous protocols in hospitals and things like that, locking down the elderly in a very severe way and disrupting their care schedules. And you see these huge peaks in more. in hot spots like New York, Milan, and so on, in the UK, London, and so on.

And so they were synchronous. So that's one way of noticing what's happening is that it coincides with what they're declaring and what all nations are doing simultaneously. Another kind of correlation between something that happened and in excess mortality, and I'll show that key graph in a moment. or I'll ask you to put it up, it's that pregnant women who are giving birth, near the time when they're giving birth, during that critical medical period,

you can record their mortality. And that mortality is a flat line until the CDC imposed vaccination on pregnant women in any trimester, and they imposed that on the 11th of August 2021 for pregnant women. And it just fires up from that point on. So if you go to slide 20, for example. I think we're looking at that slide.

Okay, there we go. Yep. We got right here. Yeah. So here it is. You see, I've got mortality of women who are dying during this episode of childbirth by week through time. And then you've got the date in a dashed red line there where the CDC imposed vaccination, essentially told all health care providers, you're now vaccinating all these pregnant women.

And from that point on, you see like a knife hit, it just goes straight up. The mortality of this specific kind of mortality of women giving birth goes up threefold right then. It's a stunning thing. And I said, well, I don't think that's a coincidence. So that first peak of mortality coincides with what was called in the U.S. Vaccine Equity Campaigns, where they went in and vaccinated the poor and the vulnerable in states where the vaccination levels were lower. And that's where you get that peak.

And you'll notice on that same graph, slide 20, that there's two curves there. One is in light blue and the other's in dark blue. So what we've done is we've separated the states into states that have more than 12% of the population living in poverty versus states that have less than 12% living in poverty. And you see that in the states that are living in poverty, that's where you get these huge increases.

In other words, it's not just the fact that you're vaccinating in itself, but it's also that you're doing it to women who are in a particularly precarious situation. Very interesting. So there is that complexity there. And then what's really stunning, and we were the first to show this. So that graph I just showed you, that is original. That's our data that we showed for the first time at the Allison Inquiry. And then what we did is we said, well, okay, if you're vaccinating all the women you can right from that date on because they roll these things out in a military style, you're going to hit a lot of them in their first trimester.

They won't all die for sure. But what about nine months later when they give birth? What happens then? Yeah. Okay. So we looked at that. And so if you look at slide 23, it's the same data. It's the same data, but now by month.

So I've got the date of vaccinating women in red there. And then nine months later, that's the date we're going to look at. And so the next slide, 24, shows infant mortality now as a function of time for both male and females. And you see that the increase, the stepwise increase, occurs nine months after you've started aggressively vaccinating pregnant women. You see that? Wow. So that's a really strong demonstration that you're affecting. the fetal development in those women that you vaccinated.

Okay. And so then we looked at, in slide 25, we looked at this same infant mortality, but now by year to get more statistics. And we looked at a broader, for a couple of decades before COVID was declared, the pandemic was declared, and you see a gradual historic trend downwards in the mortality of these infants.

And then in 2020, the pandemic is declared which is when you have you know hot spots of death and so on because you're hitting elderly people in hospitals and care homes there's nothing regarding infants in 2021 you start vaccinating the general population and pregnant women later and there's nothing in the infants themselves but then the infants that are born and that die it's in 2022 that it starts so nine months after you've been vaccinating their mothers and you see that large uptick there and it lasts for many years so in the US it corresponded to thousands of excess deaths it's it's quite shocking really and then we did the same thing another another

time where we saw we knew an event was happening at a specific time so let's look for the mortality signal is involving toddlers well one to four year olds okay so so then you have to know that toddlers like six months old or older they were not vaccinated until later until the vaccine was approved for those ages so we have a specific date for that and so for the youngest the specific date in the u.s is the 17th of june 22 so let's see what happens and and so we look at um that's it that's the slide i was going to ask you to put up and so here you have uh these essentially toddler deaths absolute mortality in the u.s you see the historic trend coming down and in 2020

nothing happens it follows the trend and in 2021 there's a start of an uptick before you vaccinate those ages and the reason for that we've come to understand is because that is the year in which the u.s made dramatic cuts in financial support to families and workers so they had given over a trillion dollars to families and workers when they were closing down the economy and then uh 26 of the state decided to abruptly cut that that so you get a bit of an uptake when you're that happens but then the following year is when they approve the vaccine for those for those young children and that's where you see that big peak there in in in in in in in slide 33 that's where you really see that big peak and so this corresponds to um i can't see the number right now on a

part of the slide is is hidden but i think it's thousands of excess deaths there yeah there it is 2000 more than 2 000 excess deaths of those one to four year olds in the u.s in the u. in association with these measures being changed, you see? And so this is quite shocking again. And again, I think we're the first to really demonstrate that. Then later we looked at cancer. So with cancer, you ask the same questions. Yeah, because we're hearing about all of these turbo cancers.

In fact, I was just talking to a friend in New York who tends to be fairly pro-medical and all of that. and we're not necessarily politically aligned. And even she said, I'm really worried about these turbo cancers and what I injected into myself. And I said, oh, you're hearing that story? Because we tend to live in these silos, depending on where our news is coming from.

And she said, Del, everyone has heard that story. Now, I don't know if that's true, but it is becoming such a big deal. It seems like this idea of an increase in cancer. So when you look at that, is it proving out? Oh, well, one of the things I pointed out at the Allison Inquiry, I forget what slide it was, maybe slide 40, something like that, is that this kind of hyper-progressive cancer has been known since 2015.

And it started only in 2015 in association with a new drug being approved that was an immune therapy drug, so that they were giving that to certain patient. And then you had an immediate observation of this very aggressive cancer type, including in young people. So the phenomenon, it's known that if you mess with the immune system, you can get very aggressive cancers in young people.

It's been known for a long time. About 300 scientific papers about that. I pointed that out. And now we're starting to see it in the mortality that's associated with cancer as well. So I showed some key slides about cancer in the U.S. I think it was slides starting maybe at slide 42. I showed some data for, yeah, there it is, five to 44 year olds, all cancer types. So you have to know that when you look at all ages together, you don't see these signals because cancer is a major cause of death and old people

die a lot and so you just you you barely see anything in in when you're doing the usual thing which is to look at you know what's cancer like in the u.s you look at all cancers all ages you don't see anything but here what we're doing is we're we're picking the younger age group five to 44 year olds and we're looking at the historical trend by month and there's you end up with a plateau there you turn on the pandemic nothing happens and you have to wait into 2021 for for an up optic a rise to a higher level and that coincides with these financial support cuts that I mentioned earlier and it coincides with this surge in vaccination which was related to the vaccine equity rollouts which were massive in the US and the US is the only place that did that kind of thing okay right

so that that's stunning and um you can look at the next slide as well I think 42 you now we put it in in terms of five to 24-year-olds, we're looking by sex and for both sexes in the black line there. And you see the historic trend, and you see this upsurge when you were vaccinating these people and after vaccination. So it's a lot of extra deaths there that are cancer deaths. And that's a very clear safety signal for these young people.

Especially in no category, you're not really seeing it going down and no one's doing better. And honestly, like these graphs, as I look at them, you keep looking at the same tiny, the pregnant women graph, that bubble, you can almost see this cancer graph. They're similar in how the effects are of being witnessed in mortality. Absolutely. That you do something to those age groups and to those people, and the consequence is mortality. It's not, it starts, for some people, it's an immediate consequence. For some people, it's a little later, depending on the type of intervention.

So you get this bump coming up like that. That's right. And that's a classic way of detecting a safety signal. And it's very, very clear. It's unambiguous. And what's interesting is that we looked at cancer types as well. So I think it was slide 43, was it, that had a different kind of cancer? Yeah.

So here's an example of a rare cancer. So we looked at all the different cancer types that the CDC provides data for. And this one is called malignant neoplasma bone and articular cartilage of limbs. And so in the 5 to 24-year-olds, it's normally just about 10 deaths per year, and it shoots up to about 30 after vaccination. Okay, that after vaccination. So only starting in 232. So that's a clear safety signal that one should say, well, okay, what's going on here? And why this specific kind of cancer?

and why these young people. And then the next kind of cancer that we found a really important signal in is this cancer type that's called malignant neoplasm of independent primary multiple sites. Now that's a mouthful. It's a very specific ITD10 code. But what it means is it's a cancer in which which does not progress in the usual way where you start with a tumor and then you get what they think of it as a spread. So then you find the tumor on one organ and then you find it later.

on other organs and you think of it in terms of spread and it takes years for that to happen. This is a cancer type where the tumors on different organs are not from a single primary original tumor. They're independently produced on that organ. Okay. So this is kind of an explosion of cancer on many organs at the same time. So it's a very, very special kind of cancer and the diagnosis for it is very specific. You have to test. You have to test. You have to to have biopsies of the different tumors, you have to study them properly with lab techniques and establish that this is not from the same primary tumor. So you're basically demonstrating that you've got a cancer type here which is unusual and explosive. And that's precisely the kind

of cancer type that you saw in the graph there increased after vaccination. And then the next slide after that showed that that was for the younger population, but the next slide after that showed for the 75 plus year olds also for those ages you get a stepwise increase in that cancer type for both males and females so there's a special kind of cancer that's being induced or that appears to be induced that is appearing all of a sudden in in in greater amount causing death in greater amount than before so those are our cancer signals that that that that we found yeah and And there's a couple of other things I wanted to highlight from my testimony. Okay.

If you bear with me. Because I want to really emphasize a few things. In addition to these very important, you know, women giving birth, their infants, the toddlers and cancers in young people, there's other things that need to be said. For example, if you go to slide 64, I want to show this, this is the data from Canada. Okay. And this shows excess mortality in light blue. So not raw mortality itself, but excess mortality above normal and below normal. And on the same graph, you've got a red curve there.

And that red curve is a measure. There's an Oxford index that's been developed. It's a measure of the intensity with which you so-called protect the elderly, which means isolate them and lock them in. Okay. So when you have an increase in that index, like at the very start of the pandemic, and then you see I put a gray line there where there's another big increase, and then a gray line where there's another big increase, each time you have one of these increased, I would

say assaults against elderly people, you immediately, that's immediately followed by a large peak in excess mortality. Okay? It's wild. I mean, just putting these words together, Denise. I just want to just point out, you're saying they're saying they're protecting this group of people, but whatever that meant, we're seeing a rise in mortality amongst those people, meaning whatever your motivation, you are not succeeding, the words you're using are not

matching the results that you're getting. No, it's the opposite. Yeah. And that graph shows that not only do you get a peak of mortality, but that peak is followed by a trough below normal mortality. So what that means is you so assaulted them during that peak that there are not enough of that age group to die in the weeks that follow So you get a lower mortality than you would normally have and that's that's called the dry tinder effect. So this is a demonstration on on a time basis that you really had to do something to kill these people more than normal and then they die less than normal in the weeks the follow you see and so this is to stress this idea that the way they isolated and treated the elderly was extremely harmful and caused a lot of death. And so that's a point I've been making for years that this is insane and you should not do that. Some countries are proud to say, well, we weren't as crazy as to impose vaccination at all ages, but we did protect our elderly. Yes.

And when I look at the mortality for those countries, like Sweden, I see a large peak in mortality when they did that. Yeah. It's important to know that helping is not always helping. There's another point that I wanted to make Dell. And this is more of a, I'll call it a radical point. I'll call it one that is, you know, it's about this notion of spread, spreading of something that causes death. And spreading means that as a function of time, you go, you cover more territory and you go and see deaths, spreading and so I showed some some key slides about that starting at slide 69 I

emphasized that Hicier-on-court and Linnard last year wrote a very large scientific report that's in the Hall of Science called constraints from geothermal evolution of all-cause mortality on the hypothesis of disease spread during COVID okay and what we showed in that paper is well you you can actually go to the next slide what we should these are the key points that come out of the paper okay basically there's no evidence we cannot see evidence that there was a spreading pathogen that caused the death we don't see spread we see what's called geostatic time evolution not geotemporal time evolution which is what all the models predict for a spreading viral pathogen we showed

that there were borders that were artificially impenetrable even though you had lots of change so there'd be a country that would have no excess mortality beside a country that had a lot but it was related to what that country was doing to people not something spreading because it didn't cross the border it's like it didn't have a passport or something and so we we saw also that these hot spots in mortality when they occurred they were synchronous across continents which is impossible in these models we saw that there was no excess mortality until a given day that was an administrative date when you declare

pandemic which in terms of these models is impossible we saw that there were unprecedented peaks in the middle of the summer which all all the all the people had said that viral uh contagion does not spread in the summer because you have humid air and the droplets don't don't stay in an aerosol form long enough for us right we saw we saw uh in milan this huge peak of mortality at the beginning In Rome under exactly the same circumstances, same large airports getting flights from China, same density of poor people, same urban density, same everything in the same country, Rome had no excess mortality at the same time that Milan did, which is contrary to these models. And the same thing is true of California versus New York.

So the next slide in that series shows what these models predict. Okay, that's to show the difference between New York and California. Virtually no. And then this slide shows one of the most cited models calculating what should happen if it is spread. And you can see that the big spots are in New York as well as California. You can see that both Milan and Rome are hit. So there is no way to tweak these models to give you what we observed in reality in terms of mortality. All right.

I want to see. I want to drill down on this. with you. And I'm glad you brought up because I was going to bring it up because you shared a letter online and I'm just because I wanted to have this conversation. This is a post you put out and this is a letter. It is true that many are overlooking a key point in our ground-breaking research. This letter addressed me specifically, so I want to address it. It said letter to the high wire by Stephen Malthouse, MD, C-H-E-A director. I'll just read a couple of excerpts so people know what was happening here. The high wire continues to support the virus-caused pandemic story,

which Rand Court has now proven to be untrue. In fact, there's no evidence of a SARS-CoV-2 virus ever existing, leaked or otherwise, and acting as the source of even statewide infection. This is the revelation that the Allison inquiry showed to the world. It's as if everyone is in a trance and missed it. It goes on to say, so my beef with the high wires that you are not looking hard enough in the right places. Sure, there was a criminal behavior, psychopathology, cruelty and there is plenty of theater around bringing Fauci to justice before he dies, but that is just playing into globalist hands, distraction to keep us, plebs, occupied while surveillance, digital IDs, CBDCs and AI controls are brought in. The biggest lie we are

now facing is that viruses cause disease. Another pandemic is on its way. We can do better. The high wire and I can't can do better. We can expect humans to survive. We must do better. So I want take up that challenge. And I'm really not, I'm in no means. But I, okay. I do want to say, though, that he,

he, he extrapolates too far from what we showed. Because that's what I wanted to ask you. That's what I wanted to ask you. Is it, you know, because I've been really very outspoken on this show, especially after traveling to Europe,

that it is clear we murdered people, that this protocol murdered, that the numbers that we saw were from denial of access to just obvious care, putting someone on oxygen that's having breathing issues, not sending them home, all the rest of it. But I wanted to drill in on where you're exactly at because I'm actually trying to figure this out. I want to know, you know, and let me ask the simple question then you can get in detail. Are you saying there's no such thing as a

coronavirus at all or it wasn't responsible for all cause, you know, or an increase in mortality What exactly is the position because I am trying to figure out what we, what actually happened? Did anyone die from something called a coronavirus, whether it came from a lab or naturally? Do you think anyone died from a virus? Let me start with that simple question. Right. Well, first of all, this excess mortality that we characterize and quantify around the world, we also studied Europe in great detail, is strongly essential.

associated with respiratory conditions. So people, it is definitely respiratory conditions. Now when you look at respiratory conditions, it's never just simply one virus ever. In the history of what medical people say about respiratory conditions, they never go in and say, aha, this person died of pneumonia, it's due specifically exactly to this pathogen, period.

No, when they actually look for pathogens, they'll typically find 10 or 15 different bacterial populations that are dangerous, that are significant in the lungs and the fluids and everything. So it's never simple. So it is respiratory for sure. There were respiratory condition. And what we have been saying since the start is that respiratory ailments are extremely sensitive to stress and isolation. And so this is from the work of Professor Sheldon Cohen in the U.S., who a large part of his scientific research demonstrated this.

that you're more likely to develop a respiratory condition, even if you're young, like he was doing this with college students at the time. He was trying to infect them directly. And he found that you're more likely to get infected, or rather to develop the condition, and you're more likely to get very sick if you do develop it based on two things that he found over many years of research.

One is, what is the stress that you are experiencing? in your life and two is what is your degree of social isolation so these are two big determinants of respiratory conditions so I I think that this is how we can understand what happened and I wrote a paper that's on our correlation website which is entitled in the title it says transmissionless pneumonia and it explains the scientific basis for transmissionless pneumonia which is a very real phenomenon and a real killer of mostly elderly people. And I explained that there's necessarily a huge link between experienced stress of all kinds

and whether or not you're going to die with a serious respiratory condition. Okay. So that's something to keep in mind. Now, the way I see this is since we have demonstrated that you cannot understand the mortality patterns in time and in space, in terms of a spreading virus, like all the models say that you should be able to do, and they've been calculating this for decades, since we cannot do that, and it's contrary, in fact, to those ideas, then the spreading hypothesis is not what caused the pattern of mortality.

That we feel strongly about. Okay, so if it's not about a spreading virus in the air, then something else. What is the something else? And that's what we've tried to elaborate. We've shown that every time you have a peak in mortality, you were actually doing something to people. You were assaulting them in some way in hospitals, in care homes,

in, you know, in various places like that. And so we see, we always find this relationship between these assaults and the mortality. And we can't see that there was a spreading pathogen causing this mortality. So in, in my thinking, whether or not viruses exist, whether or not there was a COVID with a specific genetic code, whether or not all these things, whether or not PCR is able to detect specifically a virus,

a new virus, and all these kinds of questions, in terms of mortality and what really was done to society, it's irrelevant. That's what I conclude. In other words, if there was a lab leak, and there was a particularly dangerous virus, well, where is it? I'm not seeing it anywhere.

It didn't spread from one place to another, anywhere that I can see on the planet, where I have good data. So how is that relevant? That's kind of my thinking, you see. And so I don't want to get into the argument of, can you really prove the existence of a virus based on a genetic code that you measure by PCR,

even though you haven't, even though these are nanoparticles that are, difficult to work with. And I'm an expert on nanoparticles. I've written a lot of well-sighted papers on environmental nanoparticles and synthetic nanoparticles. So I know how to characterize them. I know how difficult they are to work with. So I don't want to get into the argument of whether you did the science right when you claim a new virus. I'm just saying I'm not seeing the spread that you are hypothesizing on the basis that it's a virus that is the pathogen here. That's my point.

I think I am completely aligned with that point at the moment. It's with the conclusion I'm getting as I travel. I just spoke to some of the top scientists in Italy that pointed out, we did not this giant rise in death. These are normal deaths. One of the things that they pointed out was they made it illegal in Italy to bury their dead. They're all Catholic. They do not cremate.

So they have very few crematoriums. And so by making it illegal to bear it, the dead as you usually do, bodies started piling up outside of crematoriums because they were not designed to take the usual flow of death. So things like that. We see it, I've seen it in so many different places. You haven't helped me, by the way, drill down on whether a virus exists or not, which I'm sure people are pounding my comments right now, but I'm in the same position. Like, there's certain things we can say. It is clear. This is what is clear to me now, as I've traveled the world, and I really have always appreciated the quality of investigation you're doing. It's an

honor to have you on the show. But what is really clear to me now is this was a manufactured pandemic, meaning they created a crisis for some reason. I am still trying to drill down. Maybe it's multifactorial. I don't know why they did it. But they knew that they had to create a panic. And that panic could only be created if they could actually increase numbers of deaths, whether it was just by changing categories and things like that. But what you're showing is we actually did see increases brought about by what they said were the protective measures, which, you know. There's no doubt about that.

Since you mentioned Italy, let's come back to that a little. In Milan, the large institutions and the local governments encouraged people to run, to the hospital if they had symptoms and they were putting everyone on mechanical ventilators and so they even developed they even modified their ventilators so they could put two patients on one ventilator because they didn't have as many as they wanted they were doing that in milan where that spike of death in rome the local government said no no don't don't run to the hospitals we don't want a glut in the hospitals please stay at home you know take care of yourself They had zero excess deaths.

Okay. So every time we've looked into one of these peaks of deaths, we see this kind of thing. For example, in New York, Harlem, a lot of poor people and rich people are building public hospitals for them. And they basically gathered them all and brought them into the hospitals. That's the largest peak of excess mortality in the United States at that time. Wow. In those public hospitals in Harlem. And you can see it on a map of high resolution that that's what's happening.

And what we found in general when we look at these peaks is whenever you have a poor group that feels that they are dependent on the medical system living beside wealthy people who can pay for hospitals and who like to help them with hospitals and so on, you have high death rates. We saw the same thing in the UK in London. wherever so we we concluded a kind of kind of making making humor in to some degree that it's very dangerous if you're poor to live near wealthy people and we see we see a lot of evidence the closer you are to a big profound medical system the more likely you are to die yes yes

and there's there's in in Canada there's this very strong correlation almost a correlation coefficient of one between excess deaths from opioid overdose and the real estate value in the same area in in Vancouver for example so there's this incredibly strong correlation so that's another example of of a poor street people essentially living near very wealthy people you see so that's that these are just some of the societal things that we're observing in in our mortality data yeah yeah My final question, Deney, and I appreciate your time, would be this is some of the most compelling evidence we've seen of a complete and total failure is the best way to describe it. But I think what I'm searching for is, is this bigger than a failure?

In all of your work, you've got to be asking the same question we're all asking, why did this happen? Do you have a lead on that? Well, I do talk to people who are rather high up and who tell me not to quote them. I think it's pretty clear that in the U.S., the vaccination programs, including flu vaccination and its importance, are driven by a military desire to be able to vaccinate people when you want with what you want. Okay. So it's not an accident that there is a flu vaccination industry, despite the fact that scientifically that flu vaccines have never been found to have a benefit. Yep. And that is absolutely, you know, established. Despite that fact, they keep producing them year after year, and they keep producing the new vaccines year after year. Now they're switching from the traditional vaccines that involve, that were more expensive.

to produce in fact you have to have a really large industry they use chicken eggs so they had these huge compounds with chickens and everything and it had to be sterile they're switching from that to the mrna technology which is a lot easier to control and it's more aligned with what they would like to be able to do that is they want to have they want to take these nanoparticles and put whatever they like in them and so i think they they want using pretexts to be able to inject the population whenever they want with whatever they think will achieve their aims. And the written legal logic is that they have to be prepared for biological attacks. And so they have to be prepared to inoculate their population, you know, immediately if this

happens. That's how they justify it to Congress, as I understand it. And so there is a military, a large military deep state driver of the whole industry. And this new technology with the catalyonic lipid nanoparticles is just so appealing to their mindset. You can get funded for it and you can have a career advancement and you can have a bigger institution that you control. I'm talking as though I were Fauci now. if you have a new technology like this and it has many more technological promises than the old technology, because it was originally developed for gene manipulation. So it has in their mind much more promise, you see.

So I have come to conclude that this was driven by the deep state protection military interests, say and that all the other countries went along with it one because they are dependent like Europe and Canada on the US they're tied to them economically and otherwise even with security arrangements and two because of the strength of US propaganda in the world that reaches into Russia and China and so on so they have to do something and so they developed their own vaccine they weren't going to let US companies give them the vaccines but I believe it's fundamentally driven by I use it where the people don't like to hear, but the USA is an empire and that's just a reality.

It controls and draws resources from several continents and it controls its allies, Japan, Europe and so on. It is a very powerful empire that is now being challenged by the developments in Asia, where you have sovereign states like China and Russia. So that geopolitically, I think, is the big picture that you have to acknowledge in order to really understand these crazy campaigns that they impose on us, I think. I think that's my view. I am, again, fairly aligned with most of what you're saying there. I think it was a failure on that front, though, because instead of having an increased desire for mandated vaccines or those rights, instead they've created. a more incensed, more resistant population, which is why in that letter it says you're talking about next pandemics, I'm talking about it, because I feel like they'll do it again, you know,

whether or not there's a real virus or not, I think they'll do it again. Oh, yeah. You see, from their perspective, it was a huge success because they pulled it off with their powerful propaganda and aligning all the institutions and the professionals with their project because they're all let's face it everyone is benefiting financially from this all the professionals and everything all the hospitals and everything so they they they practice that rollout with propaganda and this alignment and it worked they were able to achieve what they wanted and so now I think their thinking must be well where how can we perfect it how can

we make it even better how can we you know and and they're putting laws and structures in place to be able to to do that. So they're not going to stop, I don't think. The only thing that really stops them and puts a slow on, oh, this is interesting. One of the things we saw in the mortality data is that excess mortality largely stopped suddenly at another big event that happened, which was geopolitical. And it was the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, the special military operation. When that happened, all of the media have switched to the Russian threat. They were tired of the pandemic and they stopped doing the lockdowns and all these horrible things.

And they stopped really insisting on boosters to everyone. Otherwise, you're putting everyone at risk and all that. They just stopped doing that. And mortality goes down across the world. You see a stepwise down. Wow. At that date when Russia came in. So this shows you that,

propaganda and alignment of their soldiers, if you like, their minions, their professionals can do pretty much anything. And this is what they're perfecting. So it will happen again, for sure, if they want it to. But I think they're busy now with these wars. See, the reason we're not having another pandemic rate away, and they're not really insisting on it is because they are having some serious concerns about these wars. So we're talking about the Middle East, Iran and Ukraine and Europe.

And those are hot wars that are only getting worse and that could have all kinds of repercussions on the global economy and so on. That's something to be concerned about and that will affect people to the degree in terms of the economy, to the degree that it's going to be hard to try to convince them that they're going to die from a virus. Right. Yeah. Yeah. Deni, I want to thank you for taking the time today. Incredibly enlightening conversation. Keep up the great work. And if you have anything else breaking, breaking news, discoveries, I hope you'll bring it to us.

We would love to share your work. How do we follow the work that you're doing? Do you have a website or social media we can track? Oh, yeah, you've got my website there, X. You've got substack. But also the important one to add would be correlation dash Canada. That's our main nonprofit organization that does all the heavy lifting in terms of the research and everything. And right now we are busy writing up detailed reports about what I presented at the Allison Inquiry.

So we'll show all the analytic methods and all of that. We're in the middle of doing that right now. And then we've got a little pipeline of things that we're going to do. So there will be there will be other things. All right. Well, I look forward to seeing that. Great work. Danie.

Thank you for taking the time today. You take care. It was my pleasure. Goodbye. All right. Goodbye. I mean, I do a lot of these interviews. And for maybe me, I'm like geeking out a little bit, but that was pretty mind-blowing.

Some real dots being aligned there in this investigation that we've been on. It reminds me of some of the information that came out of Italy, where he showed every time they introduced the vaccine in an age group, the death in that age group amongst the on vaccine would go up. It's people like this that are delivering a message that I hope we are using to wake up enough people so that they can't do this again. But super fascinating conversation. You know, this is what we do. We plant seeds. There's things that I said at the beginning of COVID. Some, you know, most of them, most of the work we do, we're really proud of how accurate we've been all along the way.

But those seeds, you're just trying to get information out there. This is an ongoing investigation that we're in the high wire. And this investigation is not just vaccines. This investigation is not just, you know, pesticides or herbicides. We're talking about AI. We're talking about the things that are going to affect whether we are healthy beings, sovereign beings into the future. Wherever we find data, we put it out there.

One of, you know, it's just, you know, last night with some family and friends. And, you know, we were thinking, what was the most creative thing we did this year? And for me, I said it was an inconvenience study, which came out last October. We're just nearing the end of an incredible year. We have won so many awards, as I pointed out earlier, 17 awards and counting. This film is still as important and relevant, and it is so important. I mean, we're at 150 million views. That's awesome.

I mean, I mean, filmmakers dream to have a film that is seen by 150 million people, But that means there's still more than 8 billion still that have not seen it, that will be a part of the next lie, the next pandemic, that are lining their kids up right now. So our job isn't done. We need to get it out there. I want to remind you how awesome this film is. Here's the trailer for an inconvenient study. 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? Not that I put it out just nowadays. It's a 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 indebt. 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'm in Augustly like really rational.

This is an inconvenient study for the entire vaccine agenda. Well, an inconvenient study has been a sensation around the world over 130 million views. We're really excited about it. But I want to tell you, if you live in Texas, anywhere around the sand and Tony or Austin area. We're going to be doing a screening of an inconvenient study this Monday night on the 28th. And I'm being joined by Dr. Bob Sears to do a Q&A afterwards. And it's my honor and pleasure to be joined by Dr. Bob Sears now. How is it going, Dr. Sears? Hey, Del. I am so excited about this event. I love events with you because your passion and your

energy and your excitement for this topic really shows through. I mean, you look good on camera, Dell, but in person, you are, you are a whole other thing. So I'm really looking forward to it. Yeah, it's going to be really great. Just when this film came out, what was your perspective? This is an issue that you have been on the front lines. I remember seeing you back during SB 277, when they really started like, you know, bringing these laws to vaccinate every child in California. and you've been there trying to navigate that space with parents. But is a film like this helpful? Because it was the question we were always asking, right?

What happens when we compare a vaccine to unvaccinated? Well, my whole life, Dell, has been a comparison of vaccinated to unvaccinated patients. Because that's what my practice has been. I started out vaccinating a lot of my patients. And then as the years went by, more and more didn't want to vaccinate. And when I think of the health of my patients starting 30 years ago when I first became a pediatrician, to the health that I see in my unvaccinated patients now, it's like night and day. It's like two different worlds.

And this study that this movie is about supports that. But I didn't need a study. I know it's true. Unvaccinated kids are just they're healthier. They live healthier, longer, happier lives with fewer health conditions because I've seen it play out in my office. But this movie is just the icing on the cake to see an actual study show those same results. You know, we've got Robert Kennedy Jr. in his HHS secretary. But I still, I travel around speaking and there's this sort of sentiment, nothing's happening.

I'm worried about all these people that aren't listening. It just feels like we're in our own silos, in our own bubbles. As a pediatrician out there on the front lines, now I know you attract, you know, obviously the ones that are starting to question these things. But is that your sentiment? Do you feel like parents that this message is not getting through? Or are we seeing a growth in the investigation of the safety of vaccines from new parents? Del, the number of patients, the number of new parents who are having their first baby, their third baby, their fifth baby, who are questioning vaccines now.

The growth is exponential, Dell. I'm turning people away from my office because I don't have enough capacity to take the huge influx of patients who are now trying to raise their kids vaccine-free. So things might be slow to change on the governmental level. And of course, in the mainstream medical level,

the changes out of snail's pace, right? But in the public level, Dell, Oh, it's out there. I would be surprised if we found out through some sort of research that half of Americans no longer trust the CDC schedule. I feel like that's the result we would get if we actually did some good studies on this. How many people now want to raise their kids either with less vaccines or no vaccines at all? And as that trend, it's not even just a trend. I think it's a permanent change in our society. no matter where the government goes in the years to come, Dell, I think permanently a huge proportion of our population now wants to raise their kids vaccines, vaccine free. So it'll be healthier. And that's going to stay with us for decades, centuries to come. I think we'll be a healthier people for it.

I totally agree with you. I keep saying genie's out of the bottle, the cat's out of the bag. You can't have the amount of science that we have now. It used to be, it was hard to find. And the Henry Ford study is just one of many of all the re-evaluations that, like, you know, doctors and scientists like Nick Holscher are doing. We've got Peter McCullough out there, Pierre Coyle. I mean, it just feels like we are now, there's like a cacophony. And how does it, let me just ask you this, because I know, you've got, you know, the medical practices in your family, you have siblings.

is there still a cognitive disconnection amongst pediatricians that are like staring this tidal wave and seem to not know anything other than just dig their heels in? How do you explain it? You know what? We are trained to believe in the pharmaceutical model, Dell. If the CDC says something, if the AMA says something, that's gospel. It literally becomes gospel. And unless something triggers you as a doctor to look deeper, you're just going to stay with that belief your whole career.

But you know what? The numbers of doctors that have always been questioning this is pretty high. And there's more and more doctors that are now questioning it. And so I think we're going to see a shift in the medical community very, very slowly. But I think more and more doctors now believe like I do and like you do. And so we're now part of a really big family and a growing family. I no longer feel alone, Del. I used to feel very alone in this fight as a doctor,

although there was many parents, of course. But now there's so many of us out there that now understand the truth about this. And that's why I think events like what we're having in San Antonio next week are so important. I mean, not only is the information important. It's so important for us to get together, feel supported, feel united, feel like a group in this and not to feel alone, and to find other friends in this movement. So you can move forward with them

and be effective on the political level and the community level. So you gotta get together and it's gonna be interesting. It's gonna be a lot of fun. I'm looking forward to the Q&A, hanging out with people talking and going to dinner. People can join us for dinner after the movie. That's gonna be even more fun. So I'm looking forward to it.

I'm looking forward to two. I will see you there. I know you've got a line down the block. As you said, we don't want you turning any more patients away. So get back to it. I'll see you in San Antonio on Monday. Thank you, Dr. Bob, Stiers, for all you've done. But especially, it's going to be great to see you in a couple of days.

Take care. Yeah, thanks, Del. All right. If you want tickets, again, they're still available. There's also tickets to the VIP dinner afterwards. You can just go to bit. Atlea.S. That's for an inconvenient study.

You can grab that QR code or if it's easiest to remember, go to Texans for Vaccine Choice, their website and just look up their events and you can also click on it there. It's going to be fantastic. Again, it's all about community, about more than just, even if you've seen the film, you've really never done that in a group experience. It has a totally different emotional effect. It'll be great. If you've had questions about it, this is the opportunity to come and ask some of those questions. But this community thing, I think, is going to get to be more and more and more important. I mean, I'm telling you, we're sitting in meetings on things that are happening in the world.

Some of it we're holding back. Some of it can be incredibly terrifying, depressing. But I know we can do something about it, especially when we find each other. And the best way to find each other is to be able to recognize each other in a crowd like, hey, you're an American too. You can't spell American without I can. At the informed consent action network, freedom starts with believing I can. I can think for myself. I can ask questions.

I can speak my mind. I can make my own choices. Every day, I can fights for you and for the children of America. I can demand informed consent. I can stand up for medical freedom. I can choose a healthier life for my family. For 10 years, I can has stood up for the freedoms that have defined this country for 250 years. And freedom isn't just about what we fight for, it's about what we live for.

I can play hard. I can work hard. I can explore. I can laugh. I can love. I can decide. Freedom isn't just something you talk about. It's something you live.

Support I can and help us keep fighting for informed consent, medical freedom, and the right to choose. Visit the highwire. Dot shop today because I can means we can. means American. Well, don't you want one of these cool? You know those really great sweatshirts and almost a little bit like a, you know, a wet suit.

This is one of those great material and you can get it at our store. It helps support the word. Oh, check out the back. Did you not see the back? You see the hat? There we go. All right.

Anyway, go ahead and check out all the great merch at the store. It helps us do what we do. And it helps me find you out there in a crowd. of a crowd I'm also going to be up not just in San Antonio Monday but Friday I head up to Alexandria Minnesota September 26th it's an incredible event there's the QR code for that that's going to be an always an awesome lineup I've been doing this every single year just a really really great event and my live show is a little different than it is

here those of you that seem both know what I'm talking about if you haven't go and check it out there it is And in convenient study, there is one more time. If you want to see me in San Antonio, watch the film with a crowd. That's where to do it. Off the record coming up tomorrow is going to be a special interview that I did with Andrew Bridget. He was one of the parliament members that really spoke out during COVID. Wait to hear what he admits was said behind closed doors.

He lets it all out. This is a mind-blowing interview about what's happening in the politics around this. We say who is they. He'll tell you exactly what they were telling him. It's a shocking interview. That's going to be off the record that airs tomorrow. And it's free to you all. If you do is sign up and get in. Highwire Plus is now available. We just want to get everybody all of this content. I want to talk a little bit about, you know, when there's letters written, the high wire isn't doing this. Del Bigtree, where are you at? Why aren't you? You're afraid to say blah, blah, blah. By the way, that's the beauty of a free country. You are totally open to Europe. In fact, I always get a little warm space when I see my name in a hit piece, whether it's New York Times Politico or somebody's letter. It means you're thinking about me, and I appreciate that. But I want to be clear, a lot of times when people read letters, I think by that one, it's clear that they're not watching the show all the time.

I've been really upfront and honest on this investigation as it's changed throughout time. I've been saying just really fairly recently that one of my best friends is Mickey Willis. but I have not called this a plandemic until I saw the science I needed to see to be able to come to that conclusion. I am now saying there were plans involved before this thing was really out there. I am trying to figure out, was there any virus at all? Was there a singular virus? Was it just basically common clothes flu? Do they just take your average cold season?

And, I mean, Deney really lays out how they can do it. If you can put enough stress into a community, it looks like then you can. and, you know, get deaths to rise. All of this, though, I want to be really clear how we do what we do here. I am presenting the evidence as we find it. Sometimes I'm doing interviews right in front of you where I don't know what I'm about to hear.

You are a part of this investigation with us. I am not selling an agenda. I am trying to find the truth, which is why sometimes you'll see our story is evolving as we get more information. The things I do get nervous about, do I get nervous, about things we're going to report her. Am I afraid to report things? Let me tell you the things that make me nervous. One of them was today as I sat, listening to this AI conversation, we're having it a lot. And I'll be honest with you. I think the governments of the world, especially of America,

they do seek to control us. The globalist systems even more. I'm really worried about this global takeover. I think they will do whatever it takes. When I say a second pandemic, I don't mean. I think there's a real virus that's coming we need to be worried about. So that seems to be a misconception. What I'm saying is they're going to come up with an excuse. They don't need a reality to it. They can manufacture these things. And as I'm talking, we're getting deep in AI. I'm really concerned that we're also at the same time laying the groundwork. They are looking for the thing that they will instill enough fear. So if we talk about, you know, AI enough, and I think it is something we should be very concerned about.

I know that my show is being watched. Those, it is clear. Let's be clear. I know that those agencies are whatever the they are that are trying to control the world, check in on the highway and what's Dell up to. Oh, my God, he's got his audience really afraid of AI right now. Maybe AI. You realize how easy this would be to just say an AI virus has gotten loose.

It's going to rob every bank account. We have to shut down the internet. You need to stay in your home and even the high wire watches me like, oh my God, it's probably true. Tell's been talking about that. That's my biggest fear is that we're playing into fear. And I don't know the way around it. How do we deal with these things? They're coming from all sides now.

We got really stupid people in charge of things way bigger than they know what to do with. Science is out of control. It's out of their hands. It's like we're living in, you know, an Aesop's fable that's about to. go horribly wrong. So all I can tell you is I'm going to be completely honest with the perspective that we have. We have concerns. I state those concerns because I think we as people have the ability to stand up and do something about it. We vote with our dollars and for everyone that donates to ICANN or whatever nonprofit you think is doing the work, you're involved. But what are

you spending your money on? Are you buying things from the companies that are taking it and building some AI monster whether they can control it or not. I'm asking you to be involved, ask the questions. And by the way, I love questions that come to us and we addressed one today. Do we think there's no virus at all? You know, I am being open with all of these conversations. I'm looking for evidence and some of it I got from Deney and others. Even he said the letters and Oprah statement of my position. So this is what we do. I don't think there's another show like this.

If you want someone that is investigating the things that are actually infecting your world, that you are asking questions about, I'm not ahead of you, I'm not behind you, I'm not running from everything, I'm with you. My team is with you. We have the same concerns, and we are looking for the same answers that you are. And we're not going to wait until we get the one we want. We're going to show you the ones we find all along the way. That is what the High Wire does.

That is what this institution stands for. And that is why we love everyone that is a part of our informed consent action network. Keep watching. I think we've got a lot of surprises ahead and we'll deal with them as they come together. And I'll see you next week on the High Wire.