The Highwire with Del Bigtree - GAIN OF DYSFUNCTION

Episode Date: February 3, 2023

Del Breaks Through With Dr. Drew; VRBPAC Committee Reveals FDA Lacks Data To Back “Flu-Shot” Fast-track COVID Vaccine Push; Ex-Eco Health Alliance Executive Exposes the Truth About Wuhan; Project Veritas, the Pfizer Whistleblower, and Directed Evolution?; Tennis Star Novak Djokovic A Champion for All in Australia, Named HighWire Hero of The YearGuest: Andrew G. Huff, PhD#AskDrDrew #DirectedEvolution #LiedSuddenly #Djokovic #HighWireHero #GainOfDysfunctionBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

Did you notice 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 corporate sponsors telling us what to investigate and what to say. Instead, you're our sponsors. This is a production by our nonprofit, the Informed Consent Action Network. If you want more investigations, more hard-hitting news. If you want the truth, go to Ican Decide.org, and donate now. Good morning, good afternoon, good evening, wherever you are out there in this beautiful world,

it's time to step out onto the high wire. I will say here in Texas, we have had some crazy ice storms that have swept through here, making it very difficult. I want to thank my team that have been editing and working from home since the roads were almost totally impassable for the last couple of days. If we have any lights go out, it's because we're running on generator power right now. so a very interesting time here in Texas. But something happened this week I want to talk about. You know, there are bucket lists.

I know we all have them. Those moments where something happens where you're just like, you know what, that's something that I sort of dreamed about many years ago. Many, many years ago, I had a job at night, late at night, and I'd be driving home and listening to this show on the radio that kept me awake a bunch of times. And that show was called Loveline with Dr. Drew and Adam Carolla. And I would say that, you know, when I started podcast and when I started doing this work, You know, Dr. Drew and that work was some of the people I would think about that were really good at what they did.

Well, this week, Dr. Drew Pinsky invited me to be on his show to discuss my theories on what happened during this pandemic. Now, Dr. Drew has been admittedly himself waking up to real problems around this vaccine program, and he's been having some great guests on, Dr. Peter McCullough, and I think Ryan Cole was just done yesterday. two days ago. I was on. But, you know, these those moments in life, we even actually just passed each other as I started the high wire in a podcasting studio in Los Angeles. Actually, Dr. Drew was using the same studio on a different day. I kept trying to see if we could, you know, line up. That never happened. But it all came together two nights ago. And here's a little taste of what that looked like. Hey, everybody. And today, by Popular Demand, we're getting Del Bigtree in here. You've been thinking of bringing him in to discuss his

point of view for quite some time, but many of you were quite persistent. And so in response to that popular demand, we are delighted to have them here today. The question I'm constantly asking, if the risk to a, let's say, an adolescent male or young adult male of COVID is approaching zero. It's very remote. It's very unlikely to cause significant illness. Why are they pushing so hard on the vaccine, especially given what we think we're seeing, which seems to be more myocarditis and superventricular the arrhythmia. How do I give informed consent to a 30-year-old when I don't have the data? And I'm confused about it. And I can't seem to get the questions answered. What do you say to that?

Well, what I would say to that is that is how this whole game is played. It's actually been played with the entire vaccine program. I know because I have a team of scientists and doctors around the world that's read every single trial of every single vaccine. And you'd be shocked to know that this COVID vaccine trial is one of the best that was ever done. We've never had a trial this large of any of the childhood vaccines. It has never gone on as long as this trial has. And in this case, we used a saline placebo. The WHO, the FDA, many of the health agencies around the world are seeing the return of diseases.

Now the media will say it's the anti-vaxxers are the reason that measles is coming back. But the truth is, the measles vaccine does not create lifelong immunity. You are not immune for life, even though every goal of every vaccine was to do the same. same thing that natural immunity could do. In this case, they've never achieved it. And so in the Disneyland outbreak, if you look at those stats, about 50% of the people in that Disneyland measles outbreak were adults, meaning it had nothing to do with their childhood vaccines. Their adults had worn off, and this is a real issue. There's concern about this. I'm going to stop you. I'm going to stop you. Okay. So because that was true,

what you're saying is true, I re-vaccinated myself, and by patients. We were all re-vaccinated, particularly anybody born before 1968, all re-vaccinated. And that was that. This isn't the only vaccine. Pertustis has the same exact problem. It does not stop transmission. You will be infected. We now know this. In fact, the science shows you will be infected more often after getting a pertussis vaccine than had you not gotten it. So this idea that I'm protecting that baby, that infant, all you're doing is masking the only alarm. system lets you know you're sick.

I got to push back on pertussis, because I don't know, when I get everybody vaccinated in an outbreak of pertestis, people have vaccinated don't seem to get it, and everyone else seems to get it. And it's pretty nasty if you've ever really been around pertusses. It goes on forever. I'll send you, I'll send you the science on that.

All right, I'll look at it. Yeah, it is, they are carriers. They don't have the symptoms. It blocks the, the, the, their sickness, but they carry it. The behavior and the playbook for this pandemic, as I look back on it now, is line and verse exactly what happened during the opioid epidemic.

We had people well-meaning, who became evangelical, who captured the regulatory agencies, captured the VA, capture the CMA, capture all the organizations that supervised physicians. Physicians were silence, mandated, and off we went. The only difference really, the major striking difference between this and the whole opioid epidemic,

is that in that case, you can still sue the manufacturer of that product, which gives us a lot of information in courtrooms that we cannot get on vaccinations. That's a huge part of it. And nobody was ever mandated to take that painkiller. So those two things really put this in an extraordinary position. There's a reason why we tried the doctors in Nazi Germany.

There's a reason why we came out with the Nuremberg Code and the first rule of the Nuremberg Code. informed consent states that the voluntary consent of the patient is absolutely critical in modern medicine. If I don't control my own body and I don't make the decisions for my children's bodies, then I don't think we can consider ourselves free citizens. In many ways, that looks like the same rights as a farm animal. We have got to be a part of the conversation. Yeah, it's hard to argue with that. I'm not saying it's because some evil plot to take over the world. I think many of the worst things that

happen the world come from good intention. I think we undersell it when we make it money-based. I think there's a lot of great doctors and scientists out there that really do care about the world. And as I said, I think there are good intentions that could lead to bad outcomes. First of all, I want to just really thank Dr. Drew for having the courage that he's shown over the last year or so diving into a very controversial topic. It's dangerous to his platform. Luckily, he's still on YouTube. You can check it out. Definitely go check this out. I think especially for all of your friends out there that maybe they're not ready for the high wire. This is a really nice entry point. It's a one hour interview and we cover a lot of ground. You can see on a couple occasions we disagreed on some points on others. We were agreeing. But I think it's great for all of you to watch. Just watch how we have these conversations, especially with the doctor. It's very important. And, you know, in some ways it's easy. If all the doctors in the world were like Dr. Drew, we wouldn't find ourselves in these problems. He's critically thinking. He's working. through it. But it's a super awesome interview and I really would inspire all of you to go check it out,

especially because if you support when I get to do interviews like this, other people like maybe hey, Joe Rogan out there, maybe you might decide to have me on too so that we can continue to spread this message. Today you're going to see a lot of the shifting change in this conversation and obviously the fact that a Dr. Drew will even interview someone like me shows us we have come a long way, baby. I want to get to one of the points that I made in one of the argumentative points that I had with Dr. Drew was over the protustis vaccine. I said it does not stop infection. It does not stop the transmission. It does stop your symptoms. That's somewhat problematic. He wanted to push back against that. My team was sending over the science as we were having that conversation. I hope he's

looking at it. But for all of you that are brand new to this show, this is an argument that goes back before we had the COVID vaccine, and frankly, it's the same exact problem when you push your product that does not stop transmission. Technically, is that even a vaccine, and could it cause more problems than it alleviates? I covered this back in 2018 talking about the baboon studies that brought all of this to light. So let's just do a flashback. Instead of doing all over again, this is 2018, talking about the pertussis vaccine. If your pediatrician has said, you better, make sure that your grandparents and everybody visiting you has gotten the D-TAP vaccine because your baby is susceptible to pertussis and it could kill your baby. Stop. Stop right there. I'm going to explain why right after this piece of total bull crap. There's something out there. It's a highly contagious disease. It can be especially serious, even fatal to infants.

Unfortunately, many people who spread it may not know they have it. It's called whooping calls. and the CDC recommends everyone, including those around babies. Make sure their whooping cough vaccination is up to date. Understand the danger your new grandchild faces. Talk to your doctor or pharmacist about you and your family getting a whooping cough vaccination today. What is the scientific evidence that you will be protected by a detap vaccine and that the baby will be protected because you've got a detap vaccine? It's actually the exact opposite.

I want to point you to a study that was done by scientists from the FDA. from the FDA, cellular pertussis vaccines protect against disease but fail to prevent infection and transmission in a non-human primate model. They did a primate study which is the gold standard of safety testing. Here's how it went. We used our brand new D-TAP vaccine on the pink baboons right here. Boom, we gave them all D-TAP. This is the common vaccine used all around the world.

And this group are totally unvaccinated. The blue monkeys here all have natural immunity. Why? Because they already had the virus. It's not injected with anything. And now they are immune for life. And they come in with the pertussis bacteria. And they put them all in contact with pertussis.

Here's what's interesting. To the D-TAP group, remember this is the accellular pertussis. This group that got sprayed with pertussis, they had the entire disease, they were carrying it. The only difference was they had no cough. They didn't know they had it, but it was inside their lungs. Then this group of unvaccinated, just as we would suspect, all got pertussis. They weren't protected and they felt like crap.

And we're hacking their fool heads off. Lastly, the group that had once had pertussis and are now naturally immune, guess what? a single bit of colonization. They are perfectly healthy. They will be healthy for life because as we've said, real herd immunity requires that you get the disease. Grandma says, oh, I had pertussis 15 years ago. Come on over. Now it comes down to these two groups, which is what this commercial is all about. What they're telling you is this is the safer group to have visit your baby. Here's what I want you to think about. Both these groups are admittedly, totally contagious with pertussis. This one,

ah ha ha ha ha, honey, grandma calls. She feels terrible and she says, I'm not visiting the baby because I have this atrocious cough and I probably shouldn't come over. That's what the unvaccinated group is going to do, but this group just as contagious but because they've had the vaccine are not coughing. They have no idea they are fully contagious with pertussis. So they're coming over to visit baby just like your doctor said, just like the commercial told you to do, get your deep tap vaccine except it's made you a silent potential killer. They did a side study. They took one of these pertussis covered de-tap monkeys,

and they put it in a cage with a totally unvaccinated, healthy monkey, and they let them sit together. And guess what? Every time they did this experiment, this totally unvaccinated monkey got the disease from this vaccinated detap monkey, Fully contagious and dangerous. So in the end, who is the real wolf in this story? The D-TAP group. This is the most dangerous group on the planet. You will never know whether it's safe to be around your baby.

On the other hand, this group will have pertussis once. But once they're done with that cough, they will never get it again. So they can visit any baby they want for the rest of their life. for the rest of their lives safely, they can also know because they have a cough they shouldn't come over to mommy and daddy and baby's house. That's the facts, that's the science, and there's never been a greater display of false advertising than that horrific ad by GlaxoSmith Quine. All right, that should just about explain it, just to back that up with a little bit more

science. There was also another study of a lot of the, what we're talking about there at Boston University of the FDA. This is a study by the pediatric infectious disease society, the 112 year odyssey of pertussis and pertussis vaccines, mistakes made implications for the future. It goes on to say, because of linked epitope suppression, all children who were primed by D-TAP vaccines will be more susceptible to pertussis

throughout their lifetimes. And there is no easy way to decrease this increased lifetime susceptibility. They're gonna get sick over and over and over again because of the vaccine. Another study done by one of the authors of this book. We've talked about it before, Plotkins on Vaccines. This is one of the most important books to the vaccinologists of the world,

Catherine Edwards, who we have some videos online, her deposition by our lawyer, Erin Siri, where she reveals a lot of truth. Well, she was a part of a very important study in an article, and that article admitted this in 2019. So after I did that example, This is what they're continuing to find, protustis prevention, reasons for resurgence and differences in the current acer pertustis vaccines. It goes on to say preventive measures such as acer pertussis vaccines that do not induce a valid mucosal response can prevent disease but cannot avoid infection and transmission.

This is exactly what they're saying now about the COVID vaccine. It goes on to say produce vaccines do not prevent colonization. consequently do not reduce the circulation of B-Protusis and do not exert any herd immunity effect. We've talked about the fact that they've changed the definition of vaccines, probably because COVID has this problem. This one has this problem. By the way, so does our polio vaccine and others. This is a growing problem. I want you to think about this because I know, you know, even when, you know, Dr. Drews, you know, sort of took my assumption. She said, well, if that's the case, I still, you don't want to catch pertussis, I would still get the vaccine. but let's think about this world that the pharmaceutical industry is creating.

What happens if I take a vaccine or a product that then means my body is going to get infected over and over and over again? Maybe every year the rest of my life I'm going to be catching pertussis. My body will have it. It'll be fighting it. I just don't know I have it. And what if I also have COVID at the same time? I don't know I have it because the vaccine is just blocking my symptoms. This idea that these modern vaccines are only blocking symptoms.

Well, what does it mean to our overall health if we were carrying the diseases we were vaccinated for and not knowing we're carrying them? First of all, we're putting everyone at risk, this whole idea of protecting, putting a cocoon around those that can't get vaccinated, that's gone. So the idea that I'm vaccinated to protect someone, no, I'm putting everyone at risk for exactly what that example with the baboons shows up. But let's just ask ourselves what science is being done if I, for instance, am catching measles over and over again throughout my lifetime. A disease I used to only catch once and then had lifelong immunity. And by the way, Dr. Drew wouldn't have to be re-vaccinating himself had he caught measles as a child when it's not really a big deal. These are a lot of the conversations that we need to start revisiting because with the mRNA technology, I assure you, they want to vaccinate us for every one of the millions and billions of bacteria and viruses that are out there. They make more money. They can make all of them sound scary.

Can you imagine if I am walking around and I'm just a walking petri dish carrying all these viruses and bacteria? My body can't clear them anymore because of the vaccines, but I think I'm healthy, or am I starting to wonder why I have all sorts of autoimmune disease, or I'm tired all the time, or I just don't feel good. Oh, well, you're fine. Are you? I think this is the future we need to be very worried about with these vaccines. If all you're going to do is stop my ability to feel the symptom, it still is a disease inside.

to me. We should not be diseased carriers. At least that's how I'm going to live my life, and I'm going to live it with my children. All right. So definitely, please, there's a very interesting conversation happened with Dr. Drew and I. Both of us, you know, we're, you know, very pleasant with each other. I'm sure there will be more interviews in the future, but this is, again, a really great place to start with someone that maybe, you know, will the high wires that show. We'll go to Dr. Drew. They probably trust him. Let them enter there. and you should check it out because I think it's going to give you some talking points all in one place. All right, we have a huge show coming up.

We're going to get inside of the EcoHealth Alliance with Dr. Andrew Huff coming up. I'm so excited about this. I'm so tired of talking about gain of function and not really having anyone that is right there had their hands on it. Well, that's happening in just a few moments. But first, it's time for the Jackson Report. All right, Jeffrey, what do we got today? Del, very important watershed moment here at the Highwire. We've been tracking a story for about a week, and we've seen pre-positioning.

So to bring the audience in on these investigations and give them some critical thinking skills when looking at media, we've had Time magazine. They ran a headline that looked like this. COVID-19 is no longer a public health emergency. What? Well, this is the same time magazine that said, we need to lock down people to reopen. And masks are great. They actually help us stop COVID and the flu and RSV. All of a sudden, Time magazine runs something like this.

And you think, wait a minute, what's going on here? This is a big narrative change. Are they prepositioning something? Let's go into this article. Why is it, according to time, now time to end this public health emergency? Well, according to them, it says for over a year, over a year, it has been apparent that many hospitalizations officially classified as being due to COVID-19 are instead of patients without COVID symptoms who are admitted for other reasons.

but also happen to test positive. They go on to say misclassified hospitalizations obviously suggests there have also been miscategorized deaths, yet a parallel recognition that undoubtedly many official COVID-19 deaths are similarly due to persons dying with instead of from the coronavirus has only begun to emerge. It's only begun to emerge, says time. Well, you know, if you're watching the highwire, you would have known this in 2020, March of 2020, Let's take a look at that. All right.

Can you imagine where we're at if we actually go back and see was the person already dying of upper respiratory infection? Were they in chemo and on their last legs? And then because they, I mean, they had COVID-19, but having it was that what killed them? I mean, are we ever going to go back and clear through our numbers? And I'm going to show you something shocking when it comes to this. You would think, you would hope that the United States of America is really good at this, right? that they really make sure we get it accurate,

because accuracy is everything. But look what we found. We've found this is the certificate that goes out to all of the medical professionals and coroners around the country on how to code for COVID-19. Is it possible they're going to have the same problem with their numbers that Italy had?

Look what we are advising those people to do. This is literally from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Vital Statistics, system. And it goes on to say, it is important to emphasize that coronavirus disease 2019 or COVID-19 should be reported on the death certificate for all dissidents, where the disease caused or is assumed to have caused or contributed to the death. All right, hold on one and say, before we start with the, this is one of the things, you know, our videos age well,

all the things that we talk about age well. But one of the funky things is watching my health over time. So I'm just watching this, like I'm pretty porky in this shot. I have to say, look at that. That best is like, you know, the buttons are like stretched out. I just wanted, this is a great moment to really sort of say next week, folks, if you've been noticing, I lost just around 30 pounds recently. I did it fairly quickly over five weeks.

Next week on the show, I'm going to be talked about exactly how I did that. I use. I'm all about evidence-based medicine. I threw myself into the experiment, so you get to see what that was all about next week. I just want to put that out there. I have to put up with looking at these shots of myself, really looking unhealthy. All right, so let's get back to the manipulation of the death certificate. It was outrageous. Instead of having people die of cancer or their underlying heart disease or a heart attack they'd had, this death certificate in America that said, no, call it a COVID death, thereby exaggerating the numbers and really manipulating our ability to ever figure out what the heck went on here.

Right. And to this day, the CDC still has that policy recommendation in play. So just to keep that note. So yes, I mean, that undoubtedly, this inaccurate recording undoubtedly led to a longer lockdowns, longer masking, longer school closures. And it really hurt the kids because they were testing the kids when they were bringing them in for hospitalizations. And it was showing increased hospitalizations and death in kids when they weren't even going to the hospital for COVID. They'd break a leg or hurt an arm, go to the hospital. They tested in the front door and say, this is COVID. So on the back of that, they push through these kids vaccines. And remember everybody, there was an incentive for the hospital to do that, right? We hear right around terms, I think it was $13,000. A check is handed to you the moment you say

are patients in here for COVID. So it made them, flu doesn't give you that number. So when the death certificate said, even if you assume, I think there's a lot of hospitals that don't even test, let's not even find out this is flu because we won't make as much money. We literally incentivized the manipulation of our data collections. It's really going to go down in history as one of the great scientific catastrophes. And you know, we called this out early, but there's people talking about this. How did you know? I saw Scott Adams on Twitter. How did these people know? They won't tell us how they knew. Well, you start with the headlines. This is a headline in 2020 in March out of Italy. 99% of those who died from virus had other illnesses, Italy says. And then a year ago,

Here's the CDC director, Rochelle Walensky. CDC director is 75% of COVID deaths occurred in people with at least four comorbidities. So this is, you start with those headlines and you start digging, you look at the data and you realize, oh my God, this is true. But then, so back to this week, we're seeing this narrative change. So we're seeing Time Magazine come out. Now we're seeing op-eds like this in Newsweek with the medical community coming around. This is a med student and a researcher. He wrote this. It's time for the scientific community to admit we were wrong about COVID and it costs lives.

There's the important part. And he says this, I can see now that the scientific community from the CDC to the WHO to the FDA and their representatives repeatedly overstated the evidence and misled the public about its own views and policies, including on natural versus artificial immunity, school closures, disease transmission, aerosol spread, mask mandates, and vaccine effectiveness and safety, especially among the young. All of these were scientific mistakes at the time, not in hindsight. Amazingly, some of these obfuscations continued to the present day.

goes on to say this, but perhaps more important than any individual error was how inherently flawed the overall approach of the scientific community was and continues to be. It was flawed in a way that undermined its efficacy and resulted in thousands, if not millions of preventable deaths. Those are huge words for Newsweek, millions. This was a lot of what Dr. Drew and I were talking about.

He was asking why I really got into why this looked. Like why were they wrong then, not now. love that he says that this was a mistake then, not now. They're not learning now. They were making the mistakes then. I pointed a lot of that out on Dr. Drew's podcast. Absolutely. And wonderful work. So this is what we saw. This pre-positioning leading up to Biden declaring that the pandemic is going to be over. Here is the headline here, President Biden to end COVID-19 emergencies on May 11th. Many people have already tried to move on with their lives, but this is the policy here. May 11th.

So not now. I mean, that never should have been in place. I mean, that is the question, right? What has really changed? Nothing's changed. You were overblowing this thing from the beginning. You're still overblowing it. And now we're finally going to get out.

What a joke. And this is, it ends with a whimper just like this. And here's the policy paper from the White House statement of administration policy. It says at present, the administration's plan is to extend the emergency declarations to May 11th. And then end both emergencies on that date. this wind down would align with the administration's previous commitments to give at least 60 days notice prior to termination of the public health emergency. Now notice around the same hour that that document was put out, there is a meeting going on in the Committee of Rules and House of Representatives. Let's look at the chart and the calendar for what was on that Committee Rules meeting. Let's see here.

The pandemic is over act relating to a national emergency declared by President on March 2020. We have HR, 47 Freedom of Healthcare Workers Act. So basically what was about to happen. This is a political decision. It appears by the Biden administration looks like what was about to happen. There was a bunch of bills that were going to be talked about, going to be voted on, that we're going to put this pandemic towards a definitive end. And a lot of those were Republican-led bills. So the White House looked like they preempted this and made that call during right around the same time this committee was happening. But one of those bills did move on here. This is the Hill reporting on this. This is the Freedom of Health Care's Act, House Passes bill to block HHS from enforcing vaccine mandate at some

health facilities. These are Medicare and Medicaid certified facilities. And one side note on this as well, there's several public health emergency declarations that were happening during these last three years. One of them was called the EUA declarations. And that's under Section 564 of the Federal Drug and Drug and Cosmetics Act. That was the one that is keeping these vaccine EUAs going. And and the antiviral EUA is going. So when Biden winds this down on May 11th, those will still have the protection through HHS. So that is just a side note when people think these EUAs are going,

are going and the vaccines will be off the market. Amazing. We can't get to like a real authorization. How about really understanding the trials coming public about what is going on? This EUA idea, hiding everything under an emergency, keeps them from being transparent with us, which is why we're in this mess and why these people should all go to prison.

And one of the large reasons for these EUAs is the FDA and the Virpac committee. That's the vaccines and related biological products advisory committee. You know, that committee of independent scientists that sometimes meets, sometimes doesn't meet. It just depends on what kind of whim they have that week. Well, they talked about kind of harmonizing the vaccine. So instead of first dose, second dose, primary, secondary booster, they just want to make one vaccine and put two viruses in it. So the Wuhan strain and the Omicron strain. They were voting on doing that.

So this is what the headline looked like out of that committee. FDA experts vote to make all COVID-19 vaccines and boosters by valent. What that means is those two viruses are now in there. Still not up to date because the viruses have changed. They're still chasing nature on this one and behind. But we see, again, reporting that is a little more balanced now. They're actually reporting on the science, quote unquote, that was talked about at this committee. This was an op-ed here commentary, and it said FDA should fix it.

It's one-size-fits-all booster advice. Now, it talked about what they were looking at at that committee. It says they were looking at basically a couple of disappointing studies of the new bivalent booster, which has been the only one available since September, reformulated with a component

of the no longer dominant B.A.4 and B.A.5 variants. The study showed it worked no better than the original booster. These were test tube experiments using human serum and truncated versions of different viruses. The shots have never been directly compared in a clinical trial.

Now, keep that in mind here. So we're going to go on to that in a second. But I just want to point out because when people watch with Dr. Drew, the point I was making is not that the COVID vaccine trial was a great trial. The point that I'm making is that it is one of the worst trials that anyone's ever recognized of all these doctors. But you and I both know it's the best that's ever been done. This is how they do this. They never have a placebo group. They test to other, they know, they test the vaccine against other vaccines or even other trial products.

in the middle of a trial, say, well, this trial product did better than that trial product. Let's put it on the market. And now people are watching this happen in real time. We knew this was going to be the case with the COVID. It's been really a gift to those of us that been trying to wait people up, that this is crappy. This is the worst kind of science you can imagine. And now it's affecting all of our lives. Right, right.

And one of the things that often happens with this Verpack committee is because it is televised eight hours plus usually, you get a window sometimes. people discuss things that they wouldn't normally discuss in the media are in public, although it is still in public because it's on YouTube streaming live, but you get a window into some conversations that you might not normally get. So this is one of them right here, about to show you a clip. This is Dr. Pamela McGuinness, and she had something to say some protests, really about the messaging around the vaccine.

Take a listen. I think we don't have randomized comparisons to demonstrate protection against severe disease. And I think it's a really problematic message. for the community. I am not a public health vaccine person, but, you know, I give the little example of two adult children who are both musicians. Four vaccines, they moved to Nashville. They go out one night and they get three days later they're symptomatic. So I, and they were pretty sick. And one of those was a bi-valent booster. So all I can say to them, is, well, imagine how sick you would have got if you hadn't had these vaccines.

And that's not a great message to try to deliver. So I believe we should move from what was the circulating strain to a more contemporary strain, but you may still get reinfected. So I think that is a real challenge. And the messages that you would have gotten more sick and land in the hospital, you know, it resonates with me, but I'm not sure it resonates with the recipients of the disease. It doesn't resonate because it's baloney. You just said at the top of that sentence, we never did a study to actually be able to prove that it reduces your symptoms enough to

avoid hospitalization or all that. But we're just going to say it anyway after you get sick. I mean, we watched Morning Joe last week as he talks about being laid up for months. But can you imagine how bad it would have been, you know, if we hadn't had the vaccine, I want a cartoon where everyone's standing around a tombstone and a grave. And, you know, someone says, can you imagine how bad it would have been? Had they not gotten the vaccine? It's a name. No, this was a talking point that every single person that had that, that was a public figure, a politician, a celebrity, they would say the same thing.

Imagine how I would get if I didn't get the vaccine. So. Forget the fact that the biggest issue with this disease was asymptomatic carriers. Most people have no symptoms whatsoever. That was what we're told. That's where we're all masked and locked down and destroyed our lives because this virus, for some reason, was not even affecting most people. So I don't know how you can tell someone you would have done, you know, worse had you not had the vaccine. Really?

Because I thought the majority of people weren't even having any symptoms at all. Now that they got the vaccine, they're sick as dogs. And reading between the lines, it appears Dr. McGinnis is saying, we don't think we don't have the data to really keep lying to our patients about this. And I don't think they're really buying it. So maybe we should remessage this situation. So there's another clip that came out of there. And this was interesting of the timing because just last week we covered all of this, the situation around Angelina DeSalle and her issues after the vaccine. She has the tremors, the body shakes and the lesions and her medical reports.

And despite that, people were making fun of her online. And so we have Dr. Tom Shimabukuro. He's the deputy director of the immunization safety office at the CDC. see. And it was almost as if he was addressing Angelina's issues. Take a listen. We take vaccine safety very seriously. With respect to reports of people experiencing debilitating illnesses, I mean, we are aware of these reports of people experiencing long-lasting health problems. following COVID vaccination. In some cases, the clinical presentation of people suffering these health problems is variable

and no specific medical cause for the symptoms have been found. We understand that illness is disruptive and stressful, especially under those circumstances. And we acknowledge these health problems have substantially impacted the quality of life for people and have also affected those around them, and we hope for improvement and recovery. And we will continue to monitor the safety of these vaccines and work with partners to try to better understand these types of adverse events. They pulled the H1N1 vaccine after just a few really bad outcomes. That man right there looks like a man whose phone is ringing off the hook. He is buried in these stories.

You can tell he has massive guilt. He is expressing pain. And I found it interesting that one of the doctors is nodding with acknowledgement. I'm aware of that too. And then decides she doesn't want to be a part of it. And video sort of pulls back. I don't know who is in charge of that. But really quite revealing on a vaccine that they keep trying to tell us, oh, we have no signals whatsoever going on.

Yeah, talk to the guy that's answering the phone. Exactly. Exactly. And we can see if you start looking at different countries, we see different strategies here. So here in the U.S., the FDA is voting on doing, you know, harmonizing this, making one shot in the U.K. It's looking a little different here. Here's the headline on the U.K. Universal COVID jabs to be wound down as under 50s given just weeks to get boosters.

Unbelievable. But here back in the U.S., another discussion Verpac committee had was to make shots annual boosters, basically annual shots like the flu. This was the headline that came out of there. FDA proposes most Americans received. receive one annual COVID vaccine similar to the flu. Now, they did not vote on this, but this was a discussion that they did have to start and they're going to vote on it in the next FERPAC committee.

So this is really interesting. And Dell, we're at a major inflection point here. We have a new MRNA technology that's been forced onto the market, emergency authorizations, safety testing wasn't there. The efficacy was not there. Really, we know this did not stop transmission. We knew that from the beginning. And we're seeing a global infrastructure of

mRNA technology build out. So we have the plants to build these things. COVID's winding down and you're seeing headlines RSV, this new RMRNA, RSV, we're going to try flu shots for MRNA. And you see this global infrastructure on the backs of this COVID vaccine. And they're talking about basically flu shotting the COVID vaccine and the MRNA vaccines. Well, let's go to the vaccine safety debate. This is something that the informed consent action network had with HHS. It was a back and forth letter that went back for years. This is the most informative document out there to catch people up to vaccines. But in there, we have a vaccine safety pyramid.

And let's look at the flu. So this is what they did with the flu. And you can see here this tree. These are all the license flu shots. And at the bottom there, this is what it says in red. Licensure not based on any placebo-controlled trial, just like you were saying with Dr. Drew. So all of those shots there branched off from not a placebo-controlled trial. And so now let's look at the entire childhood safety schedule.

same situation there you have this red bottom licensure not based on any placebo controlled trial you can see every one of those basically childhood vaccines is like that so we're here we're standing on the precipice of this with the mrna vaccines and this is something that's very very dangerous we need to we need to really understand where we're at with this when we start pushing an annual shot like the flu when they start making these two synonymous this is really dangerous yeah well this horrific trial we've all watched them bail out of early now we have

injuries everywhere rising mortality worldwide all the problems we've talked about and on top of that they're going to now start licensing all these other future mRNA vaccines stay on the back of the COVID saying we already did the trial with COVID it was so successful we lied about it to the public and we're going to stick with those lies and now all these new vaccines are going to come without any proper trials that's how the whole vaccine program work they start out with like a you know a flu shot they never test against placebo never established safety get it down on the market and then every other vaccine just comes and competes with that and then with each other and you just built this house of cards literally and and I think in many ways it's going to come crashing

down it's just what are the repercussions is it just going to make people not trust the COVID vaccine they're going to just not trust the childhood vaccine program or they're going to start asking serious questions the CDC and the FDA or how about the president of the freaking United States that stated that this thing was going to stop transmission and you destroyed my life and my career and my job and my kids' lives and you masked them all for a lie, a lie of product that never did what you promised us it would do. And you never even tested to see if it could. And here we are talking about an annual COVID shot. We're going to need one every year. Where do we hear that before? Well, it was about a year ago when a Project Veritas undercover reporter

caught an FDA executive saying exactly that. Here's the headline. FDA executive officer on hidden camera reveals future COVID policy. Biden wants to inoculate as many people as possible have to get an annual flu shot. This was Christopher Cole, FDA executive officer of the countermeasures initiative. And he was caught on camera saying exactly that. They're going to want for, because money. That's what he said, because it's, you know, it's good for profits and bottom lines, but we don't want to really tell Americans at this point yet. We want to have that discussion a little later on. And here we are, Verpack's most likely going to be voting on that the next session. So it's kind of interesting. That's how to

happening, but if you haven't heard of Project Veritas, this story is one of the biggest stories really in the world, the medical stories in the world, that's been going on for about a week. Take a look at this video. All right. What is Pfizer doing, I guess, to optimize, you know, the vaccines now? Oh, we actually have a meeting about that today, so there's a lot. Really? I don't know if I should say this.

You know how the virus keeps mutating? Yeah. things we're exploring is like why do we just mutate ourselves so we can put out we can create unifically develop new vaccines right so we have to do that if we're going to do that though there's a risk of like as you could imagine no one wants to be having a farmer company mutating yeah like do we want to do this so that's like one of the things are considering okay the future like maybe we can like create new versions of the vaccines and things like that the way it will work is like we put them in the virus and with monkeys okay and then we

successively like causing the keep infecting each other. I would collect serial samples from them and then the ones are more infectious like the virus will put them in another monkey and you just constantly actively mutated that's one way. Okay. What we can do like directed like simulation which like should not prefer and they just sample what the different like like proteins on the surface of virus look like over time. Okay. So then you can see the mutation and you can have forces mutated a certain way you want. Okay. You have to be like very controlled to make sure that this virus that you immune phase. It doesn't create something like, you know, it goes everywhere. Something crazy. It's the way that the virus started it, to be honest. Like, it's no sense if this virus

popped out of nowhere. Yeah, I know. What's the goal? Well, so I sort of doing that. So probably what they want to do is like to try to figure out, to some extent, try to figure out, like, you know, there's all these new strains of variance that just pop up. Why don't we try to like catch them before they pop up in nature and we can develop a vaccine copelogyn of, of course, like new variants. Yeah. So that's why they're thinking like if you do it control of the lab, And then we say, oh, this is a new epitoba. And so then if it comes out later on, like in the public, you already have a vaccine kind of working on.

Oh, my God. That's perfect. Like, isn't that, like, the best business model, though? Like, just control nature before nature even happens itself, right? Yeah, yeah. It would be worse. Amazing. I want to just tip my hat to Project Veritas.

They've released some great videos and gotten some great undercover stuff. This one, I think, is the biggest one. It has nearly 30 million views, 28.7 million views right now. We purposely cut that short. It's only two minutes of the larger video. I want you all to go and watch and support Project Veritas by sharing that video with everyone you know. It's obviously doing really well.

This is super important. And it obviously has spurred a massive conversation worldwide, right? Absolutely. Massive conversation, like you said, nearing 30 million views. I'm being told that Project Veritas just put out on Twitter that they're going to be dropping another bombshell tonight in regards to this story on Pfizer. So anybody out there, if you're not following them, take a look at that on Twitter or on their website. You can see what that's going to be.

We can't wait to see it. But James O'Keeve did catch up with this gentleman in the tape here at Pfizer. And he caught up with him and has been questions for him a couple days after this video aired. Take a look at how that went. Hey there. Is this seat taken? What? Hi.

You work for Pfizer. My question for you is, why does Pfizer want to hide from the public the fact that they're mutating the COVID viruses? Is this real life? What is happening here? Why is what is going on here? This is absurd. Why does Pfizer want to hide from the public that they're mutating the COVID virus? Oh, my God.

You're on video. You're on video. What is going on here? I need to call it. all the police right now. This is... And I know this is a virus or I don't know what's going on either. This is ridiculous.

So you're on video. I'm a journalist. Bro, first of all, I'm literally a liar. He's on video. You're saying we're exploring how the virus keeps mutating. One of things we're exploring is... Why don't we mutate the virus? Can I talk to you outside about this?

Absolutely not. You're not even my life's on this. What is your name? Because you really did. I'm about to see you. This is absurd. You have someone mocked me as if they're going on a date to record me. You don't even know my position at this.

I was trying to impress a person on a date by lying. I was literally trying. I'm not even a scientist by background. You know that I came from a consulting firm that does business. This is absurd. Please, please don't touch me. You can not just leave. Absolutely not.

Do you want the police to come here and see all of you people? Because this is insane. Can I ask you about this video? You can tell them about how he was lying to oppress a date. Here, just, just go, is it true what you say? What is this? No. I live this on a third date with a guy and like normal men, you lied to impress a date.

Mutating viruses. I mean, it's, that thing goes on too. We've cut that very short. It's a blast. He ends up tackling the iPad at some moment. But I love the fact. I mean, that his knee-jerk reaction is, hello, I am literally a liar, okay? That's why this has happened.

Oh, that's much better, much better. I'm glad to know that Pfizer hires liars. It's pretty much what we've assumed here at the high wire. Jeff is cross. Check that box with the green check. So the interesting point about this was the U.S. media was essentially silent on reporting on this story accurately. But the media in the UK did run a headline. This was the Daily Mail.

And this was the headline they initially ran. Why don't we just mutated ourselves? Director of Research at Pfizer reveals an undercover footage firm. It's exploring manipulating COVID to make it more potent by infecting monkeys to create new vaccines. Great headline. Unfortunately, that was disappeared off the internet almost immediately after they ran it. And what was put back in its place was this sanitized headline. Pfizer-emids engineering COVID mutants in a lab studies to ensure its antiviral drug works on new variants.

But pharma giant insists tests were not gain of function and did not pose risk. too public. Well, it sounds like a Pfizer press release. Looks like Pfizer is what that is, right? Put out a headline and then Pfizer gives you that call. Remember how much money or whatever. I mean, I don't know how they manipulate these people to change their tune. But censorship is not dead.

We don't worry about that. Shame on you, Daily Mail. Gross spine. That's terrible. So what happened now? If you're looking for this on YouTube, this video, if you are a person that loves YouTube, YouTube yanked it. So this is what happened after that is reaching a million views. YouTube strikes Project Veritas video exposing Pfizer director admitting to mutating COVID-19 virus for new vaccines. It's gone. They gave,

they gave Project Veritas a strike on their account. They did not let them upload any videos for a period of time. But allegedly, Project Veritas has a insider within YouTube and they sent this to them. This was the screenshot of what they sent. YouTube Insider leaks urgent guidance document sent to employees on how to handle the Project Veritas directed evolution video effective immediately so they apparently sent this out as a four alarm fire at YouTube trying to censor this thing and get it off the get it off their platform I have to say even when we were trying to investigate this just Googling it this is what popped up in a Google is really weird it looks like the results below

are changing quickly if this topic is new it can sometimes take time for reliable sources to publish information meaning we're still working on our talking points on this to make Pfizer look good check the source come back later. That literally is the screen that popped up when you searched for the Pfizer guy. All right. Amazing. Yeah. They're not making it easy. Well, Pfizer did have to release a statement, which is rare. A lot of the times the pharmaceutical companies just go silent. When you know when they go silent, you know that that's something they don't want to add to the media kind of a dust up here. So Pfizer on Friday at 8 p.m., they put out a press release. So you know

it's uh they're trying to bury it bury it when they put it on a friday at apm so this is what they say among other things they say Pfizer undertakes in vitro work in a laboratory culture dish to identify potential resistant mutations to nermatrulliver one of pakslovits two components in vitro resistance selection experiments are undertaken in cells incubated with sars cov2 and nermatrtlevir in our secure very secure biosafety three BSL3 laboratory to assess whether the main protease can mutate to yield resistant strains of the virus. That sounds like a big deal. So this is what some of the conversation looked at.

We had Congressman Thomas Massey came out and really called out Pfizer on this one. He took to Twitter and said Friday at 8 p.m. Pfizer admitted they are creating variants of the virus and almost everyone ignored it. Meanwhile, YouTube continues to ban the video that forced Pfizer to make this disclosure. Really, really big deal with Thomas Massey calling that out. Yeah. But then Pfizer's bottom line, the bottom line is becoming affected here. And it has been even before the video.

So this was one of the headlines here. I think a lot of people would really appreciate this that have been watching. Pfizer loses $43 billion in worst months since 2009. They were already on the downslope because ending the public health emergency ends free vaccines paid for by the government. So this video really hit them at the worst time. So understand here, Pfizer's, they're in their lab. They're saying, well, we do kind of create these mutants just to make sure that our Paxilovid product is not creating these mutations. And I thought we were, I thought anti-vaxers were the ones that were creating the mutations.

These people not getting the vaccine, we're creating this virus and causing the virus to keep going and keeping us locked down. Well, a study just came out of Merck's antiviral. So we have Paxilovid. That was the EUA for the antiviral. Then Merck came on the market shortly after with Mulnupier of Year. And we have this journal study here. This was January 27th. It just happened this year, antiviral identification of malnipurevier associated mutational signature in SARS-CoV2 sequencing databases. So we have Pfizer in-house looking at this. Researchers are also looking at the antivirals as well

to see if they're creating mutants. Let's look at what they have to say. They said this. It is possible that some patients treated with malnupureoviravir might not fully clear SARS-CoV2. infections with the potential for onward transmission of malnupurevurevir of mutated viruses. They conclude our data suggests a signature of malmupurevier mutagenesis can be seen in global sequencing databases in some cases with onward transmission. Del this is huge. Wow. This is a huge story. They're creating they're finding onward transmission. People are not clearing this by being caused by their products and my understanding which is is vague. We're going to look deeper into this, but these antivirals actually cause mutations in the

body so that they out-compete the viral mutation that you caught. And so literally, it's creating variance as its method of defense. I mean, this is again where we're like, this is where science is just none of this. What does this future look like? If your products are taking away my symptoms, but I'm walking around infected, or if your products are making me more infected and carrying more variants and putting them out all over the world, then you're say, well, we just can't seem to stop this virus. We can't get to herd immunity because you are a pack of fools, is why. And we're really tired of you having the controls, you know, over our lives.

It's really, we got to get on top of this. A lot of work to do here. And, Del, this is an additional story on top of this Project Veritas story, because what Pfizer is saying in their own press release saying, hey, don't worry, we're testing our Pax-Lovid product to see if they're creating these mutants. but they're not telling us if they are or not. Well, outside researchers are doing this with Merck's product and saying that there is evidence of this happening.

So what is Pfizer saying about this? What data do they have? They really need to disclose this to the public at this point. Yeah, we need transparency. Jeffrey, amazing reporting once again. Thank you for taking some of these stories that are obviously big headlines. We're all watching them,

but I love how you're just taking this deeper into the science. Great, great work. We'll catch you next week. All right. Take care. You know, we have a huge breaking story in as all the things are shifting. One of our highwire favorites, Dr. Peter McCullough, who was being sued by Baylor Scott University and medical system, saying that he was making statements that he was not allowed to make, telling us the truth, coming on the high wire, telling us the truth and going on other, you know, he's been on Fox News and these things. because he was speaking out, they said that he was not representing them well.

And I think on a few occasions, he was introduced as having been a doctor at Baylor Scott. Is it Baylor Scott and White or just Baylor Scott? Baylor Scott and White. And so they brought a million dollar lawsuit against him. Well, here's the headline that's just coming out this morning. The wellness company's Dr. Peter McCullough has been vindicated in court. The case has been dismissed. This is a strong victory, McCullough says, for freedom of speech and fair balance publication and media presentation on clinical data as it has emerged of the course of the pandemic crisis.

My analysis and conclusions have been accurate, consistent, and have always been my own, not those of any institution. Wherever you are out there, Peter, I just want to congratulate you. nobody deserves more to be able to continue on holding their head high and speaking the truth. You're a pioneer, you're a leader, and you are courageous. So this is a great moment. There are other cases going on around the country. We will continue to monitor them. But I want to just reach out to all of you right now because this is one of the things. The high wire has been able to introduce to the world many of these scientists and doctors, like Dr. Peter McCullough, like Dr. Peter McCullough, like Dr. Robert Malone, Dr. Ryan Cole, these people that were bringing us to truth when everyone else in media was afraid to.

People like that can be taken down. They can have their licenses taken away if the public isn't watching. The safest thing that can happen for a whistleblower, if you will, is to come forward and let the world know who they are. That is the platform that the high wire is creating so that we are getting evidence that would otherwise be buried and these people would be shipped off, you know, like those. Raiders of the Lost Ark, right? That arc is just to be hidden in a tunnel somewhere. Instead, it is out there for the world to see. You make that possible. We don't, you do. We can't do any of this without you. And so I want to say, as we're moving into 2023, there is a huge shift, but we've got to take this momentum now. We are bringing more lawsuits than we ever have before. We are hitting harder. We are getting bigger guests. I'm trying to get on other people's shows.

All of that is in your hands. How many lawsuits are. can we bring? How assertive can we be with the momentum we have right now? I'm asking you, we will not win this if we're right where we're at. We have got to continue to grow. There's so much work to do and I need your help right now. Please, if you aren't already a recurring donor, just go to the highwire.com or if that's where you're watching, go to top right corner, hit donate to ICANN, donate now, and then we're asking to become a recurring donor. For those of you out there, it really helps us to know what our budget is in the future. as we go to strike down these laws.

And we're going to try and make sure that everybody has an exemption. We're ultimately going to go after all mandates. And I'm telling you, at the end of this road, is ending liability protection. That is our goal. We've got a lot of cases I cannot tell you about. Our lawyers are working day and night right now. Nearly 20 people at the law firm, Erin Siri, are involved in the work that ICANN is doing. You make that possible.

Please, allow yourself to feel. feel what it feels like to actually be a part of a winning team. I know it's a great show. You can watch it. You can go and tell your friends, and that's great too. But every time we announce these wins or every time we show you what we're achieving, you should be able to say, I made that possible. Even if it's just a dollar a month, if that's all you can afford, or $5 or $10,

or if you can do more, that's great. We're going to make it easy. Just text us at 72022 and type in the word, donate, and you will get a link to make this possible. I'm going to remind you. There is no one sponsoring us. Nobody. No vitamin company, no water treatment company, no Exxon, no diapers, no drug company. That is how all of the companies, and by the way, you are paying a cable bill for news to lie to you, and they're getting extra money from pharma to lie to you. That's what we're up against. Help us grow. We're reaching five to seven million. I'd like us to be reaching 30, 40 or have it 100 million every week. Can you imagine what we could do this?

then please help us get there. All right, a lot of the conversation that has been, you know, really vivid this week around this Pfizer undercover discovery where he's talking about essentially gain of function, playing with these viruses inside of laboratories for whatever reason, for the greater good of society to predict where these viruses are going, but they keep leaking out. We've had this issue for years and years and years, and now your drugs are causing variants. All of these things are an important conversation, but at the center of it has been, was there a lab leak at Wuhan? Is that a virus that was being manipulated?

Was that gain of function? And did we have anything to do with it? At the center of this conversation is EcoHealth Alliance. We've been talking about it and Peter Dazzak. This is what that has been looking like in the news. Eco Health Alliance. That's the scientific organization headed by Dr. Peter Dasek at the Center, of the public debate over alleged federal funding

of gain of function research. EcoHealth Alliance, the group that funded and funneled millions of dollars to China to the lab where this virus in all likelihood came from. This is the group that did gain of function research in Wuhan China with the so-called Bat Lady. The closest collaborator of the Wuhan lab in the West, a man named Peter Dazak, who runs an organization

called the EcoHealth Alliance, which had funneled millions of dollars from U.S. taxpayers, to this research in Wuhan over the years. To do experiments on SARS-like viruses that they found in bats. In May 2016, the NIH had an exchange with the head of EcoHealth Alliance, Peter Dajak, about experiments eco-health was planning to conduct on coronaviruses under the terms of an NIH grant called, quote, understanding the risk of bat coronavirus emergence.

The EcoHealth Alliance has refused to divulge crucial information about what it was doing. We know because of a leak that it was recommending that these scientists in Wuhan put a particular feature into the genome of a virus if they found one to make it more infectious. Now that feature turned up in this very virus and in no other SARS-like virus. We have not funded gain of function research on this virus in the Wuhan Institute of Virology. No matter how many times, you're parsing words. You say it.

There was research. There was research done with Dr. Shee and Dr. Barrack. They have collaborated on gain of function research where they enhance the SARS virus to infect human airway cells and they did it by merging a new spike protein on it. That is gain of function. That was joint research between the Wuhan Institute and Dr. Barrick. You can't deny it. Well, if you've been watching the highway over the last few years, you know that one

we were one of the first to get kicked off of YouTube and Facebook for daring to say that it looked like this virus probably escaped from the Wuhan Lab and different concepts about varying cleavage sites and all that has been covered. We've talked about Peter Dasak and EcoHealth Alliance. But today I get to finally take this conversation a little bit deeper, not just looking at the evidence from the outside and articles that have been written. Today I get to speak to someone that has worked for Eco Health Alliance. And that is Dr. Andrew Huff, who has put out this brilliant book, The Truth About Wuhan, How I Uncovered the Biggest Lie in History.

It's my honor and pleasure to be joined by Dr. Huff right now. Thank you so much for having me. Hey, thank you for coming in. I can't tell you, this is sort of a bucketless moment. We've been, as I've said, just really looking at all the different sides and tea leaves on this story. but to get an understanding of the culture inside, I'm really tired of speculating,

and I'm hoping you'll be able to sort of get me an idea of what these companies are and what's really going on. So just to begin with, you worked for the EcoHealth Alliance, at what time, what was your position? Yes, I was hired in the fall of 2014, actually October 2014,

as a senior scientist of data and technology. My first year there, I crushed it. I brought in $4 to $6 million of funding roughly, in that first year and I was promoted to vice president. Well, that's when I start to learn about what EcoHealth Alliance really was. I worked there for another year and a half or so, and I left in 2016. Okay, so when you say what it really was, and now when we talk about Peter Dasak, do you ever run into this guy?

Peter Dasick was my boss. I mean, he was my direct supervisor the entire time that I worked there. Okay. And I imagine they do a lot of different things, but when we're talking about viruses, Wuhan labs, things like that, what type of work were you doing? Are you in a space where you have understood some of what they're talking about there? Oh absolutely. I understood every aspect of the work going on across the company. So my department's work. So I was actually creating advanced surveillance technologies for the Department of Defense and three-letter agencies.

So there's a field called biosurveillance where you want to be able to detect and identify infectious disease threats as rapidly as possible to prevent illness. And so you can make policy decisions in near real time. That's the idea. And I was doing that with fancy technologies, like machine learning and artificial intelligence. Because I'm sort of unique, I'm trained as an engineer and also infectious disease epidemiologist. So across the company though, we're engaged in the gain of function work that they've been talking about all over the news.

And then a number of, I'd say, projects which would pass scientific muster is just not being a threat. So other types of ecological research. The interesting thing is that I learned while I'm working at EcoAth Alliance, they used to have this mission. It was very crunchy granola.

And one of the reasons why I went to work there is that they wanted to prevent emerging infectious diseases through conservation. And that's what they are running around telling the world and I believed it. And one of the really heartbreaking moments for me while I work at Ecoeth Alliance is once I'm promoted to vice president and I'm sitting in all the different operations meetings, financial meetings at the company. I asked how much money we were spending on conservation and Dr. Peter Dasick looked at me so I'm maniacically across the executive table with only four or five us in the room and said,

we're not spending any money on conservation. And that was one of my first meetings, financial meetings. I'm like, what the heck is? Well, because you look at the title. If we just take all the headlines out of EcoHealth Alliance, it gives you this, and since it's this very green-oriented, earth-conscious group that, you know, and they're not really doing anything of the sort. No, it's very clever branding.

I mean, I guess you would call it greenwashing is one of the terms for it. And, you know, one of the other things is at the time when I was hired at EcoE Health Alliance, they had this big program called PREDICT. And the big thing that they're running around telling stakeholders, the board of directors, wealthy donors around the planet, and when I say our stakeholders, mainly people who work in and around the beltway in DC when we're having meetings and presentations or throwing cocktail parties, was that we were going to predict and prevent the next pandemic. And the manual to this program was about five inches thick.

And once I'm promoted to vice president, I asked to be added to this program. Well, I want to get up to speed on. I'm a professional. I'm a young guy for a doctor and take this very seriously. So I read all the documents and I read all the scientific materials. And I come up and I realize there's no way that they're going to be able to predict or forecast pandemics. And actually that's my area of expertise. And, you know, I confront.

So you're building all the surveillance stuff to be able to catch and predict. And something in these documents makes you think, oh, wait a minute, this is impossible. Well, yeah, it's very simple. So there are a couple different things that happen. So one, I'm added as a country coordinator for South Sudan and Jordan. So the way that this program actually work, companies like MetaBiota, which Hunter Biden invest into, we can get into that.

UC Davis, which is the university, we sort of slice up the entire planet into pieces, and we all negotiate over who's doing what country. And in combination with the State Department of USAID, they have a program coordinator, sort of like a diplomat scientist like myself, work with those countries and high levels of their government to execute the collection of infectious disease samples.

Well, I realized right away, the first two countries that, I get assigned to that the budget's too small. You talk about Jordan Sudan? Jordan Sudan, yeah. Okay. So the budget was too small to actually collect enough samples. Because to understand this a little bit, with biosurveillance or surveillance or to have

anything that's predictive in real time, imagine you have to be collecting infectious disease samples continuously and on a routine basis. And it costs a lot of money. Some of these past are at a minimum. Sample collection or a test is $100, $300, $300. a sample. So the budget on these things can get astronomical in a hurry. So the reality of the Predict program was that we were only conducting cross-sectional studies. And what that means snapshots of data, you know, maybe a couple hundred samples. And I asked myself the question,

you know, looking at this, I'm like, well, what the heck are we really doing as a company here? You know, what are we telling everyone? So we're running around telling the whole entire world that we're going to predict pandemics, right? But we're only collecting a fraction of the samples. Well, what I determined what we're doing, well, we're just going out and creating a library of rare viruses. So coronavirus is one. We're specifically looking for Middle Eastern respiratory system and SARS-like coronaviruses in the Middle East in China predominantly. We were working for looking for a couple other classes of viruses. But that was really it.

And, you know, we're doing that at scale. And then I figured out, well, we're using that to actually execute the gain of function work on SARS-like coronavirus. coronavirus. One of the things that happened shortly after I'm hired as a scientist at Equoth Alliance is I'm... Let me just try and slow this down for a second, because I know that we're, and you, it's great. So, so that I understand it is here you, we're, we're being sold in a way, and everyone does it, right? You're trying to raise money. You want something people can sink the teeth into. We're going to protect the next pandemic. Oh, let's throw money at that. You get involved in that process. You get just a little piece of it. And you're looking at what it would actually cost collect the amount of data it would take to be able to predict anything.

You're thinking, this is totally underfunded. This can't be what we're actually doing here because this would never wear. The size of it would be gigantic and it's just not what you're seeing happening. And so then you start looking at what are we really doing. We're collecting samples and we're starting to, and can I get this? Is it too much to sort of connect the DOS to imagine that EcoHealth Alliance could potentially be working for a different group like military group trying to find a truly dangerous virus that could possibly be a weapon.

And is there some weaponization things going on in here? Well, behind the scenes, and there's a number of interesting ways that this conversation between you and I could go right now. I try to hit a couple. Take me the direction we should go for your average person. I don't get, I don't know, we could get in the weeds. Yeah, well, in my book, I go into all of this, and this is the audience should pick it up and buy it.

But the fun, obvious one is that Equal Health Alliance has intelligence, community connections. So I don't know which one to start with sometimes because they're all so good, but I'll start with the most shocking one. So in late 2015, as I'm leaving work late one night, it's only Peter Daskin and I closing down the office. He stops me in the vestibule on the 17th floor and asks me,

Andrew, do you mind if I ask you a question? No, Peter, go ahead. This is my boss. He's a CEO of the company. Someone from the CIA approached me, and do you think we should work with them? And I formerly worked in a top secret classified environment before coming to Equal Health Alliance and I worked in National Security for years.

So I'm shocked that he's asking me this out in the open. I said, Peter, it never hurts to talk to them. There could be money in it. And he goes, well, they're interested in the places we're working, the people that we're working with and the data were collecting. And then he specifically sort of references the work in China.

And that was the end of the conversation. We go down the elevator where I walk home to my house about 10 blocks away. He drives home to New Jersey. And then over the next two months, he then confirms that the relationship with the CIA is proceeding. So I don't really find that shocking because oftentimes it takes programs like this

to collect intelligence on foreign laboratories. And we had access to places in foreign laboratories that no one else in the world would have easy access to. So I don't think there's anything necessarily nefarious about that, but then there's a couple other strange things that happen. So Peter comes to me about, well, I think I'm a scientist at this point, I hadn't been promoted to VP

and he asks me to, put a symbol something called a collaborator report for the intelligence advanced research project agency ARPA it's like DARPA except it reports to the office the director of national intelligence so I put together this report this is all based on my work doing the advanced machine learning our intelligence really high-tech stuff and I give it to Peter and I never hear anything back well the strange thing is once I'm promoted to vice president and I'm looking at the books the financial books so I'm looking for this to see whether or not there's money coming

into the organization from ODNI or IARPA and we have no funding on the books. So why this is so strange as a scientist and I've worked at a number of different types of environments, you would not submit a collaborate report to a U.S. government agency unless they were giving you money typically or there was some kind of established relationship. So there might have been a secret relationship there. The last one is that I might have just been promoted to vice president at this point, but Peter comes to me and he asked me if I have. will help him prepare what's called an investment pitch deck or presentation deck to an organization

called Incutel. Not many people know this, but the Central Intelligence Agency, the CIA has a venture capital wing, Incutel is the company. And in that pitch deck, we actually assemble the slides that Peter puts together is the humanized mouse gain of function work on coronaviruses. And this is what he's asking inky tell money for. So basically they want to go collect coronavirus samples using PREDICT, then do the humanized mouse gain of function work to make medical countermeasures. Medical countermeasures is a term for vaccines,

drugs, that kind of thing. Okay. And at the end of this pitch deck is my work. And this is the Incutel. This is the Incutel pitch stack, right? Pitch stack, okay. So this Incutel pitch stack, we're looking at it right now, identifying predictable patterns in disease or emergence.

This is sort of like the goal, the, the, the work timeline, right? Virus isolation and sequence whole genome with temporarily sampled viruses, measure mutation rates and phylogynamics, sequence receptor binding domain, if known, structural comparison with human receptors, cell line infection experiments,

humanized mice and other animal experiments. I mean, when you just look at like the grocery shopping cart right there, it just screams gain of function all over it right there, doesn't it? I mean, it can be explained any more simply as gain a function. It's even interesting here on the, if you look at the Y axis, it talks about increased risk as the research progresses.

Oh, right. It's getting to red zone. Yeah, which everybody, I mean, which the scientists all know. Right. And then I love this next slide here, which is, what are we looking at here? I mean, I'm seeing. Yeah, so this is what's called the phylogenetic tree of SARS-coronoviruses derived from samples collected during the Predict program. And what you can see is it starts getting into the humanized mice gain of function variants,

which are used. Very quickly for people that are just watching for the first time. What does humanized mice mean? Well, so the mice or in some case, bats, have, for example, humanized lung tissue.

So why that's important is they use a technique called serial passaging where they'll infect the animal with a virus. And as they pass it through these animals that have humanized cell tissues, it makes it more likely that a new virus will be expressed. that has, or more adaptable to human tissues.

Now, are these special kinds of mice that have these humanized cells? Oh, absolutely. Dr. Ralph Barrick at the University of North Carolina actually created a lot of the methods being these humanized mouse. So they're kind of mutant mice. We make them. Correct. Okay.

They don't come from nature. They just happen to have these humanized cells. We make these animals that are humanized cells. Yes. And oftentimes then the actual work is done in like a petri dish with the lung tissue. Okay. I don't know if Equal Health Alliance ever received the funding. It's potential, but Congress should investigate and we should know because there is some really odd irregular. Just the term, did you say the CIA has a venture capital wing? Is that? Yes, firmly. It's out in the open. It's called Inc. Utel. They're most famous.

I mean, those words are weird together. I don't know why. Just like venture cat, like your, you know, sort of government, CIA has got a venture capital, like to invest in us or invest in the work that we're doing. Well, to invest in companies which have, I guess, strategic potential for the United States. Their most famous investment is Google. So Incutel invested in Google Maps and Google Earth and made that possible. Wow. And that's what everyone can relate to. Okay. So Incutal is actually responsible for a number of significant investments into U.S. technology,

which has dual purpose or dual application. Right. And they don't always disclose their investments. If you go to their website and look this up, they have a disclosed portfolio and an undisclosed portfolio. One of the more interesting public disclosures is Metabioda. So Metabioda is the company they had the contracts with the Defense Threat Reduction Agency for the labs in Ukraine. Okay.

Okay. And that Metabioda is in the company that was invested into by Rosemont Seneca, which was Hunter Biden's venture capital firm. Okay. So, and it actually provided you in the show with emails, which actually outlined the strategic, conversation with Hunter Biden and Metabioda partners in Rosemont Seneca to get the investment for Incutel for the same kind of work we were doing at Equalith Alliance. Wow. Yeah.

So, I mean, a lot of these things that float around, but they're redacted, but you're bringing out in your work some unredacted emails here. Oh, not just unredacted email. So the interesting thing is with all these documents that they've been talking about in Congress and from Senate, you know, Senate here. and investigations from Rand Paul and such. Those documents that were released shouldn't be redacted by the US government, but I happen to have the originals.

I think I have about four gigabytes of documents, which I have released on Twitter, three or four different times. I put up a we transfer link so anybody can go download those. So the government's redacted these back coronavirus emergence proposal documents, which are academic documents. There's no reason why these things should be redacted, were dacted but it's really strange that the government redacted them well one of

the reasons why the US government probably retaliated against me so hard is because I had these documents my possession to prove all of this and now are these top secret documents when you were received them where you were told they were top secret in any way are you just saying these are just scientific documents that we have no these are just academic scientific documents so when I worked at EcoA Alliance so one my top secret clearance wasn't active I had no reason to believe that any of the information would have been classified it wasn't mark classified okay I mean

I mean, this is like doing work or the equivalent of doing work at a university. Typically universities do not get involved in classified research. There are some odd cases where it happens, but everything we were doing was out in the open and made to be transparent because that was the type of crunchy nonprofit organization we were supposed to be. And, you know, I don't think they ever would have predicted in a million years that it would go south the way that it did. We've got a couple of these hunter-buyan emails. What are we looking at here? What's this email?

Yeah, so what we're looking at here is some of the key players in the biomedical, national, security complex. So Tara Toole is one of the people who was a pioneer at within the Department of Homeland Security related to national securities of bioterror, bio warfare. She was instrumental in creating a lot of the programs and standing them. Okay. So what these Hunter Biden emails represent is that they also had a relationship with Nathan Wolf and Nathan Wolf is the CEO of Metabioda. Okay. And this all ends up information inside information gets funneled back to Hunter Biden. I mean, all this is disturbing and like I don't want to get political because this Hunter

Biden thing is such a powder keg right now, but in all honesty. You know, you have Ukraine dealings, you have China, you have laboratories, we have a really strange pandemic, we have a war, and you just start thinking what is going, I mean, we should know what these interactions were, why are you involved in these processes? And then we start looking at this, the science that is now, it's changed the whole world. we know it. I mean, we send in this team right to investigate and then we find out that all these were the same players that were involved with the Wuhan lab, right? You know, you had Eco Health Alliance seem to be overseeing this thing, welcome trust, all these people that like,

if there was gain of function going on, these are the people that would have been directly involved with it. And so now we know we didn't get an objective perspective on that at all. And the question for me was always, now that we kind of accept that the lab leak theory is the reigning scientific scientific theory and a lot of scientists like yourself have come out, say, come on, it's pretty obvious. And then you have the next question, was it accidental? Was it on purpose? So let's get into gain of function, just as a concept, you know, and I always have new viewers that didn't follow us through all of this, but, you know, you've got Ralph Berwick is this character who's a scientist directly involved with, as Rand Paul has clearly put it, you are taking a virus,

You're entering it into other animals, all in a hope to sort of ramp it up and they keep throwing it back into human cell lines and seeing if you can cause human infection. Is that, I mean, is that a rough description of some of what's going on in your mind? That's absolutely correct. And they were doing it between mice, bats, actually. And they were enhancing a number of characteristics. So, I mean, the pathogenicity, they want to make it so it knocks people down harder. the virulence, the transmissibility. I mean, all the key factors of gain of function,

they hit them all on this. Right. We have a great interview, by the way, of Ralph Barrett by an Italian reporter. I don't know if you ever seen this. I've seen it. Yes, I have. Let's take a look at it really quick. Have you done to the virus

an amount in more than much more than the only gain of function that occurred in that virus is that we changed its antigenicity. And what that data tells you is that any vaccine or antibody that you'd made against the original virus from 2003. wasn't going to protect the public against any new virus if it should emerge in the future. If we would look at the genome of your chimera,

we'd have been made in the laboratory? Anything that we build in the laboratory has what are called signature mutations. It's like a little, it's where you signed your name almost. It says you put in these mutations and it says this this was built from material in the barricons. But if you don't want to leave this firm, you can construct a laboratory or a virus indistinguible by a natural, right? It is correct.

You can do it without leaving a signature, yes. We're using any of a three or four different approaches for coronaviruses that were developed by different researchers. You can leave no trace that it was made in the laboratory. That is such a creepy interview. Reminds you like sort of when you get like a, not to equate him to a serial killer, but, When they're interrogated long enough, they kind of just started bidding things.

I mean, here, why go through the trouble of saying, no, there's a signature you can see it came from a lab. Well, yeah, it's true now that you're drilling down on me, we can totally erase that. But this is this argument Rand Paul's been having with Tony Fauci. You are increasing its ability to infect, what it can infect, all these things. Is that or is that not? In your mind, are we splitting hairs on this gain of function? Like, what are we talking about? It's gaining functions, correct?

Oh, absolutely. We're not, it's not even splitting hairs. It's that Dr. Anthony Fauci is lying. So Senator Rand Paul is correct. I mean, Dr. Anthony Fauci is lying, and he's doing it to protect himself. Now, in your book, you sort of seem to go out of your way a little bit to not really drill down on Anthony Fauci. You're saying that this whole gain of function thing, he kind of comes in and NIH gets involved, but where does it really originate? It actually begins under the USAID. So the United States Agency for Internet, National Development PREDICT program. So, and this is evident in a number of the documents I released, but it shows that Dr. Ralph Barak, Shizeng Li,

the Wuhan Institute of Virology, they begin this work by leveraging the predict data and funding so they can get the big NIH R01 contract. And that's common practice. You can't get a NIH R1 contract or grant without having preliminary data and results, and that's how you do it. Okay, so what was funding it prior to them

go to the NIH? This predict program. So the program where they were going out and telling people that they were going to predict and prevent pandemics, well, it turns out it's used to actually create a pandemic. We lost our freedoms over it. It's just the whole thing's terrible, but I don't know whether to laugh or cry sometimes about all of this. It seems so absurd that we sit in laboratories creating Frankenstein viruses, being told all in hopes that we'll be ready when Frankenstein really appears in nature somehow,

which to me, just sort of like when we look at it. at all the variance and all that's been happening, right? We've learned a lot about how fast things move, how things can shift and change. I would imagine in your world that's part of where you're just saying, wait, this is going to be no way to predict. This is such a fast moving target, totally elusive in the amount of surveillance sites you would need to keep up with what's going on. And so when I think of this like creating, you know, a Frankenstein virus as though that will look anything like what was happening in nature. Is there an ability, do they see what nature Can they just be a couple of steps ahead?

I mean, does this system make sense? Let me just ask you that question. Because I understand it. If we could see something before it happens, we've predicted what we need to be ready for, but does it actually make sense to be doing this work? If it was perfectly clean and everybody had a good heart, does that actually work?

Absolutely not. And so there's been a huge divide in my field among, well, I should say among virologists, infectious disease epidemiologists, public health officials, and medical doctors who are involved with it. The debate is really two things. One camp argues that we can genetically engineer something to get one or two steps ahead of evolution out in nature and then make a medical countermeasure that could be a vaccine, a therapeutic to counter the way that this disease might evolve out in nature. I've always been against gain of function work ever since I was a PhD student and I learned what this is.

because it takes a, you have to have quite an ego to believe that you can function like God, out in nature, and you know how infectious disease agents are going to evolve. And now if you look at how this research actually works, and this is what really blows my mind, is that the amount of evolution and selective pressure that they conducted in the laboratory actually evolves the SARS coronavirus, 150,000, 200,000 years in the future, with different species and infectious agents that would never come into contact with each other. One of the unique features of this agent

is that they inserted HIV inserts in sequences into the disease, the agent. And there's no way... Here's another rival, okay, so you open that because I remember we saw that with a couple of Indian professors out of India said that very early on, all of a sudden that paper was retracted,

everything disappears, but now we're coming full circle back around to this HIV insert in there. Yes, and there's just not one. There's multiple, and there's actually multiple fur and cleavage sites that all tie back to this into a GP 120 protein that's called. And this is all evidence that this is for sure man-made. I think there's actually, well, one scientist I work with says that there's probably 300 unique features of this, which I'll point to it being man-made. And that even, that's even the no-seum features, which Dr. Ralph Barrett was just referring to in that interview. He's actually the father, again, a function that invented all these techniques to be able to. to hide the fact that this was man-made, and this gets taught to Xi Zhang Li. So the interesting question back here is, why are we doing all this?

Well, the elephant is sitting in the corner that nobody can see is that this is all probably Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security driven initiative to make medical countermeasures. There's a very simple problem that we have in public health and medicine in terms of bio-warfare, bioterrorism, and pandemic response. The second that an emerging infectious,

disease outbreak happens. Okay, cases start spreading and they spread fast. And then they become epidemics and epidemics become pandemics. Well, from that time when you first detect that there's something bad happening, if using old vaccine technology, it takes nine months, best case scenario to make an egg-based countermeasure or vaccine, which may or may not be effective and then you'll get into clinical trials with it. That just takes too long. Yeah. So they want a platform that they can rapidly modify for, any condition that may arise. And the Department Defense wants something

they can manipulate instantaneously for any threat that might come at the United States or at the force. And that's why they've been investing all this money into MRNA technology because they can code it and they can put it and they can scale it into production immediately. And if you look at all the drivers in the funding

behind the Moderna the company and the MRNA technology, it's been the Department of Defense. And Dr. Robert Malone, I don't know if you've had them on a show. Yeah, sure. But he discusses this at length. I mean, this was all a mostly Department of Defense and Defense Advanced Research Project Agency funding to make

MRI a reality. Then what they do is they scare the piss out of the population with the, you know, overestimating the morbidity and mortality of the disease as it's spreading. We have the lockdowns. Of course, the coronavirus that we've just all been through the pandemic, scare everybody. You know, the only way we're going to be able to fix this is a vaccine. And in America, that's going to be this MRNA technology. I'm sure you're aware of the emergency use authorization that allows you to expedite

the safety and efficacy trials. Do you know who backed that, though? Demands that, you know, there can be no other product that works. So, ivermectin can't work, hydroxychloroquine can't work. You have to have an attack on those. Otherwise, they're going to get in the way of this quick release of this new technology to try it on human beings. Oh, you're absolutely right.

I couldn't agree with you more. And I think you might even left Pepsi D.C. out of that. But the crazy thing here, so just last week, the documents were released that proved that the Department of Defense pushed the emergency use authorization, and it wasn't health and human services. So a lot of this was actually all choreographed, operationalized from Department of Defense directives that were framing this as a national crises of national security.

So how they actually even get the emergency use authorization is by declaring this as a national security emergency. Got it. Now, between you and I, I mean, and I'm a reasonable person. just for people that watch this show, for instance, I'm just going to take off on something that I talk about a lot. And, you know, around this vaccine issue, we took away liability, you know, protected, we added liability protections back in 1986 to the entire childhood vaccine program and really the vaccine program. And it's a big stickler and it pisses off a lot of people that end up being injured or children injured by vaccines.

And when I looked into it, you know, we always think of the bad guys, the pharmaceutical industry, blackmailed Ronald Reagan saying, you know, we're not making a lot of, profit on this product. But really when I look at it, Ronald Reagan's in a pinch. He's in a problem spot because you have the manufacturer's vaccine saying, look, we're not making profit here. We're getting sued too much. You take on liability or we're not going to make this anymore. Well, it seems to me that government has a real problem there for exactly what you're saying. One of our biggest concerns at that time is we're moving out of the nuclear age into a bio-weapons age. We're very concerned about germ warfare and attacks, whether it's a, you know, a parasite or a virus or bacteria.

or something like that. And it seems to me in the conversations that pharma was having with our government and saying, hey, if you want to have manufacturing sites up ready to go where you can ramp up hundreds of millions of vaccines or whatever countermeasure needs to be created, how is that going to happen if your companies don't make vaccines anymore? You have no manufacturing ability here.

And that's really where Ronald Reagan, who is a free market guy, hates the idea of liability protection, finds himself in a real juggernaut, which is, I need to protect the way. the United States of America. And that's something that I don't, we don't tend to talk about on this subject in my space, but are you aware of all of those details of sort of that protection, the need to be able to ramp up and sort of sits in the same space you're talking about, right? Oh, absolutely. And it's further refined after 9-11. So this concern comes to the service again

when really the biomedical industrial security state is created and grows. And I'm a product of it. I mean, I used to work at a Department of Homeland Security Center of Excellence. I received a full scholarship to work in one. So that concern about having immunity for the drug manufacturers, everyone realizes the companies are not going to make any of these countermeasures on a rapid basis in a high-risk environment unless they're not going to get sued because they're worried about the consequences of, you know, of lawsuits. Right. And not, I mean, as, I mean, we watched AstraZeneca said to Belgium that didn't want to give them liability protection, then we're not giving you the vaccine. We can't be held responsible for some long-term effect that happens four years from now.

because we weren't allowed to trial it for four years. You're the ones rushing it. So it was really which hand is scratching who, of course, they're going to make all the money, all these liability protections. But here's my question to you. So now that we've established, and look, I live in the United States of America. I want a robust military that protects us. There is bio-weapons attacks, and they'll also throw in their end.

It could just be a natural virus as they're trying to tell us this one was. We want the best nation in the world. We want to be protected from these things. But why on Earth, MRNA technology is brand new, technically really hasn't been trialed in human beings, why did you have to have a pandemic where you give this stupid brand new thing to everyone on the planet with no concern over what could go wrong? Why don't they just keep it in a contained space? Is it funding? Does this get them, does this forward the science with, I mean, I just, we watched all the, like practically money laundering.

Every nation, the world's pouring hundreds and millions and billions of dollars in these companies that, But, you know, Moderna hadn't put out a single successful product yet. Why? Why not just keep it contained and be smart about it? Well, I think it's all about money at the end of the day. And I think this is where, you know, they talk about globalist organizations and interest in the huge funding machine that's been turned down. And we've created a whole new large economy around MRNA vaccine technology. And you've seen this happen probably in the U.S. government before like I have,

and I think I'm a little bit younger than you use that. Once they turn on the spigot for funding for something, it's hard to turn it off. Yeah. And the Department of Defense wants us as a product. The Department of Homeland Security wants it as a product or a technology for the same reason. And I'm against the MRNA technology now in its current state and form. I'd like to see your hope in the future that they could fix it, and it would be some miracle treatment for humanity.

I'm just not seeing that being in the cards. It's all I said on this show from the beginning. Look, I'm not against MRNA technology. Maybe it's the hope for the future. But if you're going to mess with MRNA, messaging RNA going to cells, potentially inserting itself in DNA. We don't know if there's reverse transcripts, all of these different thoughts in it.

We don't know fully what it's going to do. Why would you take the risk? My point being this should have been one of the longest safety trials in history. We are literally spielunking in the spaces in the immune system. We haven't before. We're toying with toll-like receptors.

I mean, as far as I know, that we only gave out the Nobel Prize for discovering these things in 2011. Why are we now injecting products that are affecting this, when it seems like it's so brand new, it just seems so incredibly reckless. I'm with you.

Maybe this works out in the future, but you don't come out of the gate with no idea its long-term effects, then give it to, literally attempt to give it to everyone. Well, I agree with you on that, and I think this is where Robert Kennedy Jr. gets it right in his book talking about the myriad of interest behind this. I don't really see how we get out of it cleanly at this point.

But, I mean, I think one of the, by the grace of God, there were a couple things happened so one Brooke Jans Jackson came forward as a whistleblower in the Pfizer clinical trials and there was fraud and they're hiding adverse events in those clinical trials and I'm sure that she's going to win her case and as that happens that's going to crack this immunity

because the emergency use authorization that the government has granted these companies is based on the fact that everything that the companies that has provided to the government has been truthful and if if either the state of Florida or Brooke Jackson's that Keatom case goes forward and she wins, then I think the whole thing begins to crumble. Well, but it's going to take down government agencies too

because we know for a fact because we have lawsuits. We fund some of these lawsuits. We have, you know, people that were in the Pfizer trials. I know for a fact we've interviewed people like Maddie DeGerry and Breed Dresson. I mean, these are people that are in the trials. Maddie deGerry is in the trials for Pfizer. She ends up can't eat. It's paralyzed in a wheelchair.

and when we look at the Pfizer data, all they said is reported as a stomach ache. Now, if it had stopped there, then, you know, Pfizer the ones lying, but that family reached out multiple times to the FDA, and the FDA is gaslighting and ignoring them too, and that is the problem here. This isn't just an issue of money-grubbing pharmaceutical industries. We are entangled our regulatory agencies are entangled in the cover-up around the problems of this vaccine, around this virus. I mean, the whole thing I think is going to come crashing down. Well, I think the U.S. government is in a very dangerous position for one reason.

I think they're creating a powder keg. And if they do not relieve the tension by some kind of regulatory action on either the harms of the vaccine or the agent really went down, I think it could be a pitchfork kind of scenario. I mean, they worry about January 6th, but actually the government is encouraging by inaction that kind of thing to happen again. Yeah, I mean, you really, you have a just, The confidence the American public have in our regulatory agencies, in the CDC, in the FDA is just plummeting. They're pushing booster shots when no one wants it. No one needs it.

So much scientists say you have scientists now like Paul Offitt, Paul Offutt saying, you know, I think that they're rushing this, there's no need to have it. So you have people that normally are on the side of regulatory agencies, work inside the regulatory agencies now speaking out and they just keep pushing forward. It could be catastrophic. And I've never wanted it. I don't want to see the total implosion of our government and, you know, our regulatory agencies. We need to clean house, most definitely, but they're pushing it to a place where they're going to blow themselves up. Oh, absolutely.

And Congress needs to get moving quicker. I mean, I know that the government's set up to move slowly with the formation of committees. The problem is the issues we're facing are urgent. And, I mean, the House really needs to get moving on these issues and they need to do something. If they don't, I really fear that there's going to be a lot of unrest due to this. All right, so back to the point that sort of takes us down this rabbit hole, it doesn't start at NIH, so therefore Tony Fauci is not the originator of the idea of funding gain of function, but they get the contract.

And they're going for the NIH contract. What do you say was an R-O-1? R-1 is the technical term for it. And at that moment, it gets picked up, and now big funding starts coming out of NIH. Yes, and one of the interesting things here that I like to bring up. So everyone talks about the sub-award to the Wuhan Institute of Virology is the ooh-gacha moment. So do you think the Chinese need $400,000 of U.S. money to do gain of function work? First of all, that sounds like peanuts in this world anyway.

Yeah, that's the right question. Do you think they need $5 million of American money to do research? How about $50 million? Well, who are we borrowing that money from to give it to them? Exactly. This is what I like to point out to people. This is why it's so fat. I had this realization when this disease emerges.

Well, what were the Chinese getting out of this relationship with EcoHealth Alliance? That's a really good question. The most advanced biotechnology in the world, because before I worked at Ecoith Alliance, I was a senior member of the technical staff at Sandia National Laboratories. It's mostly a top secret, secret kind of government research facility that does a lot of weapons research. And everybody in MySpace knew that the Wuhan Institute of Irology was the Chinese BioWeapons Laboratory. So when I worked at Eco Health Alliance, I actually questioned an executive meeting why we were doing this work with China. I was worried that they were going to lie, cheat, or steal from us.

I was trying to protect the company. Well, then after SARS-CoV-2 emerges, I rethink about everything going on and with these intelligence connections at Eco Health Alliance that we had. Well, it looks like we were trading advanced biotechnology from Ralph Barrick's laboratory to the Chinese. And that's the thing that they get out of it.

What's the United States getting on this? So I told you my boss was working with the CIA. We're collecting intelligence on their laboratory. So this whole thing was actually about collecting intelligence. Do they know we're collecting intelligence, or are we just using this as a way to track how they're using the technology we're handing them? Oh, they absolutely know. So in this spy game world of science and technology, so when I worked at Sandian National Laboratories, if we had someone from China show up and they were going to come take a tour of the laboratory,

do you think we took them to see anything sensitive or classified? No. No, we take them on what we call the special tour, and they have a minder that watches them every go. and we bug sweep the place five times or maybe burn down the building when they're done. Right. And so what do you think happens when, you know, Dr. Dasick goes to visit the Wuhan Institute.

He gets the special tour. Right. So I think this was a bad, in part of bad intelligence collection operation gone wrong. I mean, that's speculation on my part, but I'm trying to put together the relationship of Peter telling me that he was working with the CIA. I had all these weird intelligence documents

that I sent off while I worked there. Plus the reality of the Chinese do not need our money to do research. So why collaborate on this one project? And the only reason that makes sense is that the Wuhan Institute of Irology is well known as a bio-weapons laboratory. In every Western government, the planet wanted access to it to figure out what they were doing. Okay, now tell me about the fraud that you discussed in your book. Yeah, so one of the interesting things that takes place, so when I reviewed this,

the understanding the risk of bat coronavirus emergence proposal, so this is the one that the NIH funds through Dr. Anthony Fauci. I get to the end of the proposal, and there's a standard government form called a select agent form. It's a standard form for any NIH research proposal. We're looking at it right here, select agent research, biohazards. And that's it. So there's a page earlier on the proposal called Specific Ames, which outlines the specific work being done in the project. So when Dr. Anthony Fauci is up in front of Senator Rand Paul in front of the side saying,

I didn't fund gain of function work, he's completely lying because it's all laid out in the specific aim form. That is actually the, all the description of the work. that was taking place. And it's a lie by omission because they don't talk about any of the specific gain of function work in the body. Okay. So why that's a problem is by NIH guideline, there's a number of a couple other agencies that they're related to this. You're supposed to have a institutional biosafety committee, a group of scientists and experts to review this type of dangerous research. You're supposed to have a biological safety officer. It's an official title. Every university that does biological research has one. And I would have been the person most qualified to have that position. at Eco Health Alliance based on my credentials and training. So I asked Dr. Dasick whether or not we had a biological safety officer at IBC and you told me, well, you don't have to worry about that. And so I found that a little strange back at time.

Well, the interesting thing is about the excerpt where the Wuhan Institute of Virology would be handling all the biosafety and biosecurity requirements of the project. Well, guess what? That's explicitly prohibited by NIH rule guideline policy. policy. It's essentially illegal for a principal investigator, Dr. Dasick, or an organization Eco Health Alliance, to foist off the biosafety officer responsibility. And have your own eyes on it, right? Correct. And this was a concern that I raised later at an executive meeting at Equal Health

Alliance about foreign laboratory safety because I end up taking a trip to Jordan. I see the laboratories we're working with. And I understand the process of, you know, and the problems that can be associated with. Well, here you have a laboratory, you know, across the ocean. How do you know what's happening in that laboratory on a daily basis? And it was clear to me that we didn't have the communication channels or the reporting requirements, and certainly I didn't have the trust to trust a foreign laboratory to do this kind of... Let's be honest, we have had multiple lab leaks all over China that have been reported in the news for years. I mean, they have a problem with this.

It's not like this is a one-off. These are reports that I've covered back, you know, when I was a producer on the CVS Talks or the Doctorses. I mean, this is a sort of ongoing issue. Well, it's a problem. in the United States. It's an ongoing problem in the United States as well and this is what leads to the domestic ban on gain of function. There's a series of high profile incidents with select agents where I think the Obama administration says, okay, we need to stop this. Right, right. And so in your hands, so why is it a fraud, though? It's a fraud because they're saying it's all being properly done by NIH standards, but it's not. They're not putting the right eyes on it. They're not putting the right controls around it. Well, it's just fraud because so this form is a select agent form. So it's a standard government form. So they don't talk about any of the gain of function research that they're supposed to be doing on the select agent form.

Okay, so one, it's a lie by omission. The second thing is when you get down to, you know, because it's a lie of emissions, they're supposed to be talking about all the different things that the biological safety officer, the biosafety committee are gonna do to mitigate the risk with the gain of function work. Right. But because they lie by omission,

there's never that discussion in the body of the document. Then they foist it off on the Wuhan Institute of Irology at the bottom, which is explicitly prohibited by NIH policy. You are not allowed a subcontractor to assume the biosafety or biosecurity risk of one of these types of projects. It's prohibited.

Why then is it that we went out of our way to cover up? I mean, this thing, let's just assume it leaks out of this laboratory. Fauci clearly goes out of his way to send out a team, starts writing that we see that we have the emails now. Like we've foyered, we've got them through our work. We've seen other FOIA requests that brought it out. His immediate, and frankly, this was a thing between Donald Trump. Donald Trump's like locked down the airports, man, I don't trust this thing.

And Fauci's like, no, it's not a problem at all. Now they're going to try and rewrite that history and Donald Trump's the bad guy. And I'm not, again, not getting political. This is just what happened. Yeah. Right? You had a guy that didn't know anything. But like me, I don't like China.

I don't trust China. If this is coming out of there, let's just lock down the airports and keep this, you know, bug from getting here. And Fauci at that moment, it's like, no, it's not a problem. It's not going to be a problem for us at all. And then within, you know, 30 days, that starts collapsing. And then he takes this totally different perspective. But it seems to me it was literally like a kid with his hands in the cookie jar.

You know what I mean? No, no, there's nothing there. There was never any cookies in there. And then the whole thing starts falling apart. Why the cover up is all, here's what I want to ask you. This is it, is it because it connects back? If we track this virus, do we see Ralph Barrett's work in? in that laboratory in this virus?

Oh, absolutely. And we helped train a number of the Chinese scientists who worked at the Wuhan Institute of Virology at a number of U.S. institutions. So you have to remember they have junior scientists, researchers, students. So they're trained at different experts in the U.S. And if you're going to pull out the spider web

of entangling organizations here, there are a number of different entities within the United States are working with the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the other co-collaborator. that we haven't discussed, but I discussed in the book, there are probably 20 or 30 different Chinese entities involved with this work, not just the Wuhan Institute of Irology. And this was all redacted from the government's version of this document, which I released,

but the government releases a redacted version, which takes all of this out. The other interesting thing that you touched on there is the timeline of actual events. So since this disease has emerged, there's been research and there's been epidemiology research done, and they went and looked at blood serum samples, which were. were collected from blood donations. It acts like a historical record. Sure. Well, they found this disease that SARS-CoV-2 circulating in Europe.

This is hard fact. In late August and early September, 2019, the study's been replicated by a number of different scientists. So this is a hard fact. So we have proof that this disease started spreading then. So think about that. I help the U.S. government develop all the most advanced technology in the world to detect these diseases when the emergency vents through digital signals, right?

When did the U.S. government find out about this? So the other thing that happens is after this disease leaks, we know that the Chinese immediately start buying containment equipment to plug the leak. And there's documents to prove that. So the Chinese start panic buying this containment equipment trying to get ahead of the leak to stop it. Then some other interesting.

What type of, what is containment equipment? What do we talk about? Oh, ventilation hoods, incinerators, aerobic digesters. These are advanced equipment used for dangerous pathogens when you're doing research with them. Okay. So it's speculated and believed from various documents that the Chinese were working with this SARS coronavirus doing the gain of function work in a BSL2 environment, biosafety level two environment when they should have been in a three or four.

Right. So they figure out they have a problem, though, and this is leaking. So maybe the leak continues for a while, and they actually don't get ahead of it. The interesting thing is, then you can fast forward to the World Military Games in Wuhan, and all the athletes report the same thing. The town shut down, okay? They're taking our temperatures. You have people in high-vex- At this point, what was the-

Late October? Late October. Late October. Okay, so obviously the Chinese know that there's a problem. A number of those athletes go back to their countries and they report pneumonia-like illness. Okay. So the Department of Defense has the best,

U.S. Department of Defense, has the best health intelligence in the world, surveillance. Forgot states have been funding you for several years and people like you to be able to predict, or see these things, or have satellites, and understand this is going.

And for the military, because I served in the military when I were younger, every time you go see the doctor in the modern military, there's an electronic report. And, you know, if they take test results, they have a huge ability to test millions of multiplexing PCR tests within a day. That's the department fence. You know, God bless it. So here's the thing. If you have all these athletes coming back from the U.S. government or U.S. military and their allies, you have to stand to reason that they're going to start testing some of this stuff to figure out what's going on if U.S. athletes. leads get sick are their allies. So, okay, well, this is October.

Well, fast forward, so this event 201 thing happens. So, you know, perfectly matches what's happening. Bill Gates, like, predicts the coronavirus outbreak. And I can talk about why that probably happens. And then fast forward to December, I find out about coronavirus spreading around the planet in mid-December of 2019. And that's before the U.S. government,

well, people like me, infectious disease epidemiologists are talking about it on public forum. about two weeks later and then the US government starts talking about it. Okay. So when I find out about it, my natural reaction is, holy crap, this could be the next big one. You know, I'm kicking and screaming figuratively, calling up all my friends who work in my field and colleagues saying, hey, there's something going on here. Why isn't the U.S. government sounding the alarm? Because I figure if I found out it by now, everyone in the government has to know about it, right? Everyone's got to know about it. Well, how little did I know at the time?

Then you fast forward into 2020. And, you know, so we have Birx and Fauci coming out saying, well, you know, it's not airborne transmissible. And I knew, I could just tell from the epidemiology that this thing was airborne transmissible immediately. And then the initial published peer-reviewed report. So they're lying. They're lying about everything. They're lying to the public when, if you know, we know the government.

Yeah, and they're not following the national pandemic preparedness plan. And I had reviewed a couple of those when I was a government scientist. And so I just, I couldn't believe what's happening. So I didn't know who to trust. I'm like, is this a president Trump thing? These people are all idiots? there, none of it made sense to me. So I'm just sitting, at one point, I decided to go sort of quiet.

And then I start feeding information to big name journalist about this probably being a lab leak. And then you mentioned earlier about Dr. Dasick getting assigned to the WHO investigation committee. I mean, I knew that Equal Health Alliance have been doing all those work at the Wohan Institute of Irology. I'm like, they put Peter Dasik in charge of this. I'm like, this is probably a lab leak. You have to be kidding me. Talk about the fox going to headhouse. Well, then I thought everybody was in on it.

I'm like, this is a huge conspiracy. I'm like, it has to be. And so I just kept on working for that year trying to convince everyone was a lab leak. And I think behind the scenes, and eventually I get to the point where I think I had everyone convinced and then I came forward to, you know, quote unquote as a whistleblower. Well, then the U.S. government retaliated against me. And it's like out of a movie. How do they retaliate?

I mean, it starts off. It's pretty innocuous. They started actually flying drones around my house. It was just sort of annoying more so than anything. Then they start hacking my devices at the frequency of every couple of weeks. Then they actually started forcefully breaking it at my house, tased my dog on a couple of occasions, tampering with crap in my house. They stole hard drives, computers.

It's just a long list of stuff. Does it make you nervous? I mean, this got to be somewhat feeling. Well, as I talk about this, the book, it actually escalates to the point where I get in a gunfight on my property. I reported to the Michigan State Police, and nobody shows up. And it goes on for about an hour. My wife's a witness to this. and the insanity of the whole thing is that we had called law enforcement multiple times

while this was going on because I actually had to go back to reload at one point and they never show up and they never respond and I think they lie to me I call back after it ends and they tell me that they were law enforcement was diverted to a car accident so you have a gunfight going on at one place or a car accident which place do you respond to now when you're saying gunfight you're fairly rural you have land and space around you we're not talking like in the middle of a city this is happening Yeah, so I mean, I'm sure a lot of listeners and watchers of yours can relate to this. So I live in one of the most remotely populated places or sparsely populated places in the lower 48. So I live in the Upper Peninsula, Michigan.

I have 200 acres. My house is off the grid. I have a mile long driveway. And most of my neighbors, you have like two to 400 acres of land. Cool. And if you actually, you know, if you call law enforcement, it could be a 30, 40 minute response time kind of scenario if they're doing 110 all the way to your house. So you can't count on people to be there. so it's people in the community and you have to defend yourself but this had been

escalating for a number of time and I know who was doing it because at the end of this harassment period I actually catch the Michigan State Police and unidentified federal agents on my property I catch them red-handed and the federal agents refuse to identify themselves so I'm pretty sure they're FBI or defense intelligence agency this is you know incredible information we could do this all day I'm totally geeking, really awesome to finally get an inside perspective. But let me ask you the important question. I mean, these are, this is a dangerous game you're playing. And, you know, in the middle of this, you could have backed off.

Most people, that's the whole point of breaking someone's house, messing around. You don't do that. Instead, you decide you're coming right at them and you write this book. Yeah. Why? I wanted to fight back so bad. I shouted into the woods when they were trespassing my property and I told them I was going to write a book. Because I realized that I could have been a dead man if I didn't go all the way with this.

I mean, you can't go part of the way with a story like this and back off. You just can't do it. And more importantly, I'm a patriot. And I love my country. I served in the military. I've always been an objective scientist. It's the right thing to do. I'm not going to allow all these technocrat, bureaucratic elite people dictate to us what we should and shouldn't be doing

and steal our liberties and personal freedoms is just over my dead body. What is the solution? What is this? What do we need to fix up? I mean, here, I mean, these are getting to be very scary times. We're losing, it feels like we're losing,

you know, so much of our freedoms, our liberty. We all understand why our government should be protecting us, but now they are compromised. They're compromised by China. They can't even call China out because they know, and that's what I knew. I was like, Donald Trump hates China. This guy would be the first one to say,

I'm suing you. leak this from your lab. We're going after you. He didn't really do that. And I was like someone inside is saying, Donald, you can't do that. Our fingerprints are all over this. We're all intertwined with each other. So we have a mess now. We've made a mess of this. We want to get in all the issues of the vaccine because that's not what this is about. But you have a technology that's raced out way too quickly. Who knows what the long-term effects of that are going to be? Now you're bringing a lawsuit. What is the sort of, you know, what are the grounds of your lawsuit? And and what's the goal? Sure. So my attorney Tom Rends and I filed a dangerous product liability case

in the state of New York. We have four victims, unfortunately, where their family members passed from SARS-CoV-2. They became infected with COVID. They died. And it's a very simple case. It's that Equal Health Alliance and their collaborators, Ian Lipkin from Columbia University, Ralph Barrick, from the University of North Carolina, Peter Dasick, Peter Dasick's wife, and Equal Health Alliance created SARS-CoV-2, and it resulted in death or harm. Very simple. Very simple. A really interesting case.

Yes, and it's proceeding. It's going forward. We have a couple other lawsuits up our sleeves, which I can't get into all the details. I can say I think we will file, or Tom will file a trillion dollar lawsuit against the pharmaceutical company soon. Well, I love it, man. I mean, I never thought I'd say that I used to sort of be anti-lawyer, but now it's the only way you can get anything done. We're very litigious here with our nonprofit, informed consent action. word. Obviously, you know, you're not just trying to write a book. I think you, I sense you're like

me, which is, I want a better world for my kids. I want to, there's a better way to do all of these things. I'm not anti-government. I want a government that's back to what I believe America represents, which is you work for me. You're supposed to be protecting me, not protecting Moderna and Pfizer and China. Like, that's not, that's not in the rule book here. You're, you're, you've totally lost your way. How do we fix this? Well, everybody has to get to in politics, again. I mean, I mean, so everyone is, it's interesting, if you look at the last election,

they talk about the large turnout in the election, but it's relatively, you know, still, I think it was like half of America voted. So look at all the people not voting and participating in the system. We have to make the politicians be scared of us. I mean, there's millions of us, and there's few of them, and they're not gonna do anything

unless they feel the pressure or the heat. And the one thing, it's unfortunate that this whole SARS-CoV-2 agent and the jabs have been, the psychological operation was basically to pin conservatives versus liberals. And this is not, this is an apolitical, you know, issue. And the insanity of that is, I think what will happen eventually is that when the vaccine injured people on the left, you know, and they're seeing this happen in their family,

they're going to say, holy crap, you know, this is real. And as that, that, this timeline moves forward, I think that will start to bring over the left and right together. So there's more political headway here. The other thing that needs to happen is that, you know, Republicans in Congress need to be scared. And they need to be scared from their electorate that they're just not going to get blind support because they're Republicans. So I submitted a report to Congress, which laid out the origin of SARS-CoV-2 and the relationship of SARS-CoV-2, the agent to the development of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. And we delivered that pre-elect election to Congress, my attorney Tom Renz and I, and I got an interesting response back.

They were shocked, and then they said something to the effect that, well, we can't work on this until after. after the election, we'll get back to you. And they could have ran on this on an election as an election issue. And they didn't, they did in the state in Florida. And they, it's a, the only guy that did, the only one that like just called it all out, had the, you know, Cajonius to go for it and swept Florida.

Florida was like, meanwhile, everyone else is dancing and being careful. He was same thing with the vaccine issues. Like, I don't like to look at this. I don't like any kids. There's not a risk on kids. I mean, amazing statements prior to an election. And he slayed and everyone else is, you know,

we just didn't, you to turn out that they had hoped for. Oh, absolutely. And the interesting part is then through people that I know in Washington, D.C., they communicate back to me that the Republicans in the Senate had to call an emergency meeting to respond to my report to figure out what they were going to do. And I guess the short story was that they were scared that if they came out with that information prior to the election, that the pharmaceutical companies then would run negative campaign, ads against them, wherever they're running for office. And these people need to quit being cowards. I mean, I've said this for a while. Conservatives who end up running for office,

and a lot of the mouthpieces I call them, they're cowards. You know, they talk a big game, but they actually never follow through to execute. And I don't know whether or not it's because they don't have the moral integrity to follow through. But, you know, you talk about why I wrote this book is, why have the moral integrity to do you just write? Like, I've lost hundreds of thousands of dollars. I've put everything on the line my life to get this book out and get the truth out. Who do you see from either side of the aisle doing that in Washington, D.C. these days. And we need more people like that back in office.

I mean, or we need to encourage them to be those kind of people. I'm lucky to be able to say that many heroes like yourself have sat in the chair. There's more and more scientists stepping forward that have got a moral compass, do have ethics. It gives me hope. You know, we used to say few and far between, but, you know, 30, you know, I would say we got tens of thousands of doctors signed on the Great Barrington Declaration. I know you were part of that very early on. It's truly an honor, and I do believe that by doing one. like this, by writing books like this, by standing up, being brave and showing the world

that that's what this is all about, it makes us question who we are. It makes us decide, maybe I should be, have a little bit more integrity and not be afraid to speak my truth. You're making a difference in the world. And it's really, really a special thing to have you here. So I want to thank you for taking the time. Well, thank you so much for having me. I think we turned the narrative. It just happened in the last couple of weeks, but I'm going to keep pushing this thing over the finish line. You do that. We will do the same on this end. Thank you so much. Your pleasure.

All right. Well, you're going to want, obviously, you know, we're having a great conversation. Could have gone on for hours, but you need to get into all the details. They're all here, obviously by a very passionate, exciting person. The truth about Wuhan available everywhere where you want to buy a book. All right, everybody. I also want to remind you that it's Valentine's right around the corner. And so what better way to say I love you than to provide your love on the gift and be able to say it supports the high wire

and it's helping change the world. Here's what we got in our merch store. Roses are red, violets or blue, does a person you love love the High Wire too? The latest High Wire and ICAN merch is here and there are perfect gifts for the holidays, birthdays or that special someone. From our new classic glass or modern concrete

Ican candles to a high end ballpoint pen with etched silver logo, these gifts are sure to warm the heart. Hot off the presses, his and hers embroidered Brave zip front jackets or the cozy B-Brave pullover are already Highwire fan favorites. And our new accessories will keep you spreading the truth, rain or shine. Visit thehighwire.com, order your loved ones a special gift and help support brave, bold news, only at thehighwire.com. All right, everybody, I am still on the road next week.

I will be speaking at a Narcopoco on February 10th. That's going all next week. You can still get tickets, get down there. It's going to be gorgeous. And then I head straight from there to Los Angeles for the Conscious Life Expo. That's going to be amazing. I'm speaking twice, once during the day, and then I'm on a panel that evening. Mickey Willis is there.

He's going to be showing parts of Plandemic 3, and I understand the news wants to come in and probably try and rip him apart. I'm going to stand next to him and see if we can't make a difference. This is what we're doing, but it's all about community. Get out. Be a part of the community. If you can get down to Mexico, I'll see you there. Otherwise, let's meet up in Los Angeles. It's going to be a great conversation there. I just want to end by saying, you know, there are so many heroes in this world. But there is one that, you know, this last week, someone that stood when no one else would stand was vocal above all else in his field and literally put his legacy on the line to stand in his show. truth and it all came to fruition as he just won the Australian Open. This is Novak Djokovic's great week in the news. Novak Joakovich won the Australian Open. Renowned Serbian tennis star

Novak Djokovic has won his 10th Australian Open Crown this past Sunday. Jokovic also tying the all-time men's record for grand slam titles with 22 wins. He called the Australian Open win. The biggest victory of his life, capping off an emotional journey. You may recall that Jokovic was detained and deported before last year's tournament after the Australian government's decision to cancel his visa due to his unvaccinated status. The way governments treated one of the premier athletes in all of sports, I mean, this guy is the goat of tennis, and he's unbelievable to deny him, to kick him out of a country, and what we did in the United States to him to not allow him to come in.

The memories also of last year came pouring out of Novak in this moment with his brother and his mom. There's really a lot to handle it. At one point, his agent was trying to ask the cameras to give them some space. A journey only Novak and his team can understand. It's a rare moment when in sports, you know, there is an incident or a game or a tournament that means so much to so many around the world. And I just want you to imagine. I mean, he was able to win. I mean, if you ever played any sport whatsoever, right?

What's going on in your head? What was going on in his head? Can you imagine how many voices in his head were saying, you know, this means a lot. If you win here, you prove the whole world wrong on everything that they did to you. Shut up, quiet down. Like, I mean, it must have been incredible. And yet with all of that, he's got the poise to stay focused and bring home the victory. It is truly a spectacular achievement and couldn't happen to a better person.

And that's why we are presenting Novak Djokovic with It's our first ever highwire hero of the year. This year culminates a very long journey for just an incredible individual. And I think as we all sit and think, you know, what is my contribution to this world? What really matters? There was an interview that was done with Novak

shortly after his victory there. And I think it encapsulates what we should all inspire. to be. Take a look at this. All of us who are closely associated with the tour, we know you. We know the amount you've done. We know what you've done for PTPA, for example. We know what you've done with your academy, just helping out kids like the Sabanov brothers,

like Hamad Madiadovich, also former players like Victor Troitsky or Ilya Bozoliat. Also, there's the Novak Djokovic Foundation that you and your wife, Yelena Yan, have been running for many years. Whenever there's floods in Serbia or somewhere in the world, Novak Djokovych is there. When there's fires in Australia,

Novak Djokovic is there. When Ukraine needs support and Stakovsky reaches out, Novak Djokovic is there. When there's fundraisers, Novak Djokovic is there. And yet, somehow, some part of the world believes that, you know, we feel like you don't get the credit that you deserve.

But my question to you, really, Novak, is why do you do all of this? Well, I don't think anybody has ever said so many wonderful things about, you know, me and what I've done. So I've thank you from bottom of my heart, my friend, for mentioning these things. Well, look, you know, I don't do them because I want publicity, you know. I do them because I really feel like I want to help and I want to be there for people who are less fortunate. I've come from Serbia in 90s where we've been through two wars, embargo for six years. I think for four years, not one Serbian athlete was allowed to go out from the country and compete in international competitions.

and I was growing up in Serbia during that time, waiting in line for bread and milk every single morning at 5 a.m. with hundreds of people and my grandfather so we could put the bread on the table for a five, six member family to eat that day. So I know how that feels like, and I think that appreciation for everything that I have that has been blessed with, that has been given to me. by life and by God is highly appreciated and more respected for me, I think. And so I always have this awareness that there's so, so many more people around the world that are much less fortunate than through my foundation, through, of course, you mentioned the tennis center in Serbia, try to stay in tennis and in sports and whatever I can in whichever way possible. I try to be there for people.

And I know I don't do enough. I can always do more. But, you know, I do my best. Novak, thanks, man. No, you do more than enough. You do more than enough. You do more than anybody. Can you, you don't owe anybody anything.

You're a great champion. Congratulations. This is an unbelievable effort. It's a pleasure. Thank you for your time. I know you've had a really, really long day. Thank you for giving us patient, long-drawn, and intelligent answers. Thank you, Novak.

One of the best interviews ever, someday. Thank you, my friend. Thanks, Novak. Thank you. Cheers. Truly a well-spoken and spectacular hero at such a needed time. I don't know if he looks at his life and thinks he's here for a purpose at this time, but I believe he was. I think he's been a messenger for great change in this world.

As we all are, I've said it before. I don't think we're here by accident. I don't think these incredibly tumultuous times. We shouldn't be sitting here complaining about them. we should be thankful that it's on our watch that we get to do something about all of this. We should all be able to go to sleep at night and think about our lives the way Djokovic has, which is, have I done enough? Is there more that I can do? What am I leaving to my children, my grandchildren, and my great-grandchildren, those generations ahead?

What can I do today to be spectacular? Even if it's just having a conversation with someone, being bold enough to speak your mind and truth and share truth with somebody, all of you is that you support groups like ours, the high wire, you're truly making a difference in the world. It's not hard. It just takes one step after another, moving in a direction of truth with confidence. That's what we are. That's what the high wire is. That's what you're doing when you're watch here. You're not just watching it. We're involved. We're making a difference in the world, and we're getting to see it change right before our eyes. We're committed to that. I know you are. And I can't wait to see you next week.