The Highwire with Del Bigtree - GAME, SET, MATCH

Episode Date: January 14, 2022

The War on Pro Athletes; Ethics Expert Fired Over Mandate; Vaccine’s Flopping Against Omicron; New Docs Expose Fauci; ICAN Landmark Wins & Critique of SCOTUS Hearing.Guests: Jonathan Isaac, Aaron Kheriaty M.D., Aaron Siri, Esq.#OmicronVariant #Covid #WhyIStand #ExposeFauci #ProjectVeritas #NBABecome 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.

How about we all step out onto the high wire? You know, it's amazing how fast the stories seem to be changing in this issue around this pandemic, COVID, this vaccine. Honestly, I feel like last week I was starting to think, man, this is going to go on forever. I was talking to a lot of friends. we were all talking on the phone. I was like, yeah, I know the vaccine is failing, but it just feels like they've got to get to that vaccine passport. They'll do whatever it takes.

And now, honestly, this week, I'm not so sure. I mean, it really is starting to feel like this thing is shifting in a major way. So many things are coming to a head right now. Supreme Court, any second now is about to weigh in on whether the federal government has the power to force vaccines upon, in this case, employers that have over 100, employees or healthcare workers through OSHA. They try to pull this end around when most of the country has always believed that the federal government doesn't have the power. They're going to

try and use OSHA. We'll find out that it's possible. But I'm really excited because today to get the nitty gritty into the details of the Supreme Court, and we all sat in and listened to the case last week. Erin Siri is going to be joining me in studio in just a few minutes. Obviously, Aaron Siri, I think one of the greatest constitutional lawyers of our top. He's been winning lawsuits for the informed consent action network, which is the nonprofit that supports this educational program, the high wire. He has won lawsuits against the National Institute of Health, FDA, Health and Human Services, the CDC, multiple lawsuits now in many of those categories, along with other civil suits. Big win in San Diego stopping the school board from mandating the COVID vaccine. Anyway, we're going to get into all of those details, including a new Fauci dump that's taking place.

a few more emails that are now in our possession. Going to be talking about that coming up. But first, I think the biggest, you know, story really in the world. And when you think about this, when we think, you know, about this term anti-vaxxer and the pejorative being used, you know, we talk about how even Joe Rogan finds himself in the mix now. All he did was decide to use ivermectin when he got sick with COVID. He'd done his research.

All the attacks by CNN, probably the greatest thing that could ever happen because he forced a great voice and, entity like Joe Rogan to actually start talking about what he thought and interviewing the scientists that he could get a hold of, you know, talking to Dr. Peter McCola, Dr. Robert Malone, all of that seems to be shifting this landscape in the beginning of this year. But when I think of probably the biggest anti-Baxer in the world, I think he's been in the news all week. It's a huge story.

It's everywhere. What's more dangerous than an anti-Baxor? How about an anti-Baxer star athlete? Take a look at this. player in the world, Novak Djokovic, still awaiting his fate to see if he can compete in the first tennis grand slam of the new year. Controversy surrounding the top-ranked player in men's tennis. The tennis world number one is fighting deportation and for the chance to compete in the Australian Open.

He could be barred from re-entering the country for another three years. The champ remains in detention in Maliburne this morning because he is unvaccinated. What's worse than an anti-vaxia in a pandemic, an anti-vaccine star athlete? The ABF has done their job. Entry with a visa requires double vaccination or a medical exemption. Jokovic's legal team stating that he was granted a visa back in November without qualification for his vaccination status. Also that he was infected with COVID-19 in recent weeks.

He tested positive for COVID on December 16th, on which he was photographed unmanned. at an event in his native Serbia. Breaking news overnight, Novak Djokovic, has won the battle to stay in Australia after his visa had been revoked over his vaccination status. The judge ordering Djokovic's passport and belongings returned immediately. On the streets of Melbourne, fans celebrated the Serbian star's victory in court. But in Australia, there's been one of the strictest lockdowns anywhere in the world, and many people there are unsympathetic to his case.

He's waiting with baited breath, as everyone in Australia. in the tennis community is to see what the government is going to do with these discrepancies, which sound a lot like lies. One possible issue ABC News has confirmed is whether Jokovic lied on his travel declaration form, specifically whether he was home in the 14 days prior to coming to Australia or wherever he was. Australia either boots him out, revokes his visa, right, kicking out a guy who's who is tied for the most majors of all time with Roger Federer and Raphael Nadal and possibly threatening the future of the Australian Open.

No small thing in Australia. That's option A. Option B is recognize natural immunity. Admit that an unvaccinated person is not a public health threat to Australians and let him play. At any minute, Australian authorities may or may not deport the number one men's tennis player in the world. Either Australia turns out to be reveals itself to be a fraud. Brian or they reinforce that they are in fact tyrants.

That's an amazing spot to find yourself in. Are we a fraud or are we tyrants? And I think that that is the perfect way to discuss what's happening in Australia. I've heard people say that the prime minister must have done this on purpose. Let Jokovic come in just so he could try to kick him out and make a big statement. I think it's a stupid statement. And I think they now find themselves in a very, very difficult spot. I'm telling you one of the great heroes of our time.

right now is Novak Djokovic because he is standing his ground. He is standing for freedom. He's standing for natural immunity. And by the way, he's going to go down in history because it's proving all around the world. We're going to deliver it to you all day today. The fact that he's right, the science is wrong. He has the best immunity there is. And if he didn't, everyone's going to catch COVID no matter what. Now, of course, you know, we now know that he's in the draw. That's the headlines that are happening. So Djokovic included in Australia Open Draw, despite COVID-related visa uncertainty. So that means that the tennis association decided he's in.

There's a last-minute thought on whether, I mean, look, the judge has ruled. The judge said, you know, this is illegal. The guy had a visa. He's here. I'm overruling his detention. Novak Djokovic judge orders immediate release of Tennis Star. That happened. So the question now that looms is, are they so hurt over this?

Have they so destroyed their credibility that all they can do, I mean, they've got to go ahead and destroy his career, they cannot let him play. You have to imagine what those conversations are like behind closed doors. I wish I was a fly on the wall. The consideration right now is, is the health department or somebody in government going to try and drum up another charge? Like, was he in Spain before he was in Serbia? Maybe he lied about, maybe there's a long layover.

We can turn into like a lie about where he was. I mean, the point is, is if he had that infection on December 16th, which he said he does, everyone that is a decent scientist in the world knows he now is the best immunity there is. He is the lowest risk of anybody that's currently going to be at the Australia Open. But what I find fascinating about this is how the news has tried to spin this, as though the government is trying to protect all those people. It's forcing to get vaccinated.

It wants to show those people that even the affluent and the rich and the superstars are going to be treated with the same, you know, iron fist that you're being treated with. I just highly doubt when we look at Australia, that that is the sentiment across that nation. I think a lot of people are cheering, whether privately or as we see gathered outside, the legal offices and in the hotels where they had Jokevich locked up, those people recognize this guy is fighting for me, this guy is fighting for reality in the middle of this insane delusional event that we talked about last week that we've all been a part of.

Jokevich is a hero. I'll bet you he's a hero if he polled all the people in Australia, but who's going to get an honest pull out of Australia right now? Anyway, we're watching that closely. I think we're just about seven days out for the beginning of the Australia Open. We will see how this goes. No matter how it plays out

and how this ends, Djokovic has already won. And now, when we think about star athletes and the power that they have and these people that have spoken out, so many of the times, you know, even in Jokovic's case, he hasn't really gotten to the details of the science.

He's just standing in, I have a right, I have medical privacy, This is none of your business. It's a very strong place to be. But, you know, even when Aaron Rogers went, you know, got caught in that whole issue and he ended up getting sick, we keep telling you there's things we wish they had said. Well, there's one guy that I honestly don't think we need to correct what he said that stood in it. As a star basketball player decided to say, you know what, I've looked at the science.

I think I'm intelligent enough to have, you know, looked at that science and come to my own conclusions. He got into the science where everyone else is afraid. I think it's one of the greatest press conferences by an athlete in this arena discussing being unvaccinated in the height of the pandemic. We played this before. I want to play it again because I think it's, you know, we're starting to see the effect that these brilliant brave souls are having. They're using that platform, that podium that they stand on to make a difference in this world. They are the heroes this week. Of course, I'm talking about Jonathan Isaac.

I would start with, I've had COVID in the past. And so our understanding of antibodies of natural immunity has changed a great deal from the onset of the pandemic and it's still evolving. I understand that the vaccine would help if you catch COVID and you'll be able to have less symptoms from contracting it. But with me having COVID in the past and having antibodies with my current. age group and a fitness, physical fitness level. It's not necessarily a fear of mind. Taking the vaccine, it does open me up to the, albeit rare chance, but the possibility of having an adverse reaction to the vaccine itself. I don't believe that being unvaccinated means infected or being vaccinated means uninfected. You can still catch COVID with or we're not having

the vaccine. I would say honestly, the the craziness of it all in terms of not being able to say that it should be everybody's fair choice without being demeaned or talked crazy to doesn't make one comfortable to do what said person is telling them to do. It should just be their decision and, you know, loving your neighbors, not just loving those that agree with you or look like you or moving the same way that you do. It's, you know, loving those who don't. I love that press conference. We've seen several of these leading athletes make some public statements, but usually it feels like they're kind of dancing around it,

not wanting to get too much in the science. I love how Jonathan Isaac just stood in the middle of that, seemed to have no problem talking about the science and his perspective, and it's really truly my honor to be joined right now by Jonathan Isaac. Jonathan, first of all, thank you for taking the time to talk to us today. I really appreciate it. Thank you so much for having me, Deb. So, you know, my first question for you is, as you were sort of stepping in front of those cameras,

were you aware of the firestorm that would probably be set off by stating your opinion around vaccination and the fact that you just didn't feel like you wanted to get the vaccination, or were you caught by surprise? I absolutely 100% knew, you know, what I was walking into from being on social media and just being a part of what everybody was saying during that time. There was so much passion around people getting vaccinated and people taking measures to kind of put the pressure on people and speak down about people who had questions or second thoughts about getting the vaccine. So I knew 100% that I was walking into something that, you know, that wouldn't be portrayed in my favor. But I felt I had the right knowledge and understanding about what was going on and that, you know, I was free to make that decision for myself and give other people a voice that didn't, that haven't had the opportunity to.

Now, were you mostly just coming from a sort of, you know, personal liberal. perspective. I mean, obviously you talked about some of the science. How much research had you done? I mean, did you feel like you had a pretty good grasp of the science around this issue? Yeah, it was definitely both. Definitely a personal liberty, you know, situation for me and religious freedom, you know, a stake for me in it. But absolutely, I've done a lot of due diligence around the science and just, you know, kind of weighing it for myself and seeing that, you know, the most of the people that were at risk had either comorbidities or that they were elderly, and that because of the physical state that I was in,

and even the fact that I had COVID already, I didn't feel the need to take a vaccine that didn't stop me from getting the infection or transmitting the infection. So I didn't want to open myself up to any adverse reactions to the vaccine itself. Is that a more natural? I mean, you don't have to answer to all these questions.

I mean, I'm just going to sort of throw it out there. But do you tend to sort of avoid pharmaceutical products just by nature? Are you more of a natural health guy? Or was it just specifically? this vaccine that you thought you just didn't want to go near it? Well, I'd say I'm pretty in the middle. Like if I have a headache or something like that and I can tough it out, I will.

But I absolutely at the same time, if it's bad enough, I'll go to the hospital or, you know, obviously we have the team of physicians. You've got the magic that'll take care of you and give you anything that you need. Now, when it came to, you know, your team and the athletes on your team, did you feel supported? I mean, there was moments where, you know, I think that. the league was, or somebody was saying, you know, you can't eat dinner, you can't be around the team, you know, things like that. What was, what was the sort of climate around, you know, other team members? Are they supporting you? Or are they like, will you just get this damn

vaccine and get on with the rest of it? What is the vibe, you know, in the middle of something like this? From my teammates, 100%, you know, those guys were great, you know, when everything broke about, you know, my decision to not get vaccinated, they were all cool with it. We still ate together, we still hung out as if as if nothing had changed. And honestly, the league and even the team have been pretty laxed about, you know, keeping up on the protocols that they put in place. I feel that they were generally just kind of fear tactics to a degree to get you to just, okay, I don't want to face these things, so I'll just take the vaccine. And so, you know, everything has been fine. So are you sort of under the impression that even the league itself

is just bowing to pressure from the administration, like our nation's pushing so that they really don't have skin in the game, which is like whatever we have to do to keep our stadiums open and keep playing? Is that sort of the sense of what you're getting out of it, that it's not actually the league that's pressuring you, but more sort of the health departments? I think that's a part of it. I think to look at what's going on with the hysteria and the politicization around the COVID as a whole, it will be naive to say that, you know, these organizations and global corporations aren't, to some degree, worried about the pushback that they would give. or what they would face if they were to go against, you know, the health industry.

And so I think there's absolutely room to say that the NBA and all these other corporations feel pressure to kind of align themselves with what everybody's saying politically and don't want to push back against that. Now, you know, as a layperson, I don't know, you always think like all those super athletes, which you are definitely on that list of one of the top athletes in the world. We're watching Novak Djokovic right now in the news. trying to be allowed to play in Australia. It looks like that may be moving his direction after he's literally been locked down.

Aaron Rogers, of course, and, you know, Cole Beasley, Kyrie Irving. Do you guys, like, call each other? Is there like a club of, like, elite athletes to say, hey, I'm in the middle of this too, and here's what, here's my advice to you or, you know, just at least sort of check in with each other? Are you kind of all on your own on this? Yeah, I haven't talking to any of the guys. But, you know, I've paid attention to what's going on and just have, you know, the utmost respect for those guys willing to stand up for what they believe in and give a voice

to people who don't have one. Is it as small a group as it appears? Do you feel like it's just a tiny little group of athletes that really don't want to be involved in this? Or is there a larger silent minority or majority, if you will? I mean, what is your sense of really the energy right now? Even those that maybe got forced to get it but hated it, do you feel like there's more athletes that are really against this sort of vaccine than we're hearing about?

I think that there's definitely some groupings. There are some athletes that kind of, you know, that saw all the hysteria behind it and was just like, you know, I'm willing to do it. I'm protecting myself and protecting the people around me. And then there were the athletes that kind of saw kind of through the weeds about, you know, everything and saw that maybe this isn't so much about public health. And there are some other things going on here. And I got that inclination right when the Rolling Stone article had dropped and mischaracterized my position on the vaccine. That's when it kind of illuminated for me that this thing really wasn't all about public health. or they wouldn't have to do that.

And so there's some athletes that are kind of waking up and saying, okay, I got my booster, I got my vaccine, and I still have COVID. And you're still talking about the same language and even now that the CDC is coming out and kind of back tracking on a lot of the things that they said around masks and other things. So there's definitely some guys that are waking up

and obviously the people who are at the forefront kind of opposed to it and had their different reasons to be. Do you feel a little bit vindicated in a way as you watch? Oh, I mean, literally leagues, I mean, entire teams, especially in football, not being allowed to play or having to move their game because so many of them, after being vaccinated, have caught the virus. Do you have a sense of a little bit of I told you so? I mean, this is what I was seeing, or does that not affect you?

No, I wouldn't say, you know, my thinking going into it was that everybody is free to make their own decision. If you want to take the vaccine, you're absolutely free to do so. If you want to take the vaccine, you're free to do so. I honestly, to a degree, you know, feel bad that some of the guys have to go through this. after being promised to a degree that they wouldn't have to worry about COVID anymore. And for me, the scare is that even though, you know, it would, you know, the science is saying or people are saying that it would lessen your chances of having a severe reaction with taking the vaccine, these are, you know, these are premier athletes. And the fact that they have to open themselves

up to the possibility of having an adverse reaction to the vaccine and then still getting the virus that they were vaccinated against, you know, I feel bad and they have to go home and sit and be in quarantine. So, you know, I wouldn't say I've been vindicated. My stance is still that everybody is free to make their own decision and should not be mandated to do so when you take a look at the science and what our country stands for. Yeah, I think that's a great perspective to have, and I feel the same way. I feel bad for people that are trying to do what's right. I mean, that's really what a lot of these people are doing. They're just trying to do their part.

They're being told this makes a difference. So Jonathan Isaac has teamed up with a scientist and a doctor who also has been fighting really the conversation about natural immunity. Why should someone have to get a vaccine after they've already had the virus? All the science that we've shown you on the high wire clearly shows us that those that are previously infected had the best immunity on the planet. There's no vaccine. There's no study that shows that the vaccine can achieve that level of immunity, yet they still want to vaccinate these gentlemen. Dr. Aaron Carriardi has found himself in the middle of this conversation, and this is what that looks like in the news. Director of Medical Ethics at UC Irvine, Dr. Aaron Cariati.

Physician Dr. Aaron Caratati. Dr. Aaron Cariati, thank you so much for being here. He took the University of California Irvine to court over its draconian vaccine mandate. So I worked on the front lines with the other physicians at the university all throughout the pandemic, treated many, many COVID patients, got COVID myself, recovered, and had robust natural immunity. The university said our policy is that everyone needs to be. the vaccine without without exception. And I challenge the university's vaccine mandate

on behalf of people like me that have natural immunity. This argument is 100% backed by scientific evidence, but UC Irvine doesn't seem to care about that. There's not been a single documented case of someone getting reinfected and transmitting the virus to others. So natural immunity actually impedes transmission. We have overwhelming evidence in the science. scientific literature now that natural immunity is robust, it's durable, it prevents not only

reinfection, but prevents transmission. I'm the safest person to be around on campus. I've experienced this as an ethicist looking at the moral and legal issues with the vaccine mandates, but also obviously at a very personal level. Our equal rights under the Constitution, we're not being respected. All right, I'm here with Dr. Aaron Carriotti and Jonathan Isaac. Dr. Carriotti First of all, you, for how long have you been working at the university at UC Irvine? So I've been there for 15 years. I did my residency training and psychiatry there as well. So if you count that, a total of 19 years. Basically my whole career. When I finished residency, I joined the faculty. And I taught, treated patients there. I directed the medical ethics program there for a dozen years.

And the latest update on that, Dell, is after placing me on suspension, last month the university did fire me. So I've been officially let go from the University of California where I spent my entire career, where I taught medical students. I was the only faculty member at the University of California, Irvine, that directed courses in all four years of the medical students' curriculum. So I saw all the medical students every year for the institution. entirety of their training. The students gave me the excellence in teaching award three times over the years. And so it's been a little shocked the system, leaving academic medicine, getting set up with a private practice, doing some research and some advocacy work with other non-profits like the Unity Project here in California and the ethics and public policy.

Center in Washington, D.C. But this is definitely a big professional change for me. But I have to say, kind of going back to Jonathan's segment of the interview, I saw the press conference that you showed there at the beginning and was just blown away that I was hearing this young professional athlete saying all the things that the other talking heads on TV, whether they be journalists who, should have you know been doing their homework or even public health officials should have been saying and should have been explaining to the American people um instead we've got a very very sharp very courageous player from the NBA saying these things instead and it was so refreshing I reached out to Jonathan uh and just thanked him for for his remarks and and encouraged him uh because I was I was in the thick of my own uh kind of conflict with the union

over these mandates. So I knew a little bit about what it's like to be really the only one standing up publicly in an institution like that. So that's how we connected. We stayed in touch and, you know, talked about the science, talked about the latest studies coming out. And and again, it was refreshing to have have a friend who's a who's a layman. He's not, you know, not trying science and medicine. But clearly paying way more attention. to these issues than other people whose job it is, you know, to pay attention to these issues. So that's, it's been great getting to know them. And you guys just teamed up to write a really important, I think, a great article that just came out. This is the headline, folks. You should check it out. COVID mandates keep Americans from getting back in the game.

We can fight COVID to defend freedom simultaneously. It goes on to talk about, we argue on the contrary, that the scientific evidence does not favor of vaccination nor warrant coercive mandates or restrictions for those with natural infection induced immunity. Furthermore, we affirm that all people should maintain the right to inform consent or refusal for COVID vaccines. I think when I think about this, Dr. Kariati, I mean, you're an ethics professor. I mean, I just find that the irony of that, that is not only that you understand the medicine of science, but the fact that your whole conversation is the ethics of how we deal with science and medicine. And there's no bigger ethical question, I think, in the middle of this,

than the ethical question of informed consent, you know, the entire Nuremberg Code, the number one rule is that the voluntary consent of the patient is critical in modern and certainly democratic health care. And yet in this situation, you do what we say or else. You do what we say or you're fired. And so when you look at this, when you watch, you know, players not being allowed to play, losing their pay, it'll not be able to hang in the locker room. and then you yourself losing your job over simply and wanting to say, look, I understand the science.

Where are we at ethically as a nation? What do you think about when history looks back at this moment in time, what will be the ethics conversations? So that's a great question. And I think you're exactly right. What I was seeing is these foundational ethical principles like informed consent, like the need to give accurate. information to the public so that the informed consent can be truly informed, these things were being just thrown overboard, just jettisoned because of this crisis situation. And, you know, if there's one thing that we've learned from the history of medicine, is that it's especially

during a crisis, it's especially during an emergency or a wartime situation where peoples or countries basic foundational ethical principles are even more important because that's when you're tempted to cast them aside. And it's been it's been a little concerning to me as I look around at my fellow people that, you know, have been studying and teaching medical ethics that with a few notable exceptions, Julie Penessian in Canada and a few others, for the most part, mainstream medical ethics has been more or less silent on what is being rolled out. And I think it's the same concern about my own job, the same concern about my own reputation that's driving so many other people to stay silent. But what it came down for me was basically trying to imagine myself in January and February,

when I ordinarily teach the required medical ethics course to the students, trying to imagine myself getting up and talking to the students about informed consent and the Nuremberg Code, talking to students about the need for moral courage and, you know, the need to stick your neck out and say something, even though you're at the bottom of the hospital hierarchy, you're just a medical student. If you see something going on, something being rolled out that's going to harm patients, then even though it's, even though it's intimat, you know, it's intimate, you know, even though it's a little bit scary, you have to stand up and say something in order to protect the patients. And I just couldn't imagine having that, you know, standing up in the lecture hall

and having that conversation with the students. If I saw something being rolled out around me that I knew was wrong and I didn't stand up and try to put a stake in the crowd. Well, and I think that's what's so important when we watch people that are in front of cameras that are representing putting on the line like Jonathan. When you got the call from Dr. Kariati, Jonathan, what was it that struck you? What, what, what, how do you? How do you? did this turn into a friendship? Why are you guys closer now writing together, doing things together? You know, what was that connection, Jonathan, for you. Well, when he had reached out to me and, you know, told me about his situation, I just saw somebody else in the fight alongside with me.

And so my first, you know, message back to the doctor was thank you. And then I was bouncing questions off of him. Like, you know, how long does natural immunity last? And he started to tell me that, you know, once you get a COVID infection, you know, over time, you're, you're, you know, You can correct me on this doctor, but it doesn't stay in your blood. What's the right word for it? Antibodies. Oh, the antibodies? Yeah.

Antibodies. Yeah, there you go. It doesn't stay in your blood over time because of all your antibodies from, you know, every virus that you've had stayed in your blood. It would be like sludge. But it is stored in your like memory, B cells and T cells. So if you do come in contact with that virus, again, your body can then ramp up antibodies. But a lot of what people were saying was, well, natural immunity wanes.

And that's something that, you know, Dr. Kekarity has pushback on and I've learned a lot about. So I just started to ask me questions and just find out what was right, what was true, and did my own research as well. And then it kind of just fostered into, you know what, you know, let's write a piece together. And let's come together and use, you know, everything that you're saying about national immunity. And I've got a couple quotes in there, you know, towards the end and everything like that about kind of the personal liberty side of things and why it's so important to preserve these things, especially in an emergency. and to kind of just push back against authoritarian ideals and the things that are going on. Fantastic. Well, it's so great to have you to game. Dr. Carriotti, if there was one point that you'd like to make. And obviously, you're very focused on this natural immunity. I know you've worked with our lawyer.

We share the same lawyer in Aaron Siri that represents the work that we do at the informed consent action network. He has won lawsuits for us against the National Institute of Health, CDC, the FDA, Health and Human Services. It's partly why we were able to sort of get a hold of you. I know you brought a case. You even had fellow scientists and doctors at your university writing in and backing up your perspective on the science around this. It didn't seem to matter. My understanding is they, you know, originally this was just dismissed. I'm sure you probably have, you know, ongoing ideas to push that case further.

But when we think about this, I mean, you weren't even allowed into a courtroom to have this conversation, which I think is insane. But in the courtroom of public opinion, what do you think is the most? important point. If we were to finally see the news anchors tell the truth on one point, what do you think is the point that should be being made to everybody in this country and around the world? What is the elevator pitch on why maybe we should be looking at this in a different way? Yeah. So I think the point that I would make is that natural immunity is our way out of the pandemic. And connected with that point is the point that Jonathan already mentioned. The vaccines do not stop infection and transmission of this virus.

And once you recognize that, then the argument, well, you should get vaccinated for the sake of other people just falls apart. If the vaccines don't prevent infection and transmission, if vaccine efficacy, I just saw a new preprint study of vaccine efficacy against the Omicron variant, which people are realizing that by experience. Jonathan mentioned his fellow NBA play. players who have been vaccinated, many of them boosted, still now getting infected. And that experience is waking people up to the fact that the vaccines were, their effectiveness

was overpromised. And when you over promise and you under deliver, you lose people's trust. So I guess the last thing that I would say to people out there were not doctors or scientists is that whether or not you're a doctor or scientist, all of you are rational human beings and you have reason and you have logic. And so if what you're hearing just flatly contradicts what you're seeing going on around you,

or if what you're hearing one day flatly contradicts what you're hearing a week later, trust your own instincts, trust your own judgment, right? Don't outsource your right, your rationality and your logic to quote unquote experts. Because unfortunately many of the, many of the so-called experts that are being put forward are being given a platform simply because they're saying

what people in power want to hear. Yeah. There are economic interests at work here. Very, very strong economic interests at work here. There are political interests in play here. And so the public health establishment, I think unfortunately has squandered a lot of its credibility over the last two years.

And ordinary people, I think it's time for you to wake up and realize that I can't outsource my basic judgment and my basic common sense. And people are, I think people now are really doing that because the evidence is so overwhelming. Everyone knows someone or has personally experienced, getting infected in spite of vaccination. So that cat is out of the bag. Now, Jonathan, we have a quote from it. I'm getting would have been one of your idols.

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar decided to weigh on this. This is his quote. The NBA should insist that all players and staff are vaccinated or remove them from the team. NBA legend of Kareem Abdul-Jabbar tells Rolling Stone, there's no room for players who are willing to risk the health and lives of their teammates, the staff, and the fans simply because they're unable to grasp the seriousness of the situation or do the necessary research. What I find especially disingenuous about the vaccine deniers is there arrogance at disbelieving immunology and other medical experts. Not to put you too much on the spot, but if you had an opportunity to have a coffee with Kareem, what would you like to say about that statement? You know, honestly, I would just share the same stuff that I shared during the

press conference, but to hear that quote from him, the first thing that comes on mind is just out of touch with reality about what's going on, what the science is saying, you know, what everything looks like. So it's hard to have a conversation with somebody and kind of walk them to a compromise or an understanding place when they're so out of touch with what's going on. What doctor said about the fact that the vaccine doesn't stop infection or transmission, that to me blows out of the water, of the argument that you're trying to protect the people around you. And so, you know, if you're healthy and at the end of the day, just to hear something like that about a player that came up in times of when things were

much different, the fact that things can be forced on players to do yes or no, and their free will be completely taken from them or to lose their jobs to me, you know, it's just ironic and it doesn't really make sense to me. So it would be hard to have a conversation with him. I mean, a guy who really fought to get out of segregation, I think is a leading, you know, a leading voice for we are all equal. And here, because you share different medical choices and decisions, somehow, he's going back to an old school idea that then you should be segregated away from this game. It really is quite shocking. Now, in all of us, in this time that you've had to sort of ponder this, you've gone and decided to write a book.

Here's the title of that book. Why I Stand. Tell me a little bit about this book. and why you decided to write it? This book, for me, it's really just a story of my life. It's a story of how my faith has played a role in making me the man that I am today and has given me the courage, the boldness, but also the desire to stand up for what it is that I believe in and offer it as an answer to everything that we see.

So the main kind of story in the book is about me standing in the bubble last year in the NBA bubble when everybody, you know, kneeled for Black Lives Matter and acknowledgement for, you know, what was going on with Black Lives. And, you know, looking over my life, what has helped me, what has transformed me, is the love of God. And I wanted to share that in that moment to say that that is not the only way that we can support, you know, black lives. And to me, there was such a pressure to align with what everybody was saying and the tone in

which they were saying it with. And so even though I believe that Black Lives do matter, I didn't believe in the way that things went about. And I wanted to stand up and give my own rationale for what I believe was truly heal the world and to me that's the gospel of Jesus Christ. And so that's what I led with. And then it also has given me, like I said, the boldness and the confidence to stand up for what I believe in. And as, you know, got me to stand up and speak about the vaccine. So the book is about my story. It's about why I chose to stand and giving people the background about who I am and everything

that has gone into, you know, what I've stood for. Well, I mean, to our audience out there, I mean, these are the types of books that we should support, the types of books that we should be bringing as gifts to our friends. We've got to stand by. behind our heroes. It's due out, May 17th, 2022. Put that in your calendar right now. Let's blow that thing up the day that it comes out. You can pre-order it now, which would be fantastic.

So go ahead and do that. You can go to Amazon. There it is. Dr. Carriardi, you know, you have teamed up with obviously someone who's getting a lot of attention on this issue, but you both are standing the truth. To me, you're both heroes. You're representing the facts in a time

where facts are being censored. How do you see this playing out? Do you think we're going to wake up enough people to sort of transition and see a change? Because, you know, it's in, and where do you think is this going? Is it really just about vaccines or is there something else? Like, what is behind it when you ask yourself that question? Yeah. So I like to say that reality always bats in the bottom of the ninth inning.

And the idea there is that you can try to, you can try to cheat the facts. You can try to cheat reality with propaganda or with spin for a while. And we've seen that that can be disconcertingly effective. But I think now with this latest variant, now with people having so many personal connections or personal experience with the reality of what's going on with COVID, the fact that it's going to become endemic, meaning everyone is going to get exposed to COVID. There's no way to avoid the virus. doesn't have to be a big scary thing because treatments are available, especially for those

who are liable to get more sick, the very elderly or the frail or the medically ill. And for everyone else, fortunately, this new variant is proving to be quite mild. And people are getting natural immunity. And that natural immunity is going to be strengthened every time down the road that they're re-exposed to the virus early variant. And it just occurred to me, do you the thing? the fact that so many people will now recognize themselves as naturally immune, having had it, whether they were vaccinated or not, that that's going to build the movement behind both of your

points that natural immunity is way forward. I mean, nobody wants to keep getting a vaccine they don't need. So I would imagine we're going to see a lot more people, especially athletes. I mean, Jonathan, do you think that athletes that have now caught the virus are going to be down to get a booster shot afterwards? Or do you think a lot of them going to say, I've done this? Oh, hell no, we're moving on. Where do you think we're at, Jonathan, on that? Listen, I've heard plenty, plenty of NBA players share the sentiment that you just said, I got my vaccine, I got my booster, and I still got COVID. I'm done.

And for me, you know, early on when I got COVID and it was mild for me, even when it wasn't the Omicromberia, that helped me in terms of my own fear of it. I was like, this is a, you know, this is a bad flu or a bad cold or whatever. I'm okay. And then walking into everything else, I said, okay, I'm not going for this. But for the guys who have gotten the vaccine, the booster and still got, COVID, you know, they're done. All right.

Dr. Cariotti, Jonathan, Isaac, I want to thank you for taking the time to join us today. You're both courageous, your heroes. Dr. Carriotti, do you have a place where we can read, you know, your stories or where we can be following your journey right now? Where's the best website or a place to find your information? Yeah. So I have a Substack newsletter that folks can sign up for. It's called Human Flourishing.

That's Aaron Carriotti.substack.com. online and I'm posting regular updates on these issues to that to that site. And how about you, Jonathan Isaac? Is there any information you wanted so we can sort of follow your book and the things that you're doing in the future? First off, you guys really want to check out what Aaron just said. It's the same way that I've been hitting him up on DM and asking him a bunch of questions. He goes through them all in his substack. But just social media, type in Jonathan Isaac on Instagram, Twitter, and you'll see what I've been doing.

All right. Look, it was really an honor to be joined by both of you. Keep up the good work. I think there's a growing movement. Your heroes, your leaders. And I think we are going to really start to see this thing shift because of those of you that were brave enough to speak out. So keep up the good word. And hopefully we get to speak in the future. Take care. Thanks, Del. All right. Well, let's get to the rest of the crazy news around the world. It's time for the Jackson Report. All right. Jeffrey Jackson has a lot going on in the world. Obviously, athletes are shifting. This whole conversation seems to be shifting as we speak.

It's a very important moment. So what's happening this week in the news? Yeah, Del, I want to interrupt our program here for some breaking news that happened just seconds ago. We have the headline here. CNBC Supreme Court blocks Biden vaccine mandate for businesses backs health care worker rule. The Supreme Court has ruled to block the Biden administration's mandate. That's for private employers. 100 or more, but they're going to follow through with the healthcare worker vaccine mandate.

So that is breaking right now as we speak and more information will be forthcoming. That's great news, obviously, for all those people in large businesses across this country. Terrible news for those frontline workers, those people that stood in the middle of this firestorm when there was no vaccine took on the risk. And now, you know, unfortunately that there is a vaccine. Probably I would guess most of them honestly probably have natural immunity. the whole conversation we just had because if they were in the face of that, all they had were masks that we know that don't work.

So many of them have natural immunity and now the Supreme Court doesn't seem to care. But of course, I'm going to get into a lot of details. Aaron Siri, it's amazing. It's fantastic. We kind of hope the timing might lay out like this. He's going to be joining me in studio. So I'm sure in usual fashion he's woodshedding right now to get to the basis. But we're going to go through this case.

We're going to talk about the arguments that were made and, you know, whether they could be better or worse. but obviously we've got the decision, so we've got the right guy to have that conversation. But moving on, thanks for breaking that. Huge, huge. I mean, this is historic. This is literally historic moment. This is what we've been waiting for since the early 1900s in the case of Jacobson versus Massachusetts.

Does the federal government have the right to force vaccinate citizens in this country? And when it came to, you know, using employers to do that and using OSHA, clearly for those employers, that is not the case, but when it comes to health care workers, unfortunately, they ruled the other way. All right. But let's get back to what I'm sure is a ton of news to lay on us in other spaces. Yeah, in the shadows of this court decision is really a bigger elephant in the room. And that is, it's been a terrible month for the, you know, one size fits all, vaccinate or else crowd. Don't question the science.

There's a lot of inconvenient truths, data that has come out. And it's been forcing people, even the CEO of Pfizer, Albert Borla, to come out and start to sound like this on media interviews with the mainstream. Take a look. We know that the two doses of a vaccine offer very limited protection, if any. The three doses with a booster, they offer reasonable protection against hospitalization and deaths, less protection against the infection. I mean, exactly what both Jonathan Isaac and Kariati were just talking about. We've said it from the beginning. The vaccine does not stop infection, doesn't stop transmission.

Anyone that says otherwise is either out of touch like Kareem Abdul-Jabbar or they're lying. Yes, and he said, if any, protection, if any, and the third vaccine offers very little as well. And let's bring it back to about three months ago in September, where they were trying to really market the third vaccine. And this is what the headline looked like in Israel. If you'll remember, Israel Research, third vaccine dose produces 10 times more antibodies than second. Well, that sounds great. Well, that's over now. And now they're cranking up that rusty PR machine again.

And here's what the headlines are looking at in Israel. Again, Israel Research finds fourth jab boosts COVID antibodies fivefold. But literally, it's imploding 24 hours later, literally a day later. Here's the other headline that comes out. Effects of fourth COVID shot are good, but not enough is really health experts say. And why have everyone talking like this? What is this about face going on? We've covered this last week as well.

But now the science is really starting to come out. So this is a Canadian study out of Toronto. The effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against Amacron or Delta infections. So they included all the Canadians 18 and over with provincial health insurance who had a PCR test. They looked at basically November, December this year. And this is what they found. They write, receipt of two doses of COVID-19 vaccine was not protective against amicron infection. At any point in time, the vaccine effectiveness was negative 38%.

Folks, you don't want to have a negative in your vaccine effectiveness. You want positive. So this is not good. It goes on to say at 120 to 179 days and negative 42% at 180 to 339 days after the second dose. Vaccine effectiveness against amacron was 37% seven days. less after receiving the MRNA vaccine for the third dose. Findings were consistent for any combination of two MRI RNA vaccines and two doses of, this is the Pfizer for the primary series.

It forced them to conclude this. Two doses of COVID-19 vaccines are unlikely to protect against infection by Omicron. A third dose provides some protection in the immediate term, but substantially less than against Delta. Now, that's a fairly convenient conclusion, but that conclusion is actually stating something else. Am I correct? When we see negative efficacy, that means it is, you know, increasing your risk of infection, right? I mean, if it's in the positive, if it's like 2%, it's 2% at stopping it.

If it's in the negative, it means you're getting more infected than the people that didn't get the vaccine. Am I right? Isn't that how we can look at that? Yes, absolutely. And that's a theme that's going to carry into these next stories that we're going to reporting on. That is absolutely correct. So please keep that in mind. People are listening.

So let's go over to Denmark, whose data collection is one of the top in the world. And this is the study out of Denmark. It's titled Vaccine Effectiveness Against SARS-CoV-2 infection with the Amicron or Delta Variants, very similar to Canadian study. They looked at the two doses of the boosters. We had this one looks at Pfizer or Moderna, a Danish cohort study. And it says here, we are showing original research with early estimates for Danish nationwide databases of vaccine effectiveness against the novel SARS-CoV-2 Amicron,

variant up to five months after primary vaccination series with the Pfizer or the Moderna. Let's look at this chart. I highlighted two sections here. So we have the Omicron column, the first section highlighted. You have that negative. There is got negative 76.5% at 91 to 150 days out. Even if you go one line above that, 61 to 90 days out, you're only at 9.8% effectiveness. And that is for the Pfizer vaccine.

Moderna, not much better. The second highlighted section, negative 39.3%. So you're still looking at the negative vaccine efficacy. And this is a trend that is happening really everywhere. This Omicron variant is busting through the gates of the vaccines. And it's also, it looks like it's busting through the gates of the booster doses. Here's Alex Bernerson. Now, if remember, he was kicked off of Twitter.

Here is Alex on Fox News recently talking about what, happening in Europe, similar to what's happening in Canada. Take a listen. Okay. In highly vaccinated countries in Europe right now where we have really good data, vaccine efficacy has turned negative, meaning vaccinated people are more likely to catch Amacron about 10 weeks, I shouldn't say 10 weeks, about 24 weeks out after full vaccination. Meaning for reasons we don't fully understand, it looks like it looks like it's, it The vaccines are not just not controlling infection or transmission,

but actually accelerating infection and transmission. Wow. I mean, this is huge, right? I mean, at the one point, we've moved away from your protecting your neighbor. Now you're more likely to be infected if you get this vaccination. It's putting you at higher risk. I mean, God knows what the science we're going to figure out about why that's happening. It's something that we've alluded to before. But now we're, you know, we've been talking about that, right?

We talked about, actually, our concern was those couple of weeks right after those shots, there seems to be this dip in immunity. But now this waning event seems to be leading to a higher rate of infection, you know, much further down the road, which is a complete and total disaster. Absolutely. It's gigantic. And that's what that negative efficacy translates into higher rate of infection. And remember, the days of 95% efficacy are over and gone.

That horse is way gone if it ever even existed. So again, Alex Bernersen is kicked off Twitter. You can find them at Substack, but there's a lot of great writers on Substack. One of them goes under the title Forensic. And he's been looking at the UK data recently in UK. And UK, just like Denmark, is one of the top world's data collection hubs. So looking at his article here, vaccine failure across the board, this is the latest data from England is showing negative efficacy.

So they looked at the vaccine surveillance reports from the week one and then the weekly COVID-19 surveillance reports. So combining those two, you can read about that in the article. This chart was produced. So it's looking at relative risk reduction. So what that RRR tells you is by how much the vaccine reduced the risk of bad outcomes relative to the control group. And you hear we say in the left side, negative efficacy, negative percentages. And looks like right in the middle, that. 40 to 49 age group is really is really having a hard time.

And it's a 140% increased risk of developing COVID-19 infection, which it means. So yeah, you're right. We're the opposite side of this Richter scale on effectiveness. We're not in the positive, 95% at blocking it. You're over 95% at, you know, raised risk. These are crazy numbers. And it's amazing to see that all at one time, it's not just one place. It's not just one writer.

You're talking about Canada, Denmark, the UK, Berenston looking at Europe. It just, it seems like we must be just moments away for them. I mean, is there any charts like this coming out of the United States of America yet? Nothing I'm seeing yet out of the United States. But, you know, as we've known, Europe typically is the first to experience. It usually goes Israel, Europe, and the United States as far as the pathology of these numbers go. So we could be in the middle of it right now if, judging, by how it's been going on in the past year or two of these situations. And some of the headlines

may suggest that as we're going to talk about. But let's go to one more chart. You know, the relative risk, we're talking negative efficacy. That might be a little bit too in the weeds for people. So this is another article by the same writer, vaccinated cases surge. And this shows the number of COVID-19 cases in England by vaccination status. Take a look at this chart. Red is vaccinated. Green is unvaccinated. Basically stoplight mentality. here, would you want to go red or do you want to go? And we're looking at, I mean, that red line, that red bar there is almost three, like three times higher than that green one there. And those are the, that's by vaccination status. So what's being created here is like a perfect storm. You have a

vaccination that's blowing through obviously the first two and arguably the third dose, the booster dose. Who knows about the fourth? You have hospitals that are being short staff because the health care workers that did not want this vaccine and you can see maybe why now are being fired. And you have all of this is couched in this this fear campaign that's been deliberately created by the media and by governments. And now you're seeing headlines like this in America. Here we go. Weeks after Minnesota nurses warn of staffing crisis, Mayo Clinic fires 700 unvaccinated nurses. Why is that important? Because what's happening here in Rhode Island, COVID positive health care workers called into work in Rhode Island. Wow. This flies in the face of any type of idea of science happening

in France too. France says some COVID-19 positive healthcare workers can return to work. How about Quebec? Union slam Quebec for allowing some COVID positive health care staff to work. He's seeing a narrative here. So they're literally choosing sick, infected, germ-spreading, you know, nurses and health care workers over healthy, unvaccinated workers, most of whom I would assume already have natural immunity and are like, you know, the strength is so funny. It's about to say the rock of Gibraltar and thought Gibraltar is one of the places suffering the highest levels, the most vaccinated place on earth and is now also the highest infection rates, which proves this point. But I mean, amazing that they are so ensconced in their bias that they will choose sick people to be

dealing with, remember everyone in the hospital, they're putting the hospital at risk versus admitting that the unvaccinated actually are who they need right now. I mean, that's just incredible. You got to wonder when they're going to let go of this narrative because the PR and the optics are terrible. So the unions are pushing back. Healthcare workers are pushing back. And this is California. It's dangerous. Healthcare workers push back on guidance for virus positive employees. And then here we go again. California Ways order canceling elective surgeries as COVID surges. I'm sure that's not going to cause any health issues. Foreign nurses are being brought in. This is hospitals across the U.S. turning to foreign nurses as health care workers are fired over

vaccine mandates. I mean, it's continual slap in the face here. And even in the UK, Britain calls in military to help with hospital COVID staffing crunch. And you know, it's not as simple. I mean, we're here in the Supreme Court seconds ago just said all of those people, all those hospitals been allowing their unvaccinated workers to hang in there, no more. So now this is going to get even worse. And it was one of the big arguments we're going to talk about with Aaron Siri. One of the big arguments was if you do this, if you pass this mandate by OSHA, people are going to quit. They've already stood their ground.

They've already said we're going to see a giant drop off in the staffing. We're in staffing shortages now. Keep imagine we're going to be tomorrow after the Supreme Court decision. Now the Supreme Court will be personally responsible for having to. destroyed hospitals, your ability to go to a hospital, there's going to be even less people there to take care of you. Should you have a heart attack? Should you have any issues? And then if you add on that, what we're seeing in the UK, that it's mostly the vaccinated now that are getting these infections. They're at high risk. They're the ones filling the hospital. This thing is just,

it's a train off the tracks now. Yeah, it is. It is. And let's look at another narrative that has really become crashing down. It's over the past couple of weeks. Now, last week we covered Fauci, kind of admitting, oh, whoopsie, we kind of already knew that kids going into the hospital were getting tested at the door. If they came with a broken leg or a car accident, we were adding those COVID tests when they tested positive to the full totals. And then the media ran without to scare people and saying hospitalizations for kids are surging. Well, we have the governor of New York. He was basically saying it's not really surging. You know, there's other comorbid issues or other issues, car accidents, broken legs, just because they tested positive means they're in the hospital with

COVID. They're not there for COVID. Something we have literally been arguing since the beginning of this, they've contaminated their own numbers, and now they're backing away from it, as we pointed out next week. So is there more of that going on? You bet. It's no longer misinformation. Now we have the first governor who's actually going to start posting those numbers. Hopefully all the other governors in the United States will really follow suit here. Kathy Hockel out of New York, this is her at one of her recent press conferences talking about what they're going to do. Take a listen. I always ask this question. This has troubled me. What of those numbers actually mean? I'm very inquisitive and I have a sharp team that answers my questions. Who is being admitted for COVID purposes that they're sick

enough to have to be hospitalized for COVID? It's that severe versus people who present themselves to a hospital are automatically tested as a matter of routine now, which is good. They're tested positive for COVID, but they're in there for other reasons. Think of all the other reasons people end up in a hospital. You know, it's an overdose. It's a car accident. It's a heart attack. So I wanted to drill down into those numbers. I told you that on Monday. I would be looking at that. And literally, the numbers are early because I wanted to get the information out as soon as we got it. And I have two days metric right now. And looking at just on the 4th of January, we realized that 39% of the people are hospitalized with non-COVID-related reasons.

And checking in yesterday's number, that number was actually 4th of January. Now that is our statewide average. Oh my God, Jeffrey. I mean, this is the whole point from the moment they manipulated a death certificate to say it doesn't matter why they were in there. If they had COVID, you make it a COVID death. They contaminated their own numbers and now they're back away from it. You know what, Jeffrey, every once in a while, you know, not to let my ego get too big because we're all a part of this. Jeffrey, you are, my entire team sitting back there.

But I think it's time for a bit of it, and I told you so, because I have a little bit of it. because I told them so. I told everybody in the government so. I told you we're going to do this. What do I mean? Take a look at what I said way back when. Mark my words. Right now, let me put this on camera in video.

It's about to come out of my mouth and it's about to go on a video camera. I want to be able to reference the fact that I said this on this day right now. You will hear Deborah Birx and Anthony Fauci one day say, well, look, we can't call us all coronavirus deaths because there was

comorbidities. They had other life-threatening illnesses they died from, and it was just listed as coronavirus. They died with coronavirus, but not from coronavirus. You're like, Dell, they will never say that. You want to bet? Here's why they're going to say it. America is

still going like this. We are looking at having the worst death rate in the entire world. New York is one of the most deadly cities in the world. It failed harder than almost anywhere else in the world, which means someone's going to say, well, who was in charge? Why did America have such a high death rate

if Anthony Fauci and Deborah Birx knew what they were doing? Especially since America was like one of the last ones to be hit by coronavirus. They had all that time to know what they needed to do, yet their death rate is through the roof. Well, I assure you that will not bode well at that moment, and when they start getting heat with, why did you do such a bad job, they will tell you, we didn't.

The numbers are believe. Loaded. Literally what's happening, right? They're telling us now the numbers are bloated. Don't take them seriously. As she said, a lot of those are car accidents and heart attacks. And she went on and I'll probably say cancer and every other comorbidity we've been talking about since the beginning. I wasn't sure. I mean, to be honest, Jeffrey, I think I said a couple weeks ago, there may be one prediction I got wrong. I'm not sure they're ever going to admit that they blow to the numbers. But here we are. Here we are, indeed. And it's not just in New York. So we have. other headlines that since we're waiting for the governance to release the numbers we have to look at the headlines here so this is in california head of covid response for ucssf's er department i've not intubated a single covid patient during the omicron surge well that's great but let's look in the article here after reviewing the charts of every covid patient at ucsf hospital on january 4th dr jean noble associate professor of emergency medicine at ucf ucsf determined that 70% of them were in the hospital for other reasons forcing her to say quote

the real COVID crisis that our hospitals are facing is a severe staffing shortage that is compromising the quality of care. So 70%. Now let's go back to the New York numbers chart that Governor Hulk will put out in New York on her website, the governor's website. And you have here the percentage top right highlighted percentage admitted where COVID was not included as one of the reasons for admission, basically meaning they weren't in there for COVID all the way at the bottom, statewide, 43%. She said 42. Now we're going up. This is the latest numbers. 43% of the people aren't in there for COVID. Now let's look at New Jersey hospitals right across the road there. New Jersey COVID hospitalizations surpass 6,000 for the first time since April 2020. Well, that sounds

like a terrifying headline until you read the article. And it says here in the article, many hospitalized patients who have COVID were admitted to the hospital because of other medical conditions of the 6,075 currently hospitalized with COVID, 2,000. 963 of them, about 49% are hospitalized primarily because of the COVID diagnosis. The rest were hospitalized for other reasons and then tested positive for COVID in the hospital. Delp, I think it's important here to bring three founding, I guess we want to call them founding mothers and fathers of medicine, as they'll try to be called now, J. Badacharya, Sinaitra Gupta, Dr. Martin Koldorf. and who are these people? They are the creators of the Great Barrington Declaration. And it seems like

we're really moving towards a Great Barrington Declaration future at this point or a present in admitting this. And what was that? Let's remind people what that is. Let's take some of the quotes from there. The Great Bering Declaration, it says those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Simple hygiene measures such as hand washing and staying home when should be practiced by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold. Now, again, this was written before the vaccine. This was written as the lockdowns were just coming in in 2020. It says schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching.

Extracurricular activities such as sports should be resumed. Young, low-risk adults should work normally rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open arts, music, sport, and other cultural activities should resume. People who are at more risk may participate if they wish while society has a whole. enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity. And finally, it says adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health response to COVID-19.

Now, the Great Barrington... Yeah. I mean, and just to weigh in here, this really has been the philosophy we've had from the beginning. It was clearly stated we have celebrated the Great Barrington Declaration. I think many of those 916,000 signatures were inspired as we got behind this and told the doctors and scientists around the world that we knew to get involved. And so you had that policy. It's what I have said that I believe they were right.

We should protect. We've never said just everybody just let it go. We said we should do what we've always done, which is really protective. If you're going to call it lockdowns, lock down the elderly with other comorbidities, which is going to be is really the conversation, take care of those that are vulnerable, while the rest of us that have helped the immune systems, this is a very low death rate. We need to, you know, we need to handle this. And so, you know, that's where they were at.

I mean, and it seemed to make so much sense. I just read Scott Atlas's book. He was, of course, talking to these folks, trying to get Deborah Birx and those inside of the White House to move towards this plan. But nobody seemed to want to do it, right? Right. And why didn't they want to do it? Let's really correct the historical record here. So let's talk about Francis Collins.

He's now the former director of the National Institutes of Health. And he was in the headlines recently, and it was pretty ugly for America and for the of the world. This is what the headlines look like. This was the takedown. emails show how Fauci and head of NIH worked to discredit three experts who penned the Great Barrington Declaration, which called for an end to lockdowns. Now, this was an internal email that was released publicly by some politicians here in the U.S. And this is what it read. This was from October 8th, 2020. Hi, Tony and Cliff. Now, Clifford Lane, they're talking about he's the NIA ID Deputy Director of Clinical Research. It says, Great Barrington Declaration.org.

This proposal from three fringe epidemiologists who met with the secretary seems to be getting a lot of attention and even a co-signature from Nobel Prize winner Mike Levitt at Stanford. There needs to be a quick and devastating published takedown of its premises. I don't see anything like that online yet. Is it underway, Francis? I mean, just hold that up. He admits a Nobel Prize winner, Mike leave it at Stanford has signed. on and instead of doing what everyone in the world thinks happens, which is when you're in the

middle of a crisis, in the middle of a pandemic, if you will, all of the heads of science get together and say, hey, what's your thought? What's your thought? Let's bring it all. And let's put it all on the table, work through it. Instead, they don't invite them in. They don't say, hey, these are not just, you know, fringe scientists. We're talking Oxford, Harvard, Stanford.

these guys are the top, you know, of their class, as you will. They put together this entire document, and instead of inviting them in, as the United States of America should have, and our NIH has said, hey, let's talk to these guys. We've got Nobel laureates that are agreeing with them. They said, swash this, shut this, you shut this down now, proving we had a health department that had an agenda, not based on having a conversation or open debate or, you know, the scientific method, which is challenge all thoughts. Let's put it on the table, challenge the lockdowns.

Let's see if they hold up against scientists that disagree. Instead, we were never going to listen to it. That's incredible. Right. And so then, the reason we're bringing this up partly is then they were attacking the points of the Great Barrington Declaration, presumably because they wanted to maintain an illusion of scientific consensus. Now there's a different tune that's being played. Take a look at what it looks like in the news.

We have to learn to live with COVID. What needs to happen is we need to learn to live with COVID. Look, we've got to learn to live with COVID. We know what it is. We know what we've got to do. I think this is a time where we're going to have to learn how to coexist with this milder version of COVID. I think what we have to do is learn to live with the virus.

This is going to become an endemic virus. It's going to circulate every year. It's probably going to be a winter pathogen as coronaviruses are. This is going to become like a second circulating flu. Do we as New Yorkers have to get used to the idea we all may get this? you know, I cannot have said it better. Most people are going to get COVID, all right, and what we need to do is make sure the hospitals can still function, transportation, you know, other essential services are not disrupted while this happens. When is the government going to accept that learning to live with COVID, which we all have to do, means we cannot respond to new variants by stopping and starting sectors of our economy, which leads to business.

businesses going under and jobs being lost. We can't continue to shut the government down. We can't continue to put pressure on our tight labor market by forcing people to be vaccinated. We have to learn to live with COVID like we do with the flu. And I would say the new Omicron variant is now somewhere between, in its lethality, less than flu, but more than the common cold. How do we stop going from surge after surge, emergency to emergency, and figure out how to live with a virus that's going to be around for the rest of our lives? You know, I suppose all these people might have spoke up that way had Francis Collins not shut down those of the Great Barrington Declaration that were trying to stalk to the White House. Maybe have we had this dialogue, all the other scientists around the world like we're hearing from now, and it said, you know what's a really good point.

You can't hide from a virus. the mask isn't going to work. It's going to eventually find its way. Even if you vaccinate, we try to vaccinate everybody. Maybe we should listen to Geert Van Bost's saying the virus is just going to find a way around. I mean, had we had intelligent dialogue, maybe we wouldn't have had to destroy the world, our economy, lives, you know, school children. I mean, it's outrageous. And here we are, full circle, as though this last two years was just a complete failed experiment. We've come full circle. Have we not? I mean, it's amazing. And it's showing that we can't hide from reality. No one can. We can't hide from the truth. And perhaps in a version of the ultimate irony here, one of those three architects of that attempted takedown of the Great Barrington Declaration, Tony Fauci came forward and said this in a recent interview. Take a listen.

I think in many respects, Omicron, with its extraordinary, unprecedented degree of efficiency of transmissibility, will ultimately find just about everybody. Those who have been vaccinated and vaccinated and boosted would get exposed. Some, maybe a lot of them, will get infected. So what's the box that we're all looking at now? That box is control, namely getting the level of infection that causes severe disease low enough that we can incorporate this infection, some people have said

learning to live with it, that I believe we are possibly approaching that. Oh my God, we're like in the middle of it. Just just a side note, did you see how many pictures of himself he had behind him? He has so many pictures of himself. He's got him on the floor. They're hanging in the windows.

They're stacked up in piles. I mean, this guy loves himself. No doubt about it. Oh, that's hilarious. Okay. It's like a hand-drawn picture in the background there. But I mean, here we are, right? This is the man that said, we're only going to get out of this with the vaccine.

And now he's saying, yeah, all of you got the vaccine? Yeah, you're going to catch it too. As it turns out, I guess we're just going to have to live with it. And that is the narrative. And everybody's on board now. And when you see everyone in lockstep with a narrative, you know something's brewing. It makes me nervous. Let's be honest.

I don't even want to sit before we see these headlines, I'm really right now. we're trying to figure, where are they going with this? Are they just going to walk away? I mean, this literally just, you know, we're going to just act like this never happened and we'll try to walk off in the sunset, maybe retire by an island in the Keys and forget about it. I mean, what is going on here? How does this benefit them? And all of this, I mean, unfortunately for the Supreme Court, at the same moment, the Supreme Court is taking away the rights of health care workers, everyone in science is bailing on the ship that the Supreme Court thought they were fighting for. I mean, this is outrageous. This right here, right now, is a time capsule on the high wire in this moment. The Supreme Court just broke this information.

And now at the same exact time, all of science was running away from this vaccine. I mean, what an incredible, incredible day. All right, let's see these headlines for these people. Yeah, forcing a vaccine on a variant that is not working on to stop infection at all, zero, if any, says the CEO of Pfizer. So here's in the UK. This is what the headline looks like in the UK. Everyone's talking about it. Time to live with COVID and treat virus. like the common cold says welcome that's the welcome trust now it says britain's biggest independent funder of medical research has called for coronavirus to be treated like the common cold nick moats the charity's chief investment officer said restrictions were no longer economically justified and it was time

to live with coronavirus he says i don't think it can mean going back into regular lockdowns because it is just not economically viable we don't do that for the flu we don't do that for the common cold he said Tell that to Germany. Tell that to Austria. So here it says in UK, as China and other countries locked down, the UK is learning to live with COVID. Even Biden as Amicron surges, Biden shifts his message to urge Americans to learn to live with COVID. And here's just a smattering of eight more headlines I pulled across the U.S. and Europe. Everyone's talking about it. This is where it's at right now. And as you said, what's next after this? I'm kind of looking with one eye open going, oh my God, please, please let this go someplace good. It's absolutely incredible.

And, you know, you see it just overnight. So obviously they've got the memo. We're rolling the vaccine. I mean, this is only happening, as I think you've proven, because not only is the vaccine not effective, it seems to have negative consequences. Having got it, makes you more at risk for infection. Maybe they're trying to hide from that. You know, it's really an outrageous moment here.

But as again, once again, we can't, you know, when we look at them trying to like walk off into the sunset, I mean, you have destroyed the world that we live in. Your choices. You took away irvermectin, a hydroxychloroquine and things that work. You, you know, packed up our hospitals. You ventilated people. You murdered people. All while we were told the only way out of this was the vaccine. Then you forced the vaccine.

You've used the Supreme Court. You've used mandates to force a product that now is causing infection across this country. and now you just want to walk off in the sunset. Now you want to retreat to the Great Barrington Declaration, which is where we should have been to begin with, which is where we've always been since the dawn of man. You know, again, I think it's time for, and I told you some moment,

because this is many of the reasons why I lost my YouTube channel, while we lost, you know, our Facebook channel, was because I decided to dare to say something as outrageous as what basically the head of the wellness group there just said. Here it is, folks, all the way back when. I'm going to take this moment because, you know, for those of you that are brand new, the high wire, we've got to show you, we've had this right. We have been trying. We have been, we have been suing the FDA. We've been suing the CDC to make them know we know that we're right. And we've been going after government agencies. We've been talking to politicians. What did I have to say? Probably the thing that's got me in more headlines than anything else. And here it is. Get ready for it. Sounds a lot like what everyone is saying now. Take a look. It's a common cold. for 99.74% of us, the non-pharmaceutical dependent people. So here's what we do.

Let's go outside. Let's take off our mask. We're not on drugs and we don't need to be on drugs. Let's catch this cold. It's the line that has got me in more trouble than anything else I've ever said. Here's just some of the headlines. Anti-vaccine figure Del Beatrice is using Facebook and YouTube but to encourage people to intentionally contract coronavirus.

Activate anti-vaccine leader Del Batron of COVID-19. Let's catch this cold why anti-vaccers and coronavirus conspiracy theorists are often one in the same. Well, I guess the joke's on them, right? As I've said, and I've said it time and time again, Jeffrey, when these people are interviewing me, I keep saying to them, I know you're attacking me this week for what we just said and what we presented. Shall I show you the science? Would you like to actually look at the science? How about the idea of public?

I know you won't. I always say them. I know you won't. I'm still going to do this interview because I know that people that have brains out there will say, I know that the media has been lying to me and this paper has been lying to me, but this Del Bingtree guy, they're saying he's the bad guy. And just because he says it looks like the vaccine doesn't work, I'm going to go check out what he's doing. So I say to my thank you. I thank you for writing this article because tomorrow we will gain followers, you will lose followers. And here's the point. You know why we're gaining? Because so far everything you've attacked us on, I say this to all the pages. and I can point out the times you've attacked us.

In the end, we proved to be right. We were the ones leading the charge on, you know, origin, lab origin, and that conversation. Now it's the reigning thought in the world. We were the ones telling you this would not stop infection, would not stop at transmission, and we were the ones that said to you, if you're healthy, not those that are sick,

in order to protect them, the sooner we can get to hurt immunity, the quicker we will protect them. I think we would have saved hundreds of thousands of lives had we let this thing really run its course, gone out. out there, not been afraid, not made ourselves in our immune systems worse with masks, not depressed our children, not driven up suicides and everything else and all of the other

issues. This vaccine, I am sure we're going to now see the repercussions of the cancers and the rises of all these other autoimmune diseases that we've reported this could lead to. But in the end, catch this cold is what I was attacked for. And now that appears to be the growing headline in every news agency. Two years after the fact, you know, hundreds of billions of dollars lost, hundreds of, you know, maybe thousands of lives lost. All of that could have been avoided if maybe we listened to the Great Barrington Declaration or maybe the president of the United States had just tuned into a high wire. Maybe just once.

We would have avoided this. Jeffrey. Wow. I mean, is this it? I mean, again, how many times when we had this show where we're like, this is it, man, it's over. We've done it. We've won.

It's so clear we're the winners here. Hashtag winning. And then next week is just like back to. your booster shot. Yeah, well, if parents are using these episodes, which I have heard for homeschooling for their kids, what have we learned today? The scientific consensus was wrong over the last two years. The vaccines, data shows are may actually be increasing infections in through the negative efficacy. And media organizations, as they've started doing, are apologizing

to their readers and should be doing it some more. So I don't know about you, but it's going to be an amazing seven days of headlines coming up. I can't wait read them. All right. We'll check in with you next week and see what happened. Thank you, Jeffrey, for all your brilliant work. Thanks, Al. All right. Well, I mean, one of the things that, you know, I have a lot of bravado, no doubt about it. I know I get really, like, passionate about these things. There is, you know, really mundane and quiet, thoughtful science, always taking place behind the scenes. Part of what gives me the confidence to come out and make statements like I made, like, let's go out and catch this cold. It's not lost on me that I'm going to. I'm going to

going to be attacked. It's not lost that they're going to put headlines, but I am so confident about the scientists, many of whom you don't know, we have anonymous scientists from major universities and places all around the world that are anonymously reporting to us, that have us on the right track. We are not taking the narrative from an expert like Tony Fauci that's never treated a single human being in his life. We're reaching out to hospitals. We've got insiders everywhere. So when I'm here, there's a reason I have confidence. But there's also something else. I mean, I know everywhere, where I go, people say, God, Dell, you're so courageous. It's amazing how you just have no fear stating the facts. Well, I'll tell you what, one of the big advantages I have that many

people that don't need that don't, and the fact that I'm out here, I know that over time, all that we're saying is going to age well because of how diligent we are with our scientific research, but I might not have all of the confidence that I do if I didn't have the real ace in the hole. And that ace in the hole is knowing that behind me is a legal protection from one of the greatest constitutional attorneys that has ever walked this planet. He's going down in history before any of the rest of us are. I'm talking about Aaron Siri.

And when you get to go and, you know, point at California and say, you want to bring a COVID vaccine mandate, I'm coming after you, which is something like what I tweeted out. Why do I do that? Because I know we have the greatest chance of winning because I know the informed consent action network has Aaron Siri.

And this is him in front of the cameras after our last win just a couple of things. weeks ago. We have breaking news. San Diego Unified cannot mandate its students to get vaccinated against COVID-19. The judge has just ruled against enforcing San Diego Unified's vaccine mandate for students. This was the tentative ruling in the lawsuit filed against the district. San Diego decided to unilaterally require COVID-19 vaccine requirement for school children. They did that without any state authority. They acted on their own. And the judge today correctly ruled that the San Diego School District does not have the authority to require COVID-19 vaccine with the students.

A local school district simply doesn't have the authority to do something inconsistent with a statewide standard. This latest order lands on the same day that 16-year-old plus students in San Diego Unified were expected to get their second vaccine dose. The judge said if the state doesn't mandate the COVID-19 vaccine, neither can the district. I mean, I can tell you a number of parents came up to you right after the hearing, quite emotional, saying thank you, and my kids go to school now. I am overjoyed. The vaccine mandate that was moving forward for the San Diego Unified Schools District is on hold or put aside completely pending any further legal action. The ruling today applies statewide. So any other school district in California is thinking or has adopted a COVID-19 vaccine apartment should really rethink.

position right now. You know, if you've been watching the high wire, then you've gotten to see some of the work by Aaron Siri, including the infamous Plotkin depositions deposing Stanley Plotkin. I've had Aaron Siri on before talking about that, but perhaps the most important time to have an opportunity to talk to Aaron Siri is right now ruling by the Supreme Court, something that is going to set historical precedent. I'm joined now by one of the greatest humans I've ever met, my brother in arms. You're amazing. And I want to, first of all, thank you for taking the time to join us today. Thank you. I don't want to get into the details of the San Diego case. That one's done. It's out of the way. It's the first official, you know, full win against a COVID vaccine mandate in this country.

You were the first to deliver that. But before we get to the Supreme Court, which is I know what everyone's waiting for. I want to go through some of the things that we've done together because I think it leads into this. And honestly, you wonder how much behind the scenes is going on with Supreme Court justice is what they know, what they don't know. But this case that I think really grabbed the attention and got probably more news than anything else we did.

It's not something that is for I can, but you represented a group of scientists and doctors being led by Dr. Peter McCullough to challenge what you were, you know, you use a FOIA request to try and get, get all the Pfizer documents that the FDA used to approve the vaccine for the public and, you know, move towards licensure and authorization. It's out there. You asked for it. They said, no, we're not going to give it to you. We need 55 years. We don't want to deliver that until 2076. You brought a lawsuit against that. Tell me, you know, and you won, but I want to know the inside scoop.

What was it like bringing that case? Where was the judge at with that? It was, it was an incredible hour and a half hearing before the judge. And, you know, as you pointed out, we're heartened that the judge agreed that transparency should rule the day. Yeah. That the FDA should release the documents. And by the way, they did initially want 55 years based on their initial statement that it was, they wanted to produce 500 pages per month. But then they up the number of pages at some point that they said they'd have to disclose, which brought it to 75 years. Given that the average life expectancy of an American in 77 years means they pretty much want to wait until everybody in America Live today was dead.

Wow. Before they fully released all of the documents they were out of Ponce License's product, a review that they did in 108 days. And why is it cradled to get all the documents? It's because as the scientists, which are now in comprise over 200 of them, will tell you that comprise the group that we sued on behalf of, building on the work we do for ICAN, until they have all the data, every data set,

they don't know whether an analysis they do is going to be accurate. Right. So in order to get outside of the drug company that's making billions of dollars off of this and just trusting their science to get to a place where other outside scientists can begin the process of the scientific method, which is to see if they can, you know, repeat, let's say, or see if the data holds up to what we're told. That has to be an outside analysis. They didn't, FDA, literally, and this is the thing that's been so discouraging for me in this investigation of vaccines. We know, I always know industry, Pfizer, Moderna, Exxon, whatever it is.

My feeling is they always cheat the system wherever they can because they're trying to make money for their shareholders. But the point is that a regulatory agency is there for a reason. They know people cheat. They know that they try to make money over all else. They're supposed to be the stopgap for that. In this case, the Department of Justice is fighting for the FDA to help Pfizer hide this data from us. Right. If I may put a finer point on it.

I don't even know, I mean, they don't even need to cheat. These companies are doing what they're supposed to do. If I do share a duty to their shareholders to maximize profit, that's what they're here to do. Right. Make money. And here, why it's so important to have independent review of the documents is because we have decoupled the financial interest of Pfizer from its safety obligations. Normally, a company, if they do something that's unsafe, you sue them. or at least they know they can be sued.

But here we've decoupled that. And who did that? The federal government, federal health authorities, to be precise, gave Pfizer complete immunity for any injury caused by the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine. Not only that, the federal government has been mandating or trying to mandate this product in all Americans, and the federal government has given Pfizer over $17 billion of our money. It did all those things for Pfizer, and then it said, really, it only made one promise to the American people that I can really think of is they,

at least they promised transparency. The FDA said, we will be transparent when it comes to COVID-19 vaccine, right? Yeah. But that promise wasn't apparently even true. Because when they licensed the product and these scientists asked for all that data, we just talked about it, they want to wait until we're all dead before they would fully produce it. It's really troubling. And it really makes you sit back and wonder whose interests do our federal health authorities really have in mind

when they go about their daily affairs. Now, can you give me some sense of that hour and a half inside that courtroom? I know you'll call me sometimes there's hard cases. Sometimes it's a really hard one to win. Was this a hard one to win? Was the judge tough on you or was it pretty easy? Because it seems, I mean, for most of us say, I mean, the judge is obviously going to stay.

Are you kidding me within 75 years? What was the sentiment of this judge and the energy of it? I think we can get a good sense of that from his decision. Okay. It was well over an hour hearing, and I think the judge who worked at the Department of Justice himself for 20 years. Oh, he did. Who has a good sense of what really goes on in the executive and has been around document productions before. I mean, I could tell you that even our firm, which doesn't have over 18,000 people like that.

like the FDA. Right. It doesn't have a $6.5 billion budget like the FDA. Okay. We've been engaged in lawsuits where we have to produce, and we do produce over 100,000 pages a month. Right. That's not uncommon.

The judge knows that. The judge has been involved in cases like that over when he was probably the DOJ official. So, you know, it's not a question of whether or not the FDA can do it. It's whether they would do it. And given the gravity of what we're talking about here, as the judge himself recognized, I think, let me put it this way. I think the judge understood the gravity of what was being requested here. It's pretty amazing. He brings up some quotes. I think we've got them in his final decision here.

James Madison wrote, A popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy. Can't make it more clear than that. John F. Kennedy likewise recognized that a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. I think that probably well reflects a sentiment in that courtroom that day. Yeah, that's powerful. Yeah. Historic, amazing, you were there. We have another case very quickly, somewhat similar in the V-safe data. This is the database. We all hear how VERS is inaccurate. VERS, you know, even though we've argued that it should

had been fixed back when they recognized that it was underreporting by about 1%. But when COVID vaccine was coming out, they created VE Safe, which was specifically for COVID reactions. Huge database, over a million reports now in there of injuries and adverse events, right? According to the CDC, over 119 million medical events have been logged in VSAFE. Wow. You know, our federal health authorities have been telling us forever that they have robust safety systems, cheap among them theirs. So it was interesting, wasn't it, that as COVID-19 was about

to be rolled out, they said, actually, V-saf is not, excuse me, theirs is not really reliable. We're going to create a new safety system called V-safe. I'm going to set aside what that says about the existing safety systems and their promises about how robust they were for all the other vaccines. Right. And just talk about V-safe. V-safe is basically an app-based program. where folks who get the COVID-19 vaccine can report an injury or some other adverse event. So, as in, if I may also say that, one of the things it did by doing that is it probably depressed the number of reports that would probably have been filed with theirs. V-s is far more complicated to submit to.

It's a lot easier. So all these numbers we hear about when it comes to V-VERS and how high they are now, may not even be reflective of what? Here we are. Here we're at with VAIRS, 21,382 reported deaths to VAERS, 113,000 hospitalizations, 110,000 urgent care visits, 158,000 doctor office visits over adverse events. There's the numbers. And what you're saying is obviously, since VSAFE was what was designed, if someone's

using VSAFE, it's doubtful, they'll do both. Let me do the easy one, the one that focuses on COVID. So that's probably just, you know, an even smaller percentage. Right. Right. I mean, if you've, if you've already submitted to VSA, you're probably thinking, all right, I've now sent it to the federal government. Why should I now go and need to also do the long arduous VERS report? Right. I've submitted it to them. They now know about my issue. And so you're saying, and there at VERS, we're looking at hundreds of thousands of reports. You're saying over 100 million reports. I'm saying the CDC has said they have over 119 million entries. And so, you know, as we talked about, that means that there's a gap out there, right? We've got the VAERS data, but then there's all this other data in VSAFE and to get a better, fuller picture. After all, we, the American people, paid for VSAFE. It's made done with our taxpayer money. We decided, as you know, to submit a FOIA request for all of, that's the Freedom of Information Act, for all of the VSAF data that the CDC has.

Now, when we submitted that request, as CDC always loves to do, they like to throw up any objections they can. Before we submitted our request in June, in May, we'd already discovered a document the CDC had put out, buried within which they had stated that Oracle, a private company, has access to all the VSAFE data on de-identified format. So. So de-identified meaning it doesn't have the personal information of the people's, you know, that we're in there. V-Safe data will be collected, managed and housed on a secure server by Oracle. Oracle staff will not be able to view any individualized survey data, including variables with personally identifiable information, but rather will have access to aggregated, de-identified data for reporting.

Obviously, this is important when you look at this. One of the big arguments they have is we don't want to reveal the identity of people, people that are in these pieces and here it's clear that that's the focus and this was the argument being made why they couldn't provide the data well we don't want you to know the personal information and honestly Bobby Kennedy when we were at NIH for Donald Trump this was some of the arguments that Tony Fauci and Francis Collins were making all about well the personal information the truth is they they they themselves can only work with it by clearing that information out here's here's the lawsuit just so you know appealed the CDC's response to HHS, including pointing out to the CDC that its own documentation

regarding VSAFE explains that Oracle staff will not be able to view any individualized survey data, including variables with personally identifiable information, but rather will have access to aggregate de-identified data for reporting, and hence that de-identified data should be produced to the public forthwith. Neither the CDC nor health and human services has substantatively responded to that peel. So basically, you knew that they were going to try and pull this de-identified baloney because they always do, but you didn't let them know you knew that they had already de-identified it for Oracle, right? What we knew is they were going to object. Right. We figured the objection that would make is that. So, you know, had they known we knew about the Oracle, they didn't just come up with

something else. Right. Probably. Right. So we, yeah. So you set them up. You pigeonholed them into what you thought would be their retreat space and you were waiting for them there. Fair enough. Art of war. And so, you know, nice thing about CDC, sometimes it can be predictable. They made that very objection. We then follow that, oh, well, sorry, we can't give you this data that the American taxpayer paid for because it's not de-identified. So we then followed up with another request. We said, no, no, no.

See this article? You admitted it's available to de-edendent form. So just give us the de-identified data. How about that? I think at that point there might have been a, you know, an, oh, oops, moment somewhere in the halls of the CDC. Maybe. Yeah. And they still didn't call up the data, so we've now sued them in federal court on behalf of ICANN to get that data.

We'll see how that goes. Exactly. I mean, as, you know, we're not fortune tellers, but it seems like we have a pretty good case here. We'll see how that all turns out. Obviously, if people want to know where all those things are going, then they have to be on a newsletter because that's the first place. Right. are legal wins and things that they go are. So please go to the highwire.com. All you have to do is put your email in. Not only do you get all the breaking news on legal when before anybody else in

the world gets it. This show, we've talked about several documents. We've talked about studies and things like that. All of that is in your inbox on Monday so that you can go and it's a great party trick, you know, at the next dinner you're at. You don't have to say, hey, Del Bigtree said something. You get to say that here's the document. Here's the science that is done by in Denmark, in Canada. This is what they're admitting in the UK. All of those things are made possible. It's in your hands for free. All you have to do is sign up to our newsletter. All right. I know people are still hanging for the Supreme Court. I want to talk about one more thing. The Fauci document dump. This is something that, you know, we fought really hard for your request.

We wanted to see the emails with Fauci, you know, interacting regarding COVID, this pandemic. They pushed back and they've tried to redact it. All these things constantly, you know, this is what you're doing. You're always in there fighting and fighting and fighting. Luckily, there's an incredible donor base we have, those people that support us, make it possible for us to let you charge in there. But we finally were promised to be getting documents in sort of chunks. We just got a new group of documents. How many documents did we just receive?

200 more pages of Fauci's emails that he sent back very early in the pandemic, February, March of 2020. Okay. Is there anything interesting there? Yeah. Okay. There is. these documents actually were a set of documents that had to go through a secondary review within the health agencies. So, you know, they had extra eyes on them before they came out.

And I think what they show, what they do show is they further fill in the puzzles to the emerging picture that very early in this pandemic, Fauci was seeking to kill the theory, narrative, that the virus could have originated from a lab, meaning at a time when there was no way that he could have known that that was true. Within these documents, in isolation, and this is one of the interesting things, is we keep getting more and more of these documents, and any one of them alone probably doesn't tell a great story, But when you put them all together in a timeline, a story really emerges. We've written that up at the request of ICANI.

Okay, yeah. And there's a legal update I understand going out on Monday. Right. And just, I guess, to give a 60 second preview effectively. You know, from February 1st to February 4th, we just had members of what year? Of 2020, excuse me. So this is very early on. Beginning of 2020.

Right. Right. Yeah. Just in the early early days. We just had a couple of, you know, people in China fall face-first into the cement and weird videos coming out and starting to ask whether this is coming to America or not. And so during that four-day period, we now know from members of Congress that fought for Fauci documents that during that four-day period, Fauci was interacting with the head of the Welcome Trust, who was getting opinions from virologists from around the world, considered some of the world's eminent virologists. And in those emails, those virologists are

telling basically the health authorities, yeah, we think that's about 70, 30 percent chance that it was lab origin, some say 60-50, some say 50-50. The point is, you had eminent virologists from across the planet directly giving information to Fauci through the Welcome Trust stating, based on the Farren-Kleafite and all this, this thing is most likely from a lab, not natural origin. Wow. Then you've got February 5th, and this will be the legal update, an email that goes to Fauci in which it tells him the WHO is going to be creating this committee to look at the origin of the SARS-COV-2 virus.

And it has basically a title for that committee that's going to look at it. And it just talks about the origin. Fauci responds by providing some names for this committee, but he changes the kind of the title. He changed it to the evolutionary origin. He starts limiting, and then he calls it later natural origin. It almost seems he purposely seems to be directed. Right. And not only that, the effectively, a title of a commission can affect the mission of the committee.

Right. And, you know, seems to be directing it towards just looking at the evolutionary origin and not the lab origin. We then have, we now have just got another email as part of this as from February 10th that further evidences his continued drive to kind of frame this as only evolutionary or natural origin, not lab origin. That in and of itself wouldn't be troubling except that how does he know? Right. And why? Why so early on would he want to just wipe away? Defy the sort of the majority opinion also. That's been given to him at least vis-a-vis those emails. But also, why not leave all options on the table?

Isn't that what we do in science? We first test the hypotheses before we reach the conclusion. Right. How did he reach that conclusion? Why did he reach that conclusion? I don't know the proof that would substantiate how he reached it. That then one leads you to the question of, what was the motive? Why was he doing it?

All right. Well, look, folks, obviously that's probably one of the biggest teases we've ever given you. You're not going to get to see those emails. The only way you get to see them is you have to sign up to our newsletter right now. I'm doing this for a reason. We are living in critical times. I don't know where all this is leading, but I know there may be a moment we need to get information to you. We certainly want you to have the facts and the truth, not just be walking around saying, hey, I watch the high wire and whatever Dell says, I want you to start utilizing the best tool we have, and it's free. I'm not asking for any money right here. I really want to. want to be able to get this information to you. And if you want to read these emails, we just got with Tony Fauci that I'm sure going to be used by Rand Paul in a future case against Tony Fauci, as many of us attempt to try and get this guy thrown into jail for crimes against humanity. If you want to be one of the first ones to see that, all you have to do right now, please just sign up, just right there on the bottom of the page, just scroll down. It's right there. Pumping your email. It's all encrypted. Everything we're doing. No one's going to see that list. We're not advertising through it. We just want to get you the information that you need. It's not one of those,

you know, you're not going to get messages that bother you all the time. We want you to have the facts. So please, this year, 2022, let us help you, you know, as we decide, you know, and move forward to try and make this world a smarter, better place. That is by being armed with facts. We're just handing you those facts. So please avail yourself to that process and that ability. by signing up to our newsletter. All right. While we're sitting here, Supreme Court has just made its decision. I suppose in some ways I was kind of hoping we could sort of talk about it.

Maybe it would happen a little bit later. So the punchline at the end of this has already been delivered. They've now ruled, they have ruled to stop the mandate on employers with 100 employees. And they have ruled essentially that the healthcare workers are going to have to follow through with the vaccine mandate. We have been obviously talking about how this vaccine is collapsing all around them. But let's go through the case a little bit. In order to get into that, first of all, there was a potential that you could have been arguing before the Supreme Court when it came to this 100 employees, right? There was a chance.

You were in a lottery. We might have had the opportunity to watch errands here in front of the Supreme Court. Why is that? Oh, that would have been wonderful. Yeah. But, well, I can't supported one of the lawsuits challenging the ocean mandate, which we, where we brought on behalf of a car dealership that has 100, over 100 employees. Okay.

And all the competitor car dealerships don't. And so we are, that case was also one of the cases filed in the U.S. Supreme Court seeking a stay of the OSHA mandate on companies with over 100 employees. The U.S. Supreme Court decided to choose two of the cases that were filed for the lawyers from those cases to argue the case that we had wasn't one of those cases. So essentially there was two other lawyers, Attorney General involved there that were basically arguing for all the cases, which means they were arguing your case for a guy that, as I think is as good at this. I mean, what was it like that, first of all, just to have to listen to someone else arguing your case for you? Well, they effectively argued the cases that would decide all of the cases on this issue. I thought they, on the legal arguments of separation of powers, which is what really underpins that case,

which is that the federal agency, OSHA, doesn't have the congressional authority to implement this mandate. I thought they did a good job. Yeah. And they, you know, they made, I thought they did a very effective job with the judges. There were obviously a lot of very vaccine-specific points that were made by Sotomayorkegan and Breyer. Yeah. And the, and the, you know, those points, even though they didn't necessarily go to the heart of the legal question per se, I thought that it would have been nice to have those addressed just at least a swatted away.

and then the legal arguments made. Well, so that would be my next question. Because, you know, we, you know, we brought your services on board for the informed consent action network. It was one of the major ways I thought the only way we're going to get to the truth. We've got to start suing the government since we can't go after the vaccine makers, all the protections by the 1986 vaccine and compensation program. So is there any advantage or, you know, in the fact that you have fronted cases now for us

where you've won against the National Institute of Health, you won against the FDA, CDC, Health and Human Services, by winning those cases, were you able to acquire some arrows to put in the quiver that went into our case that maybe weren't, you know, available to those other lawyers that I think mean well, but just don't have that background in sort of the government interactions and the truth about vaccines and the science? Yeah. Look, if you want a will drawn up, you go to an attorney that does that over and over again. And, you know, similarly here, you know, when you do, there's certainly a value. that we bring, I think, that we have an institutional knowledge at the firm with regards to vaccines that is uncommon amongst other firms. So... But I go as far as to say unprecedented? I don't, I'm not... At least for a firm that doesn't represent pharma.

Okay. Oh right. You know, I'm not aware of any other firm that has a vaccine practice as large as ours. So, so that might be, that might certainly be accurate. And so, yes, there's, you know, there's, there's a, obviously for the work we do for I can, we spend every day looking at, you know, all the pronouncements that come out of federal health authorities. We're looking constant looking at the data because it relates to many of the suits we bring. And we're very knowledgeable, obviously, about the various areas of law that

impact vaccines. With that said, in the case that we brought against social mandate, I do think that we added, we added value in bringing forth some point. that relate to vaccines that were very additive, not necessarily strictly legal, though they do have implications to legal arguments, but they have a legal component, but they also have what I call an equities component. The judges on the court that were talking about deaths and talking about the doom that would follow if this mandate were stayed, the point of that was really to convince the conservative judges on the best. the other six judges. They were trying to peel off two of them by saying, look, if you stop this, people are going to die, people are going to get hurt.

Like, you're bad. Right. And that stuff can be important. Right. Look, in this case, the Fifth Circuit stayed it, but the Sixth Circuit then overturned it. Meaning there's certainly obviously some jurists out there judges who don't see this as a black and white,

OSHA doesn't have the authority. decision. Well, what could help tip those judges one way or another? Sometimes judges also want to feel like they're doing the right thing. That can be really important. And so with those three judges I think we're doing, not only were they obviously doing a little grandstanding for the cameras and for the nightly news, but I think they were actually making some attempt to influence the other conservative judges on that bench. And so when they were making those statements, there was value, I think, in addressing those factual points about spread or deaths from COVID or COVID vaccine would prevent. And then making the legal points.

Right. We, you know, knowing that those are the type of points we made. So going all the way back to your question. Yes, we in our papers in the Sixth Circuit and then to use from court made arguments that I think a little. looked ahead to those equity points. We made these points. COVID-19 vaccines do not prevent infection or transmission. After millions of people were vaccinating, the CDC director, Dr. Walenski, acknowledged that the COVID-19 vaccines do not prevent transmission.

I mean, that's a really huge point there, right? Yes, and we had five, you know, we had five pages of, in that opening brief to the U.S. Supreme Court explaining that not only the CDC directors say that they don't prevent transmission, we went through the studies done by the CDC itself. in Massachusetts and the one they participated in Wisconsin, which showed it doesn't prevent transmission. In fact, you had relatively equal numbers of folks in the vaccinated in the unvaccinated in the unvaccinated group getting infected and having similar viral load in their nasal faring. Right.

We put that squarely before the court. We also pointed out, we also addressed the argument about reduction in deaths. The whole argument they make about vaccines is, well, if we all vaccinate, then what will happen is the death rate would go down. There's a chart we got right here. So this is in our reply brief up in the Supreme Court. And this is all data directly from the CDC. And what it shows is we didn't return to the numbers of weekly deaths we saw in 2019. That's what was promised.

Right. Everybody vaccinates. Deaths are going to go down to the rates they were in 2019. And we're going to go back to normal. And who are the folks who are mostly dying were the elderly. During the weeks that are depicted on this chart that's on the screen over there, Yeah. It was during that period, you already had amongst those who are 65 and older, probably close to a 90, 80, 90% vaccination rate. Yeah. Meaning those who are considered most vulnerable were mostly fully vaccinated. And you can see on the last row of that chart, you could see the rate of folks that were fully vaccinated in 2000, excuse me, in 2020.

Yeah. And you could see that starting in week 30, you've got about 60% fully vaccinated going. up to 70% by week 43, but compare the deaths. This is total deaths in 2021 to 2019. You could see we have not. We were not returning to normal. In fact, not only were the number of deaths not returning to the rate in 2019. They actually were often exceeding the rate, the number of deaths in 2020. And why is this number so important? Because this is all deaths. You can argue about whether or not a COVID deaths is with or from COVID, right? Was it from COVID? Was it with COVID?

And the same thing, when folks die after COVID vaccine, people will say, well, is it from the vaccine or is it not from the vaccine? Right. You can quibble out all those points, but there's one number you typically can't quibble with. And that's just the total number of deaths. Right. All cause mortality.

It's pretty binary. You either dead or you're not. Right. So those numbers that we just looked at on the screen, those are the total deaths. in the whole country in each of those weeks, according to the CDC, if the vaccine worked to reduce death, wouldn't we see at least getting back close to what the deaths were in 2019? Right. Or how about at least below 2020 when we were told we were at the height of the pandemic?

Well, and now we are seeing other headlines that are even striking. This is probably more modern, but now we're seeing 40% increase in deaths amongst 18 to 64. This is a very, very alarming and shocking discovery that we talked about last week. I'm not going to get deep into it, but this is the current climate, which is probably even more, it's a more modern statement from even what went into your briefs. But the point being, you put some science into our briefs where others were just going to stick with the argument, which is it's just sort of jurisdiction, you know, police powers, things like that. Let's get into some of the comments that were made because I want to get your point.

Now, from the beginning, really, the argument ends up being, you know, who are we trying to protect? Who is OSHA protected? We're going to decide. We're going to try and figure out if OSHA has the power. Federal governments using OSHA to bring this power. What is it they're trying to achieve? Well, I thought it was interesting because they didn't say, well, if someone's unvaccinated on the job, they could get the vaccinated sick, right?

I mean, it's that whole old argument, right? If vaccines work, what is your problem with the unvaccinated? You're protected, right? Well, they couldn't defend themselves in that argument. So they didn't. Instead, it seems to me this case is just about unvaccinated, being protected against unvaccinated. All right, take a, this is what happened in the courtroom. One of the risks that OSHA was guarding against here was the risk that unvaccinated workers pose to other workers because they are so much more likely to transmit this deadly disease to them.

To other, what type of workers? To other vac to vaccinated workers? Yes, the grave danger finding was based on unvaccinated workers. The grave danger finding is limited to unvaccinated workers. Right. So then we're not a concern for us. That's not a concern for us, is it? We can't sustain this on that ground, that this is helpful to the vaccinated workers because the unvaccinated workers present a risk to them. Oh, to be clear, they present a risk to other unvaccinated workers who might be older,

who might have other morbidities. All of whom have balanced the risks differently, maybe very foolishly, but they want to balance the risks presented to their health in a different way. And OSHA says, no, you can't do that. And that applies when you're on the job and also when you're not on the job and for the rest of your life because you have to take these vaccines, unless the testing option is valuable. I mean, I would say mostly listening to it, I thought the defense attorney did a very good job of arguing. She was very eloquent, very clear. I personally had wished we had some of that clarity on our side.

Obviously, for those, you know, employers with 100 employees, it was good enough. But here she seems to make a tragic error, which she almost slips up. Am I to understand that their argument was really the only thing OSHA's attempting to do is to protect unvaccinated from unvaccinated? That's exactly right. Because the standard that applied here is that OSHA had to say that there was a grave danger. Okay. To implement the standard that was at issue in this particular stage of the case.

Right. And so they said there was a grave danger to unvaccinated people, but they said there's no grave danger to any unvaccinated people, excuse me, any vaccinated people of any age. And that's where there's a discussion there. So yeah. In fact, that gets into more detail. This Clarence Thomas ends up getting sort of getting a little bit deeper into it, discussing effectiveness a little bit. And, you know, the varying ranges of this concept of grave danger comes up. So let's take look at this. There's been some talk suggestion, or at least it seems to be implied that the vaccinations are efficacious in preventing some degree of infection to others. Could you talk about that, particularly as I remember in the filings, that the 18 to, that the younger workers, the 20-year-olds who are unvaccinated?

vaccinated are actually safer than the older workers who are vaccinated. So there are obviously some differences. Would you just talk about how efficacious the vaccine is in the workplace? So first I want to be very clear. We are strong promoters of vaccination because they do stop serious illness. In terms of stopping infection and transmission, at least with the current variant, it appears, as the number suggests, to be, far less effective. But then in terms of the comparison

you were asking about, I think it's hard to define what's a grave danger in the abstract. What we can at least mandate, or at least demand from the agency, is internal consistency. And if you look at their own data, the CDC data from the last week of October, unvaccinated individuals 18 to 29 were as likely to die is vaccinated 50 to 64 year olds

and five times less likely to die that's vaccinated 65 and up. Hospitalization was between 18 and 49. That's not even just the young. about as likely as vaccinated 55 and up. If you look at the Griffin study that they cite at 61,418 of the federal register, unvaccinated and vaccinated both had low risks of death in ICU. Now, unfortunately, for those, you know, listening, there was no video of this.

This is how we all got it. We've just got through this audio recording what took place. But I'm a little bit confused there. This discussion of grave danger, why is the attorney for the plaintiffs, basically, comparing unvaccinated young people to vaccinated older people and saying that the same. What is that what is he trying to achieve with that argument? What he's saying is this. He's really pulling the pants down on OSHA's claim of grave danger for the unvaccinated

young people. And here's why. What he's saying is OSHA concedes that there's no grave danger to older vaccinated people. But older vaccinated people are dying, are affected at numerous. numerous times the rate that's younger unvaccinated people. So what he's saying, what Benjamin Flower is saying, is if there's no grave danger to older people who are vaccinated for whom the virus is far more dangerous,

then how can you possibly claim OSHA that there's a grave danger to younger unvaccinated people for whom the virus is far less dangerous? Right. What this really draws out is that, What OSHA was doing was really ideological. You know, this all feeds into this almost belief. It's truly, it's a belief about how vaccines work. And it's hard for people to accept, I think,

even for some of the judges, to accept that a vaccine can maybe, for example, reduce symptoms, but it doesn't, in fact, stop infection transmission. I think we could see that playing out with some of the comments made about we have more cases now. Well, but you got over 70% of the people vaccinated. Well, let's get into this belief system a little bit because I think Justice Kagan in many ways and I get it. They're human beings.

They have their opinions. They have their biases. But we all think of the Supreme Court as being a space where the bias is set aside so we can just get to the facts. Yet clearly Kagan goes on a bit of a grandstanding moment here talking about the benefits of the vaccine. So I don't think was lost to anybody where she was planning on voting before she. she ever came into the halls of justice. Take a look at this.

We all know what the best policy is. I mean, by this point, two years later, we know that the best way to prevent spread is for people to get vaccinated. And to prevent dangerous illness and death is for people to get vaccinated. That is by far the best. The second best is to wear masks. So this is a policy that basically says we are still confronting thousands of people dying every time we look around. And so we're going to put into place the policy that we know works best, which is to strongly incentivize vaccination and to insist that unvaccinated people will wear masks and test. I mean, that's just like, why isn't that necessary?

What else should be done? It's obviously the policy that's geared to. preventing most sickness and death, and the agency has done everything but stand on its head to show quite clearly that no other policy will prevent sickness and death to anywhere like the degree this one will. Justice Kagan, first of all, states could have policies like this. Private businesses could have policies like this.

I mean, here, and this is one of the frustrating things for me, I want to ask you, because she just opened up. the conversation in the science. Like I understand that the court doesn't want to deal with the science, which is what makes your job very difficult. You know, the first thing the judge will say is, I'm not a doctor. If the CDC says something, I trust what the CDC says. But she's making statements that don't even align with the CDC. And at the end of that, you know, the plaintiff's attorney doesn't say, actually, if you're going to quote CDC data, there's this great case we have in our files here, filed by Aaron's Siri that talks about transmission.

It was all there. He didn't go there. It's not his wheelhouse. Had you been there, this is the moment you sort of stepped. I'm glad you brought up the science because let's get into the details of the science for a moment. Instead, he goes back to policies saying, my point is not about the science. It's really about the states should have this power, not the federal government. I found that frustrating. Was that frustrating for you? I mean, I would have liked to have seen the equities address. He did a good job. And he did a great job in addressing the legal component. But I would have liked to have seen just a one, sentence to say respectfully, Your Honor, the CDC's own director said this vaccine doesn't prevent transmission. But, but, you know, and then move on to legal argument. Okay. And, you know, and if there was even more bandwidth, here's another argument we made in our papers very forcefully is we said, look,

we accept the vaccine does reduce symptoms. Right. So the product reduces symptoms, but it doesn't prevent transmission. Who's more likely to be spreading it? Right. Is it the people who are transmitting, infected and transmitting that have less symptoms and don't know to stay home and are still going to work? Or is it the people who have more symptoms know to stay home are more likely to stay home and are transmitting it? Yeah. Right. I mean, and the proof's kind of in the pudding. Cases are going up. Right. Not down. And that's the point again. Once the against the science door has opened up, this is Justice Breyer talking about the public interest. Can you ask us, or is that what you're doing now, to say it's in the public interest in this situation, to stop this vaccination rule with nearly a million people?

Let me not exaggerate. Nearly three quarters of a million people. New cases every day? I mean, to me, I would find that unbelievable. Justice Breyer, we are asking for a stay before enforcement takes up, in fact, Monday. And the reason for that is this is an unprecedented agency. Yeah, yeah, I know. You have all good arguments that it isn't good. They have arguments that. that it is good. Okay, I'm asking you a different question, and the question is, how can it conceivably be in the public interest with three quarters of a million people yesterday? Goodness knows how many today.

I don't want to repeat myself, but you have the hospitalization figures growing by factors of 10 times what it was. You have hospitalization at the record, near the record. I mean, I know how, how I'm not a lawyer. I know what I would want to jump in and stay there. We've got skyrocketing rates of hospitalizations. He's saying. He's getting the science once again. And again, the plaintiff is just going back to, well, I just want to talk about who should be, you know,

I want to stay. But isn't he pointing out the obvious, which is this vaccine is a failure? We're vaccinating more than we ever have in a history of mankind and the numbers are through the roof. Right. You have to require suspending reason to some degree. to say we've vaccinated fully now well over 70% and see the numbers are skyrocketing. So we just have to keep doing more of that. I think it feeds directly into what the CDC director said. This vaccine doesn't prevent transmission. That would be consistent with seeing rising cases, right, not stopping transmission.

Those two points are consistent. Look, the one nice thing is this, is that I think those judges, the judges made some of these comments that went, first of all, outside the record, which is not typically what... The record being this wasn't, you know, what does that mean? Meaning there's, you know, when you appeal, there's usually a record, you know, these are the facts and this is the body of information that will be before the court. So putting aside that they went outside the record to kind of make these gratuitous, you know,

statements. The one good thing is that even though the rebuttal to those points didn't happen in the courtroom, they happened all over the media. That's right. And they happen swiftly and quickly. And so whatever impact those comments might have had on the conservative judges, I'm assuming, to the extent that, you know, they're not able to avert their eyes and ears. Right.

From the cascading media avalanche that came after some of those comments, you know, they got to see the responses, many of which, you know, were provided, like we pointed out in our papers. one of the major arguments it seems is just like who has jurisdiction here and the plaintiff there's an interesting exchange with sodomayor who compares people to machinery that throws sparks they're throwing you know a virus or bloodborne pathogen i thought this is really interesting thing so what's the difference between this and telling employers where sparks are flying in the workplace your workers have to be wear a mask when sparks are flying in the workplace that's presumably because there's a machine that's

unique to that workplace. That is the... Why is the human being not like a machine if it's spewing a virus, blood-borne viruses? Are you questioning Congress's power or desire that OSHA do this? It already in 1991 told OSHA to issue regulations with respect to Hep C and B? Justice Sotomayor, I think that exactly proves our point, that Congress knows how to enact a statute when it wants to give... It didn't enact a statute. statute. OSHA proposed regulations. It didn't act fast enough, and Congress told it to act faster. So it wasn't Congress who proposed it. It wasn't Congress who devised it. Congress gave OSHA the

responsibility to do these things, and Congress was saying, get to it. And what Congress said in there was you now have statutory authority to regulate all communicable diseases. It was bloodborne pathogens and even that rule did not mandate vaccines or widespread testing. I'm a little bit confused here. I mean, I get her point that if someone's spewing, it's just like sparks hitting and you're trying to protect, you know, the person across from them. But this conversation really gets into the constant, you know, using the Congress to mandate upon OSHA or does the OSHA have its own ability to do something? What's at the heart of this? What are they really arguing about right here for people that aren't seeing the nuance?

What is her argument compared to his? Well, she's trying to address two different things. One was the grave danger point, right? She says human beings are like machines with sparks flaming. They're going to shed the virus. But of course, so can the vaccinated. Right. So says the CDC director.

Would have been a good point to make there. So says their studies. Right. So says the data, right? Right. And unlike machines, people have rights. Case and point, one of the things we put in our reply brief was the data from Canada because the CDC hasn't released this data for December yet,

showing that the vaccinated actually have a higher case rate than the unvaccinated, meaning there are more cases among the vaccinated right now in Ontario, Canada, according to the official data that they're releasing than amongst unvaccinated. Does that mean that we now throw all the vaccinated out of their jobs? Right. Kick them out of school, throw them out of the military, exclude them from restaurants? Of course not. Right.

Of course not, because rights are rights, and we shouldn't take them away from anybody. But so that's the first thing that's going on there. It goes to the grave danger point. The second thing that's going on there, and this is underpinning most of the argument, is does OSHA have the authority, the congressional authority to implement this rule? And that has two components to it. One is a textual interpretation of the statute that Congress passed to give OSHA the authority. right right um and then the other is just this uh what they call the um we keep it simple the other is whether or not this is a question that is of such importance that con that it needs to be decided

by congress effectively okay that it has such an impact in economic and broader impact in america society it's not something that should be decided by a regulatory agency but rather by the elected officials you know in the senate and the house that would be my argument i mean i i i i I can't stand the fact that people making these like OSHA, I don't vote for OSHA. I vote for my senator. I vote for my congressman or woman. So if they're making decisions, I can vote them in or out. It's really hard if you start having regulatory agencies making these decisions.

It really makes it hard for us to have power as citizens over these decisions being made, which is that, I mean, I guess I grew up a progressive liberal. Is that kind of a conservative perspective now that sort of I want the rights in the hands of the people, smaller government, state versus federal? I mean, that's sort of where they're pushing towards the conservative judges, right? This should be a state's issue because then in a congressional, the Congress should be making this decision, not a regulatory agency that we have no control over. We need to be able to vote in the people that are making these decisions and out. I wouldn't call it a conservative or a liberal issue, frankly. I would just call it a constant, the most, one of the most fundamental structures that that,

underpin this entire country, which is that we have three branches of government. We have Congress, right, the legislative branch, and they're the ones that's supposed to make the laws. And we have the executive branch to implement them. We have the judiciary that then deals with disputes and so forth. But it is the legislative branch, the elected officials that are supposed to be passing the laws that really impact us. Yeah. You know, executive can have what's known as interstitial rulemaking. They can fill in the blanks to laws.

but they shouldn't essentially be engaging in making decisions that have wide-reaching implications for all Americans. This one clearly does. And obviously, as you pointed earlier, I'm heartened to repeat what you said earlier, which is that the U.S. Supreme Court, six out of the nine judges agreed. And have issued a stay as of just a few hours, an hour or two ago, stay in the rule. One of the funny parts I thought because everyone in the world that decides to even venture into the space of vaccines, like the potential of the vaccine could injure has to do so carefully. And, you know, there's a lot of people that dance around this. There's, you know, there's athletes obviously dance around it.

There's movie stars. But to hear Supreme Court, the one place I thought, here's a group that gets to sit there and just state whatever they think. To listen to a Supreme Court judge dance the way this one had to. to simply bring up that rare possibility someone might get injured. I'm not saying, I'm not saying, I mean, take a look at this, folks, this is hysterical. I don't want to be misunderstood in making this point because I'm not saying the vaccines are unsafe. The FDA has approved them. It's found that they're safe. It's said that the benefits greatly outweigh the risks. I'm not contesting that in any way. I don't want to be misunderstood.

I'm sure I will be misunderstood. I just want to emphasize I'm not making that point. But is it not the case that these vaccines and every other vaccine of which I'm aware and many other medications have benefits and they also have risks and that some people who are vaccinated and some people who take medication that is highly beneficial will suffer adverse consequences. Is that not true of these vaccines? And if that is, is that true? That can be true, but of course there is far, far greater risk from being. by orders of magnitude. Right. There is some risk. Do you dispute that? There can be a very minimal risk with respect to some individuals. But again, I would emphasize

that I think that there would be no basis to think that these FDA approved and authorized vaccines are not safe and effective. No, I'm not making that point. I tried to make it as clear as I could. I'm not making that point. I'm not making that point. I'm not making that point. There is a risk, right? Has any other, has OSHA ever imposed any other safety regulation that imposes some extra risk, some different risk on the employee, so that if you have to wear a hard hat on the job, wearing a hard hat has some adverse health consequences? Can you think of anything else that's like this? I can't think of anything else that's precisely like this, but I think that to suggest that OSHA is precluded from using, the most common routine, safe, effective, proven strategy to fight an infectious disease at work

would be a departure from how this statute should be understood. I mean, it's hysterical, right? I'm not making that point. I'm not making that point. I'm not making that point. I'm not making that point. But the point he is making is an important one. Even if it's a minimal risk, there's a potential someone could die by this mandate. Has OSHA ever mandated any other, you know, process inside of a workplace that is going to clearly put somebody at risk. Someone's going to have that anathlactic reaction, which is why you're sitting there watching me for 15 minutes after this. Somebody's going to have myocarditis, which the CDC admits, and someone's going to have blood clots thrombocytopinia, things that have all been admitted now, you know, whether or not

they're getting their numbers right. It's going to happen to somebody. So is there any other place that this is, I mean, it's a really good question. And why don't, why is this, why is it so hard to have this conversation in a courtroom. Do you find that this is a place that they just don't want to go or usually go? I don't think it's limited to courtrooms. I think it's, you know, I think it's hard to have the conversation that a vaccine could injure folks in many forums. And to your point earlier, it's unfortunate that even when it comes to courts where they're supposed to be impartial, they're supposed to be blind, right? Start from that. Even a sitting U.S. Supreme Court justice has got to be concerned about.

being misconstrued on this point. Yes, vaccines can injure people. Period. It happens. That is something the CDC even provides for it. It's not something that is debatable. What's typically debated is the rate, how often it happens. But that it happens is not a point that anybody, even in federal health authorities, would actually debate. I'd also point out that one of the things that we put in our papers, and I'm not aware of this in any other papers filed the court, was we made this precise point about how folks can be injured by the vaccine, and we had a whole section discussing how there's immunity to liability that Pfizer and all the pharmaceutical companies have to any injuries caused by these products. they're getting tens of billions of dollars. If that's not sufficient revenue

to pay for the injuries, these products might cause, that should be concerning. That should be concerning to anybody who's looking at this. And I think that to actually answer your question more directly and maybe broadly too, why can't we have this discussion? And I think this is a big piece of it.

When it comes to drugs, any drug, We all can accept that it injures some people. The medical authorities can accept. Doctors will readily tell you. The FDA will readily tell you. They don't have any issue with saying, oh, yeah, this drug can hurt some people. But they don't seem to have the ability to do that with vaccines.

And what's the difference? Here's the difference, I would say. Differences is that our federal health authorities, our federal government doesn't go out and promote drugs, but it promotes vaccines. Right. It doesn't go out and mandate drugs, but it mandates this. So what is it done?

It has staked its own reputation. It has staked the FDA's reputation, as well as the leaders of those agencies on this product. If there's an issue with the product, who does it reflect badly on? Does it just reflect badly on the company? Mm-mm. It looks badly on the federal government. There's still people. They still have institutional.

You ever heard the FDA admit they're wrong? You ever hear governments admit they're wrong? They rarely do. And that creates a pernicious problem. When the federal government is involved with protecting the pharmacy company saying, no, this product can't sue them for harm, gives them money, is out there promoting the product and mandating the product. And look, even here, who's in this court? Think about it. That's the U.S. Solicitor General.

Right. Doing what? Defending, mandating this product. Right. It's all inverted. usually the government should be there to protect consumers who are harmed from the companies that make the product. Vaccines is the only product I'm aware of where it's inverted.

But it also doesn't, this explains why the FDA, which is essentially what is being defended here, right, in the decision to mandate, I mean, I know it's OSHA, but it's a regulatory agency. This is why the regulatory agencies are fighting you when you're saying, I want to see the data. The scientists of the world want to see five, this data so we can do an assessment. Our regulatory agencies are literally attempting to block us

as she's attempting to block this conversation saying, no, there's no such thing as injury, we won't go there because it brings down, you know, our confidence in the government. And this conflict of interest is why it is so dangerous for them to be doing the science, for them to be in charge of the science because they're implicated. This is a conflict of interest of the greatest kind. We can't get good science done because the regulatory agencies are blocking it because if that science was done and that science proved that vaccines do injure at a higher rate than your average person can accept, then we lose faith in this program, we lose faith in our government, and this entire thing comes crashing down. So people are like, what is the motivation for Tony Fauci to lie? What is

the motivation for Francis Collins? This is it, right? This is it right here. That confidence in what they've stated over the last, you know, how many decades you got to go out and get your vaccine. You can't go to school and you get the vaccine. If it proves that vaccine was injuring children and they admit it, we're in real trouble, right? You lose competence in not only the healthcare problem, but the government in the United States of America. It's definitely one of the big issues. And, you know, typically when there's a government agency that's responsible for promoting something like the Department of Transportation is responsible for promoting modes of transportation like air travel and so forth, Congress intuitively recognized, wait, that's, if we also make the Department

Transitation responsible for safety. That's a conflict. You know, the very same actors in industry that they're dealing with to say, go out, make more planes, fly those planes. You're also going to then make them go, wait a second, and attack the very people you're telling to, it creates a conflict. So they created the NTSB, similarly with the Department of Energy. Right.

Department of Energy promotes nuclear power. So they created a separate, completely independent agency to do what? To actually assure safety in nuclear power plants. They recognize that when it comes to vaccines. no separation. Promotional body is the same one doing the safety trials. Exactly. Overseeing safety.

Not only is it the same agency, the Department of Health Human Services is responsible for promoting the vaccines. They're also responsible for safety. But it's even, frankly, more pernicious because, as you know, not only is the Secretary of the Department of Health Human Services is responsible for promoting them, they are also the respondent in the vaccine injury compensation program.

They are literally, literally defend any claim of vaccine injury in the federal government's program where if you're injured by most vaccines, you'd have to bring a claim. That is an incredible conflict. If the federal governments do any study that shows a vaccine causes some injury,

who are to lawyers like me and the other, you know, the small body lawyers do vaccine injury, about 100 turns of injury claims. I'm going to use that as evidence. the federal government in cases against the federal government to get damages for a vaccine injury. I mean, it's a system that shouldn't be. The government should not be in the business of mandating or promoting any product, vaccines or otherwise. They should be in the business of, if anything, of protecting consumers from harms, from the powerful, the companies, not defending the companies

against the consumer. It's crazy, frankly. I'm sure everyone is wishing. that you were there to make this argument for the Supreme Court. I know I was, but the basis of the argument that really was made and the plaintiff's point that I think was really obviously going, leading towards what would be considered the conservative judges was the fact that if you mandate this, people are going to quit. If they quit, you were going to ruin these businesses. The Supreme Court is now about to actively make a decision that could ruin businesses, hurt our economy, something that I'm not sure Supreme Court justices like to be involved with. This is what that moment sounded like.

Even OSHA has said that 1 to 3% of employees will quit. That is significant. Our declarations, appendix 308, 316. Counsel, yes, that may be true. But we are now having deaths at an unprecedented amount. There are costs and deaths and other things countervailing to the fact that there might be 1 to 3% of workers who leave. Well, and here, vaccines have been made available. I also think there's a textual clue within the OSHA.

I mean, you know, obviously you want to jump in with the all-cause mortality there. Like she's right. I mean, just say, what are you talking about? Like the deaths are going up. I mean, we're going the wrong direction. If vaccines were good at stopping this. But that's the point I want to make, though, is the, was the basic argument, though, was this employees will quit. They'll have a financial hit.

Our case with the auto deal. is it's unfair. He's going to have employees walk out and won't be able to do his job. And the smaller competitors that don't have 100 employees, they're going to get to keep all of their, his staff, if I leave him, go to them to work there because they won't be vaccinated. How can that be fair? And why is the Supreme Court going to find itself in the middle of deciding people's livelihoods? Right. The lawyers for the plaintiffs, which I want to just say, they did a great job arguing the law. Great job. Yeah. And I think the media did a great job afterwards making sure all those other equity points were dealt with.

And the proof's in the pudding. We got the win today. But yes, it's an economic point that the plaintiff's attorney was making. And as in the case that we brought, the dealership is the only one in that region with over 100 employees. There's about a dozen others. The employees that don't want to get vaccinated or in the alternative have to pay for, themselves to get tested and wear a mask like a scarlet letter on their face, they're going to leave to competitors, absolutely, and they're going to lose in a really, as we put in our papers,

and it was attested to by the plaintiff in that case, extremely tight labor marker, where the plaintiff in our case already didn't have enough staff as it was to deal with the ongoing business operation. Why did this work here, but it didn't seem to work for health care workers? I mean, it seems like health care workers are going to leave. That goes beyond a financial problem. As we've just reported earlier, you have staffing shortages like crazy. But is it because there wasn't large employment and then the health care workers have nowhere to go? Right.

If it's all health care workers, you're not leaving for the place across the street that has under 50 employees where you can not wear the mask. They got nowhere to go. Is that maybe why Supreme Court felt comfortable, you know, saying, yeah, in the case of these employment groups, it's unfair, but for the healthcare workers. So, as you know, those decisions came out about 30 minutes before I was shoved in this chair. So I haven't read the CMS decision yet. Okay. So I'm not exactly sure what it says it.

And, you know, we haven't brought a case. We don't have a case. We don't have a case against CMS, though. I understand that you've expressed interest in us potentially bringing one. Yes. So that we can jump into that freight. Because that case is not over. This is just about the temporary stay.

And all that's the truth about all of these, right? These are not. This is just should they stay the implementation of this mandate by OSHA, you know, requested by President Biden in case of the employers, yes, we're going to stay. We're going to wait until this case is all finished to decide. And in the case of health, it's going to move on. You're going to have to be vaccinated. So people will be fired.

And so in the end, like if down the road, a better argument is made for health care workers and it proves like, you know what? Yeah, the mandate was unconstitutional, whatever it is. all those people that get fired, I suppose, could ask for their jobs back, but we're going to be in a really weird space there. Yeah, well, I think, so, yes, this is just about a temporary stay

in both OSHA case and the CMS case during the pendency of the lawsuits because the lawsuits are going to keep going. There isn't a final adjudication yet. There will be, but the decisions that the U.S. Supreme Court just gave in both of those, I do need to read the CMS one, but in Osha in particular,

It did go to what was considered the likelihood of success, which party is like to succeed. And the Supreme Court and the OSHA decision gave its reasoning of why it's likely to succeed. When a court gives you that kind of decision, the case is usually often, especially in the commercial litigation context, that's usually the end of the case. The judge is giving you a, basically, this is how I'm probably, almost certainly going to rule at the end of the case. Right. That does appear to be the case with the OSHA decision. I want to read the CMS to make sure that that seems to be the case there too.

So yes, it's still possible to have a different outcome, but it's often a very high hurdle to overcome once you have this kind of appellate decision. I'll make a bigger point, and it's this. I think that it's important in the CMS case to challenge it, just as an OSHA, for the following reason, is that, you know, the mandates on vaccines really – As I've expressed in the past, and I'm very open about, I think that all vaccine mandates impinge upon the right to liberty on the Constitution.

I don't think any of them should withstand constitutional scrutiny. With that said, at the least the federal government should not be involved in the business of mandating vaccines. Bad enough, they're in the business of promoting them, giving Pfizer billions of dollars, protecting them from liability. at the least they should be out of the business of mandates and at least leave that to the states so that there can be states where those who can make those decisions like Florida and Arizona, Texas and other states that have chosen to fall on the side of liberty and not on the side of these draconian measures. So I think that's important to challenge all of the federal mandates, including the CMS one.

You know, it's interesting, Justice Sotomayor, who was very outspoken in this case, stating her opinions about, you know, what this vaccine can do, apparently. But shockingly, she is one of the few that's ever really written about the vaccine injury compensation program saying she thought that it was probably going to cause problems that you're giving liability protection to an industry that should be doing safety studies. So when she was outspoken, it's almost like she, it's almost like two different people. She's forgotten the underpinnings of something you've mentioned that didn't come up in this case, but this is an industry, this protective liability.

You're trusting the safety here from an industry that only makes money, has zero risk, and a government that seems to be protecting them. Here's one of the statements she's, you know, said about workplace contact, where again, she's really, she was really jumping and swimming in the science here. None of you have addressed that part of the ETS is to say something that should be self-evident to the world, but is not, which is if you're sick, you can't come into work. The workplace can't let you into the workplace, and you shouldn't go en masse. Tell me what's irrational about rules of that nature when it is the workplace that puts you into contact with people that will put you at risk.

I don't know that we've argued that the requirement is irrational, and indeed there may be many states subject to their own state laws that could impose it themselves. or private businesses. So if it's within the police power to protect the health and welfare of workers, you seem to be saying the states can do it, but you're saying the federal government can't, even though it's facing the same crisis in interstate commerce that states are facing within their own borders. I am not sure I understand the distinction why the state,

States would have the power, but the federal government wouldn't. The federal government had no police power. Oh, it does have power with respect to protecting the health and safety of workers. We have, we have, accept the constitutionality of OSHA. Yes, I think you to be asking if they had a police power to protect public health. No, they have a police power to protect workers. I would not call it a police power. power, I think their commerce clause power allows them to address health, sorry of their question,

it allows them to address health in the context of the workplace. Exactly. This is a very uncomfortable position. I mean, as a lawyer, you're, I mean, first of all, you don't, it's rare in a moment to argue before the Supreme Court's huge deal in your career. When a justice basically tells you the federal government has police powers, it sounds to me like he's saying, in all due respect no they don't can I ask you

I mean in this moment does the federal government have police powers police powers are reserved for the states and so he's carefully trying to not offend justice so to my arm sure the people have to the same

10th amendment man what's wrong with it this is a Supreme Court justice that seems to think the federal government has that power I mean I mean she's you know the 10th amendment

the power is not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the states or reserved to the states respectively or to the people. You know, the Justice Sotomayor is not, she's smart. Yeah. She's not dumb. She knows, you know, the best I can gander is that she was a bit in a bit worked up. She was in a moment of being worked up.

She's got this, you know, based on some of other comments, this very deep-held belief from about this product and how important it is to get this product into the arms of every worker in this country. I mean, going so far as to say, you know, what she goes, what's irrational about trying to stop the spread by vaccinating? Well, I would respectfully say what's irrational about that is that the CDC director said it doesn't stop transmission. So if it doesn't stop transmission and all it does is reduce symptoms, it does appear to be irrational to require. right vaccinated folks you know to to to to to to comport with this but unvaccinated folks to not that's what appears to be irrational is there ever a moment because in that moment i can imagine you making an argument is there ever a moment for a lawyer that you're sitting there looking at the judge thinking

i can win this battle right now with this judge but it will humiliate this judge and that will work against me therefore maybe i shouldn't win this argument right here this way i i um well i would say in That context, yes, there are instances in which there's, I think that there's a uncertainty of where the judge is going to rule that that is certainly important. But, you know, in this appellate context where there are nine judges, and what Justice Sotomayor is, I think, in part doing, she's talking to the other six judges who are conserved on the bench. She's trying through pulling heartstrings, through a motive through these various equity arguments, as I would call them, to peel off two of them. That's what she needed. She needed to peel two of them off. You know, I think that that, and so I think that her, if you weren't certain before that hearing,

halfway through, anybody listened to that should be pretty certain how she was ruling. Right. Right. I think in that moment, I think the response shouldn't be about thinking about changing her mind. Right. The response should have been to soften what she was trying to do vis-a-vis the conservative judges. That's where the response, I think, should have been geared. And I think to that point, I mean, that's what Benjamin Flowers was doing.

I think he brought it back, you know, he didn't address the scientific components, but he brought it back to the heartland of his legal argument that he clearly understood the coverage judges would be most comfortable latching onto. Obviously, he did the job in a way that delivered a victory for this moment. Absolutely. has occurred people in these large companies are not going to be forced to be vaccinated, at least not based on an OSHA mandate. So I want to thank you for sort of taking this through this.

I think probably the most shocking thing, though, that did happen. And it is, as you said, it did seem that Justice Sotomayor was unreasonably passionate about an issue for what I think of a Supreme Court, at least what I grew up thinking is this is these people that don't let their emotions get in the way. And in this case, either her emotions got in the way or something blinded her to the ability to actually do a decent investigation because clearly she made mistakes that have been called out. But I was shocked when I heard some of the statements she made because they were so incredibly inaccurate. And when we think about the Supreme Court that is literally the pinnacle of fact-based decision-making in this country and leads the world. you would kind of hope a Supreme Court justice, if they're going to speak facts,

they know full well those are going to be in every newspaper in the world. You would hope they get it right. This was a shocking moment. And I think it's going to be a historic moment for the Supreme Court and specifically Justice Sotomayor. Listen to what she said. We have hospitals that are almost at full capacity with people is severely ill on ventilators. We have over 100,000 children, which we've never had before, in, in, serious condition and many on ventilators.

I mean, 100,000 children on ventilator. I mean, this whole thing, we've been looking at the fact. This is a nothing burger for children, but we didn't have to fact check it. Here's some of the fact checking that took place. This was New York Post Supreme Court's liberal justices slammed over a VAC's mandate statements. Fact checks Sonomaior make, this is even CNN. Remember, this is her, these are her people. Fact check, Sonomaio makes false claim about COVID-19's impact on children.

CDC director correct Sonomaior claim that 100,000 kids in serious condition with COVID-19. That is just simply not the case. You even have the director saying that CDC director, Rochelle Walenski on Sunday corrected claims made by Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who said Friday that we have over 100,000 children, which we've never had before in serious condition and many on ventilators. Wolenski explained on a segment of Fox News Sunday that though pediatric hospitalizations have been rising, numbers are still a bit of. about 15-fold less than for older age groups as of January 8th, about 5,000. Huge difference between 5,000 and 100,000 children. U.S. children were hospitalized and confirmed. And as we saw earlier, Hockel saying half of those probably came in for other reasons

and aren't even there for COVID or believed to be coronavirus positive. And according to Wollenski, most of them were unvaccinated and or had underlying conditions. So, Mayor made the misleading claim during oral arguments over challenges the vaccine mandates imposed by the administration. by the administration. I mean, this is shocking. I mean, it really is shocking. Did we find the document that I thought she might have looked at and misunderstood? Here it is. Here's what I think she actually made a mistake. She must have glanced at this and not read it. Hospitalization serves for unvaccinated American children. Look at how if you were not taking your time, you could misconstrue this. Since mid-December, with a highly contagious Omicron variant spreading furiously

around the country, the hospitalization rate in these youngest children has surged to more than four in 100,000 children, up from 2.5 per 100,000 children. The rate among children ages 5 to 17 is about 1 per 100,000 according to the CDC data, which is drawn from over 250 hospitals in 14 states. I'm not saying, I'm not in her head, but I have a feeling she saw some form of that. It's like, it's surging in children, attempting to make it look like this big deal. She saw the $100,000 rolled with that and really probably didn't, as they say, read the fine print. Were you as shocked? It's surprising.

I mean, you know, the justices in the Eastern Court are surrounded by an army of some of the brightest from the premier law schools in this country. Yeah. and they've got endless number of folks who could research for them and I don't know where she came out with that number and I don't know but it is surprising and it's unfortunate

and part of it I think unfortunately is that certainly within one of the political camps in this country there's a strong sense to protect minorities and there's almost an intuitive sense, apparently, in that regard. And we should. We should protect minorities of all stripes, to be sure. But for whatever reason, when it comes to those who choose not to vaccinate, who in many ways are a certain form of minority, they chose not to modify their

immune system with a pharmaceutical product for which you can't sue for any injuries. There doesn't seem to be any understanding, compassion. And in fact, unfortunately, it seems to be the opposite. There seems to be this ethos among some that you can do anything to them. You could throw them out of school. You could fire them from their jobs, as is talking about in this case. You can make them more scarlet letters of a mask, even though the vaccinated can also transmit. Throw them out of the military. You can talk about them in probably the worst terms. You could talk about people on TV amongst the media and politicians. I mean, and I think unfortunately that kind of, that breeds a sense of otherness among

those that don't vaccinate in certain camps in which leads to potentially what you're seeing there which is potentially which is no recognition of rights for those who choose not to vaccinate in fact it's almost the opposite there's almost a sense we should be punitive you heard you know the premier the prime minister of france talk about what he wanted to do to the unvaccinated and that's um that's really unfortunate i mean it's i can't think of any other group in this country that you can treat the way that you treat folks who, the way that folks who aren't vaccinated are treated in this country. And the saddest part about it is that often those who choose not to vaccinate,

as you know, you've been around this country on tours and met endless families. It's usually not, especially when it comes to child of vaccines, it's not that parents often choose to not vaccinate. They choose to stop vaccinating. Sometimes there's complication, like any drug. Yeah. It does have adverse effects on. some. And so those who choose not to, they have to not only suffer the, you know, the adverse

effects of the product, they have to suffer the insult of the treatment they get thereafter and the lack of any empathy. So, and maybe that fed into part of what you saw going on in the Supreme Court the other day. Right. So lastly, just to just sum all of this up, one of the conversations from the very beginning, I've always said, we've got to get in there, we've got to undo Jacobson versus Massachusetts. There's 1905. is it ruling? Yes, it is. Essentially that said government can force vaccinate you.

I actually didn't say that. I'm saying you have to pay a fine. $5 penalty. $5 penalty. Jacobson lost. $150. $1.50. Today.

$5 to the Supreme Court. How much would it be? About $1507 in our money. I'd be happy to pay that fine if that's all it was to get out of, if I'm a health care worker right now, you know what, I'll pay the fine. I'm not taking the vaccine. Take it out of my salary. Take the $157.

That's what was decided. And so, but it's been used as this sort of sword to wield mandates to bring about, you know what I mean, to really sort of force this, this pressure upon this minority of people that choose to not, you know, manipulate their immune system in order to walk on this planet. Does this, is this over? Is this the end of it? Have we seen the Supreme Court has ruled? Does this conversation end here with, you know, if these end up, this is just a stay. but if it closes out here, are we through this conversation? Is the federal government not able to mandate because of this OSHA ruling,

or is there still more work to be done in the future? The decision that's going to eventually, this interim stay and then the eventual final adjudication in this case is not going to impact the decision in Jacobson. Because Jacobson wasn't about the federal government's authority to mandate a vaccine. It was about the state's authority to require a vaccine. In that case, as we pointed out, subject to 156. something dollar in today's dollars penalty so jacobson's really not at issue in this case what's at

issue in this case is whether OSHA has the congressional authority or otherwise there's authority on the federal level to require the type of mandate that's currently uh ohsha's currently trying to enforce on companies which is which is which is separate and apart from jaco's though i would like to hope that um uh there are many in the uh in the various branches of government right now in one of the political parties that is beginning to understand the perniciousness of mandating an injection into a human body, whether it's a vaccine or otherwise. And I'm hoping that that understanding continues to carry forward as we go into 2022, as we just talked about a bit earlier,

if we can keep the federal government out of the business of mandating and leave at least that to the states, we can't have states where there will be a record. recognition that this is a liberty right to be able to say no to something injecting your body because I mean think about it if the governing concourse what's injected into your body and what liberty rights do you really have right Aaron I want you to thank you for flying in here you know taking us through this it's a historic moment you're doing such incredible work so I want to thank you I know you got a lot of work we got a lot of plate to get there. It certainly isn't over. So you back to it. Keep up the great work.

Thank you, yeah. All right. Look, I want to make this point. And this is, you know, as I think Aaron was alluding to, you know, 27, I believe it was Attorney Generals or somewhere in that neighborhood that all said in our state, my body, my choice, we have the right to choose. We are going to fight this Biden mandate. But the point is, and I've said this, at some point, this all started. Aaron and I got together because of the forced childhood vaccination. I am a refugees from California where they have no rights on this issue. Private or public school, your child will be forcibly vaccinated with untested products that have no liability. I believe that should be illegal.

I think that's wrong. And I think that all this is going to eventually lead back to that conversation here in 22. We're going to be bringing 2022 more of those cases. We can't just let this die here. We now have attorney generals that have sided with us. It doesn't, you know, whatever the political affiliation, if they're saying my body, my choice, in the state of Texas or the state of Arizona or the state of Missouri, here we believe that a person has a right to decide what's injected in them.

Don't you see how close we are to forcing them walking to those offices and you're going to be there with me as we walk in and say, well, then certainly if I have a right to decide what goes into my body, I have a right to decide for my child who is under my watch to decide what goes into their body. There should be no mandates on them either. This is where this is going to push. This is where these legal cases are going to go as we continue to fight

whatever mandates are coming around COVID, if this continues to linger around or maybe they bring new vaccines to Omnacron, all of this. These battles are ongoing and they're the most important of our time. All of this is only made possible through your help. So I want to say, you just heard, I think, the greatest attorney on this subject matter that is fighting for your rights to medical freedom. I can, we work hand in hand to make these lawsuits possible, but it's only possible if you help us. If you're out there and you're thinking to yourself, man, it's amazing that, you know, the one in San Diego and the case for all the scientists that are out there and fighting for the

be safe data, all of that is incredibly expensive to keep these legal teams going so that we bring that pressure that they know we're never going to go away. I really, really need your help this year. If you feel like we're winning, basking that for a moment, but recognize we have not won. That is what we're going for. We're going for the big W-I-N. Only you can make that possible. That means we have to push even harder, not let up.

So please, today, if you are not one of the people that are doing it, or maybe you want to up your donation, go to the highwire.com, go to donate. We're asking this year, 22, why don't you become a recurring donor and give $22 a month? I think that's still less than your cable bill. That's still less than you're giving to CNN to lie to you. and, you know, to hear the truth to be able to every once in a while glowed a little bit, because when I'm saying, I told you so, you get to say I funded the I told you so. You get to be a part of it, to be a part of that team.

Please make that happen now. This is how we do this. This is how we bring this great programming. This is how we fight these lawsuits and we win when no one else thought they could win. So I thank you for all of you that have made the high wire possible, that have made the work we do at Informed Consent Action Network. You should be patting yourself on the back today. It's another victory, another win.

This time the Supreme Court moving in our direction. It's all shifting in our direction. We've shown you all day long. The narrative is changing. Who's changing that? Do you think this would have changed it? The High Wire wasn't here? Do you think you'd really be hearing basically the Great Barrington Declaration?

We're all going to have to catch this cold. Let's protect the elderly so we can all move on. That would have never happened without you. It would have never happened without the High Wire. We are driving this. We're driving those institutions that are deciding, you know what? That's making a lot of sense. Joe Rogans and maybe even Tucker Carlson jumping on the bandwagon saying, hey, where it makes sense, maybe there is some space there for me.

Everybody is welcome. Come on in. The water is warm. Thank you for being a part of it. Lastly, to finish this out, you know, I got in a little bit of trouble this week once again for simply posting what had been said by Rochelle Walensky, and this is what she said. Is it time to start rethinking how we're living with this virus that it's potentially here to The overwhelming number of deaths over 75% occurred in people who had at least four comorbidities. So really, these are people who were unwelled to begin with. 75% of those that are dying had four other comorbidities. Now, I put this tweet out based on that point. I said CDC director admits over 75% of COVID deaths had at least four pathological conditions,

comorbidities. since the total death rate in this country or actually around the world is based on Johnny and Easey at Stanford is 0.27%. This means healthy people have a 0.0% death risk. Hashtag wake up, hashtag nothing to fear but fear itself. Now, if you're not following me on Twitter, please just hop on at Del Bigtree because these are the types of statements I like to throw out there. In some cases, getting tens of thousands of people to weigh in on the conversation is pushing it forward. and I get to play there in a space that, you know, I don't necessarily always get here on the high wire. So definitely, I'd love to have you follow me at at Del Bigtree at my Twitter, at my Twitter, at least while I'm there.

I'm sure at some point they're going to cut me. I've been suspended a bunch of times, but I'm still there while I'm there. We're having a lot of fun. But here's the point. I ended up getting fact-checked on that issue. And remember, this is the whole point I made throughout this show, right? They are now finally saying exactly what Hocel is saying in New York. This is all bloated.

These aren't all cases. You can't just say that the cases in here are all, you know, because they had COVID. They came in for other reasons. You know, now they're backtracking on this. This is what she's saying. You can't say that the death rates, how you can't worry about the vaccinated that got vaccinated and then died because they had other comorbidities. And that's the point. They tried to say to me, I took it out of context.

She was only talking about the vaccinated. So here's Snopes. Do 75% of all COVID deaths involve people with four comorbidities? important context was edited out of the viral video featuring CDC Rochelle Walensky, Del Batria, television producer and CEO of the Anti-Vacconcination Group and Formed Consent Action Network, wrote CDC director, I just read it to you, you get it. He goes on, or whoever wrote this, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC did not say that all COVID-COVID-19 deaths involved people with four comorbidities.

The CDC said that a new study found that 75% of such deaths amongst fully vaccinated individuals involve people with four commemorities. Contrary to the post above, this study supports the idea that vaccinations are quite effective against COVID-19. So they want to delidiate that, well, she just meant the vaccinated that are dying. So right there, she's admitting that even though you got the vaccine,

you could still die. I mean, that's important. But this point, are they right? Did I get it wrong? The point is this is the case. It doesn't matter how you select it out. We know that the people at our risk, whether you're vaccinated or you're unvaccinated.

The only people that are really dying at numbers that are affecting us are those that had other comorbidies. I can go back before there's a vaccine, Snopes. I can go back before there was a vaccine. What were they reporting? Here's what they're reporting and you would have seen it on the high wire. This is all the way back. August 30th, 2020.

CDC, from the CDC, 94% of COVID-19 deaths, meaning all of those unvaccinated had underlying medical conditions, 94% not 75% for deaths with conditions are causing an addition to COVID-19. On average, there were 2.6 additional comorbidities and causes of death. I would assume if you took

that that's 94%. I would guess right there you could have said 75% at 4 conditions. I mean, this is where we're at. It doesn't matter. The whole point is this is seriously a pandemic amongst the already ill. Those who are on their deathbeds. Potentially

They were already dying and then this pushed it over the edge. But that's the group that's driving this. And they're trying to attack me. I know who you're out there. Those who are on the tweet trying to say, well, Dell doesn't care about sick people. That is not the point I'm making. The point is you're not allowed to destroy my healthy life and my children's healthy life. You're not allowed them to never see a smile or a face or the babies that are trying to develop how to communicate

and all they see is mass everywhere. We're not allowed to destroy generations of babies and children's lives. We're not allowed to destroy the jobs of the healthy and destroy their workplace and take their funding away so that they're now unemployed and losing control of their family. You're not allowed to drive up suicide rates and not care about them, by the way. Not allowed to drive up drug rates and all of that simply because those who were already sick and on their way to dying have a problem with this potentially bad cold, which is what you are all now calling this. Not just me. Welcome to the club. Two years ago, we were calling us a cold. I'm glad you're all finally waking up the reality that the vaccine unicorn never arrived. It never saved you. It was never going to get us out of this. We have been right the whole time. There it is. They wanted that COVID-19 vaccine unicorn. It never came. It looked a heck of a lot uglier than that. It's not there. This was not a reality. We deal in reality. We deal in science here. And the science, as I have said from the beginning, never lies. The truth cannot lie. If we use the scientific method and allow everybody into the conversation, you will hear the truth. That's what's happening here on the high wire. I don't know if this

is a victory lap. I highly doubt these people will ever truly admit to us. We totally jack this up. And by the way, the vaccine program is a disaster, but that's what you're seeing with your own eyes. You've been watching it the whole time. We had to jump on everybody, not because we're psychic, but because we listen to people who know what they're talking about. And then when they say it, we make them prove it with data and evidence. This is it. The Great Barrington Declaration was always right. And even though they attacked it, we were all coming full circle because it is the only way out.

It always has been. We now are going to have to catch this cold. If you want to get a vaccine before you do it, you think that makes you safe, that's your call. If you want to take some vitamins before you catch it, go right ahead. If you want to just wing it and see whatever happens, that's up to you. We talked about the treatments that are available. And I want to say this. Even though they're all talking about Amicron being very light, we know many people that have had a serious bout of COVID.

Whether or not it was Amacron or Delta, I don't know. Let me say this to be perfectly clear. If you find yourself in that position, when you do catch this, take it very seriously. can be harmful. This one does appear to be a bioweapon. It has its moments. Take it seriously. Do what Vladimir Zelenko has told you to do. Do what Deerre Raute has told you to do. These guys know what they're talking about and their track record is awesome. I do not believe in Remdesivir. I don't think you want to be bented. You want to avoid that situation. So don't play around. Do what the specialists that have won and beat this virus have done when it comes to be your moment. That's what I,

would do. That's all I can say. When people around me have gotten ill, I immediately put them in touch, and we put them on a protocol, much like Vladimir Zelenko's, Dr. Bartlett, adding in Budasinide, and a few of these things. That's what I've done with who I love. That's all I'm saying. I'm not going to tell you what to do, but I'm going to say, if you want to ask me what I did, every time someone I love, I say, you know what, forget the vitamins this time, the vitamin C, those things, and I know that those are you out there in natural health, you'll be upset with me. I think in these circumstances, this does appear to be a bioweapon of sorts. It does look like it was made in a laboratory, though I don't have definitive proof, and I'll let you know the moment I do, all of the

science is leading in that direction. So if this isn't natural, if it's made in a laboratory, maybe we should handle it a little bit differently. Yes, the death rate is 0.27%. That is what it truly is, but don't, you know, let that make you think you can play around. Take it seriously. In fact, I think going to the future as more and more environmental toxins. We're going to be talking about 5G in the future, all the poisoning in our water, in our food. All of these things are affecting our immune system. And so now I think we recognize when you get a cold, don't go out. Don't spread it.

There's no need to do that. Take it very seriously. Definitely. I mean, actually, let me correct something. I just said drugs. I do believe, and I was wondering whether I should say this. over the holidays, I too apparently caught COVID. I had a very, very light bout of it.

But when I had that scratchy throat to the back of my throat, you know what I did? High-dose vitamin C, vitamin D, quercetin, and zinc. That is all that I did. So I want to put that out there. But I had all the hydroxychloroquine and everything ready to go. In case I felt like I was slipping or losing, you know, control of that, I would say for those in the four or five-day range,

if you are not getting over it, because within 24 hours it was gone, I had a light fever. I was able to kick it out. I've taken the antibody test. It appears that I have gotten through it just fine. It was much like Jonathan Isaac. It was nothing for me. Maybe it was Amacron.

I don't know. But I want to correct it. I want to be totally honest. I went the vitamin route. But I had on hand. I was ready to go with a much more serious course of action if it was necessary. And that's what I've been recommending people. So there it is.

All transparency. I put it out that I'm sure I'm going to get attacked for multiple reasons of whatever I just said. I don't care. I don't care. I want you to at least hear the truth as we are discovering it. We are learning this along with you. We are on this ride with you. We are not pre, you know, meditatively deciding what we're going to show you or, you know, what we want someone to say. We are in this with you. This is the high wire. There's no program like in the world. Please become a, you know, a founding father with us. One of those people that is going to change the world in this conversation. I think we're having our effect.

They've come around the Great Barrington Declaration. So if you haven't gone out and caught this cold and you feel like you're healthy enough to do it, do it the best way possible. Keep your immune system strong. Vitamin D is huge, vitamin C, all of those things. But if it happens, be ready for it, be ready for it. And until this moment comes when we've reached herd immunity, we're all moving on, which I think really could be around the corner. We will be here fighting for you, fighting for the truth.

bringing the science, standing up in the courtrooms all across this nation and the world. This is the high wire. It is sponsored and made possible by the informed consent action network, and that network is you. I'll see you next week.