The Highwire with Del Bigtree - GAVIN DE BECKER EXPOSES FORBIDDEN FACTS

Episode Date: October 9, 2025

Author and security expert Gavin de Becker joins Del to unveil his new book Forbidden Facts, exposing government deceit on childhood vaccine injury and drawing parallels from Agent Orange to today’s vaccine program.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

I've gotten to meet just some really spectacular and interesting people. I feel so blessed with the life that I live when I'm not working with my amazing team here. You know, probably every other weekend I am flying to speak, you know, in front of audiences of like-minded people, meeting all the other speakers at dinners that are there talking about politics, talking about First Amendment rights, talking about religious rights, having these conversations. Of course, I got to be Director of Communications for Robert Kennedy Jr., which introduced me to a whole other set of brilliant people. And one of those people that I met, I'll tell you, is probably one of the most interesting conversations you will ever have. No matter when this guy decides to talk to you, you can sit back and listen and have your mind blown.

He's just written a book. Of course, I'm talking about Gavin DeBecker. Gavin DeBecker is a big name, and I'm here for it. Gavin DeBecker, remember that name. World-renowned security expert, Gavin Debecker. He's so good, I use it myself. I've worked with the FBI and the CIA, U.S. Supreme Court, the White House.

I've been a presidential appointee at the Department of Justice. Gavin says that the gift of fear can keep you alive. It's the 10th anniversary of that book, which I know has changed so many lives, just as it did for me. When we are told to fear something, might be a virus, might be with great purpose. It is our responsibility as citizens, always to ask what is it and how well do we understand it? When you are afraid, it definitely disables our ability for critical thinking.

Didn't Americans use to distrust big pharma companies? If you were listening to the CDC, you would be on your 10th injection. They are still recommending boosters today, and it's still now in the childhood vaccine schedule. Leaders throughout human history have used fear to control populations, and boy, is that happening, right now. Well, he's a securities expert, a criminologist, a three-time presidential appointee, and he's just written a new book, Forbidden Facts. It's my honor and pleasure be joined by Gavin De Becker. Thank you, thank you. I want to thank you for joining me. I could also describe you as probably one of the best conversations in the world. I've had the pleasure of getting to

have a few conversations with you. Of course, your security company handled security for Robert Kennedy Jr. when I was Director of Communications. we had some interactions about those things. But I want to get right to it. Why is someone that is, you know, a historian, you are probably one of the greatest minds on how assassinations happen. You get into criminology, fear. Why write a book essentially about, I mean, I don't want to say it's a vaccine book because you cover so much of the fraud that the government, you know, you know, puts forward upon the American public, almost a formula for how they lie to us. But it does evolve a lot about vaccines, autism.

Why write this book? I think there were a few things that motivated me the most. One was I wanted my own, I've raised 10 kids, and I have two young sons now, 16 and 14. And I really wanted to communicate to them and then by association to other people, the methods that are used for deception. All governments, this is not a comment on the U.S. government, all governments throughout human history. use fear to control their populations and use deceit and suppression. No government that has the power to do otherwise admits mistakes voluntarily.

No government gives back powers that it has usurped. And I wanted my kids and other readers to recognize the method. You can see the system by which it's done. And it's done, you know, vaccines are one example, but it's done for Agent Orange. It's done for baby powder. It's done for baby formula. for baby formula, for Gulf War Syndrome,

all of these things where the government had responsibility, it has a method for how it debunks things. And really with this book, what I hoped for was to have a book not only for people who basically already recognize that something isn't right, for example, with pharma as an industry, but rather a book that you could hand to that skeptical, or in denial, brother-in-law or sister-in-law or parent, or kid or neighbor or friend or coworker, you could hand this book to them, and I believe it takes

an approach that it can reach people who are hard to reach. And that's what I've tried to do. I would completely agree with you. And there's been a lot of several great books recently, whether it's about COVID. Of course, Aaron Siri just put out vaccines, Amen. Great book. Talks about how, you know, it's almost like a religion the way that they handle it. So it gets into the mindset, you know, John Leakin and Peter McCorme. I have a great book out about sort of the myths around all of the stories we've been told on vaccines. But I would say what does set your book apart, and I said this, I don't mean this in an offensive way. I said it's sort of like a perfect book for dudes.

And I mean that because not in any sort of hopefully not seen in a sexist way, but so many mothers come up to me and say, I cannot get my husband to understand this. Sometimes they'll say, I finally got him to watch your show and you were able to get it. get through them when I couldn't. But it does strike to how I see these conversations need to be approached. And it's really just very, you're funny. I laughed out loud.

It's cynical, but it's hysterical. It's absurd. Some of these, I mean, you get into the actual transcripts of debates the Institute of Medicine is having that are like a cartoon. You cannot believe what you're reading. But there was just your ability to say, you know, let's look at Agent Orange, something that none of us are attached to. We don't have some emotional response about this is how that was handled.

This is how the government covered up the fact that they'd injured, you know, Vietnam vets. Here were the exact people involved used by the Institute of Medicine, used by the CDC to say that this is perfectly safe. And then once we've signed on, they go, yeah, we see the transcripts. And you go, same people, different product. This is their conversations on vaccines. And so it really was just like it was like a scalpel, it was very clinical, but so easy to understand and for some reason not triggering except that it triggered some laughter. But that I think makes it sink in even deeper. But why the humor?

Well, some of the humor is not my, first of all, you know, ridicule is an important component of challenging power. There was always the court jester and he was often the only person who could say something in front of the king that may. Maybe when the king's walking down the hall afterwards, they may have a point there, whereas anybody else would do it, it would be off with their heads. But the real source of humor in this book, aside from my occasional asides on something that is ridiculous, and ridiculous means worthy of ridicule, the real source of humor is the activity in these committees in the Institute of Medicine, which I want to take a second to explain because most people don't know.

The Institute of Medicine, you know, revered, you know, least, you know, least, you leading experts and they're the most esteemed and most respected and the media takes anything that they say and declares it as true, people assume that the Institute of Medicine and the National Academies of Sciences are government agencies. They are not. They are private organizations. They are funded by government at times, by pharma at times, by other industry at times. The guy who runs it gets $1.1 million a year.

It ain't no government agency. And so the idea that we said, oh, that, because they got that big, cool building and they look really serious. Everybody thought, well, when the Institute of Medicine opines on something, well, they must have really done something, you know, impressive. And what we got in this book is that there is a series of meetings where they debunk the idea that vaccines can have anything to do with autism, for example. As you mentioned, they debunk Agent Orange, and I talk about that one in Gulf War Syndrome.

But on the debunking of vaccines and autism, as you know, better than most people, people will say when you bring up that subject, oh, well, that's been debunked. That's been debunked. And you're an idiot if you're talking about it because it's been debunked. I'm not an idiot because I know it's been debunked. So I ask the question and answer the question in this book, who debunked it? And how was it debunked? And so the answer to that question is it was debunked by the Institute of Medicine.

Nobody knows that. I mean, most people don't, they only know it's debunked. I would guess, I would say that most journalists. Of course. It's debunked, professional journalists. And certainly most doctors and certainly most pediatricians, if you ask them how it was debunked or where it was debunked. So you first find out that it was debunked by the Institute of Medicine.

Number two, you find out that the Institute of Medicine is a paid organization that basically does crisis management for the U.S. government. And number three is we got something fantastic, which is that the meetings over 2001 and 2003 that were held behind closed doors for the Institute of Medicine experts. that they convened to debunk the vaccine autism link were transcribed and they were secret and some person with a big heart and kind attitude leaked it so we have the actual transcripts and I'm still answering your question of what was funny the actual transcripts are like a Broadway play like a comedy it is literally

ridiculous the way they engage with each other and on day one hour one the very first thing to said to them by the woman Dr. McCormick is there is one line we will not cross here. And that is to find that any vaccine is the problem or that the vaccine schedule should be changed in any way. So give me that again. On day one, before you've even had your meeting, you've decided the line you will not cross is that line, right? So now they go ahead and they have their meeting over two years.

And it's literally funny, as I said, it would be, if it was a one-hour, it was a one-a-half play people would sit there and laugh other than the fact that the result of it was no compensation for you know children who's who suffered inflammation of the brain and other things that are basically autism you know a key that emerged for me is that autism itself the definition of autism is is highly imprecise yeah I have a section in there called a tale of two teenagers where one teenager is never for one minute and a her entire life alone, always has to be attended, needs full-time care all the time, can't

go to the toilet by herself, can't clean herself, cannot speak, cannot engage, cannot be allowed access to food unless it's very titrated and controlled. That's autism, that's severe autism. And then another kid who's diagnosed with autism, he's a little shy in school, but he drives himself to college and he eventually forms a big tech company. And so when you have this spectrum, you could have a spectrum about everything in the world. You've got a cold, that's the early part of the spectrum, you've got tuberculosis, that's the high part of the spectrum. As soon as you say autism spectrum disorder, you have a target you can't hit. Yeah. And so it is true, if you say, vaccines cannot cause autism. It's absolutely true, because what's a vaccine? That definition has been

changed four times, and what's autism? You can't find it. You can't strike it. I know it's a long answer, but can I give you one other quick example? No, please. Thanks. SIDS. You should write a book. I will do that. So SIDS is another thing debunked by the Institute of Medicine.

So SIDS, sudden infant death syndrome, is the category of the deaths are put in when you cannot determine the cause. You've done an autopsy, you've done a police investigation, you've investigated the death scene, you've interviewed the parents, and nothing tells you what caused this death. death. And so you can't be diagnosed with SIDS. You can't die of SIDS. It's a category. It's not a cause of death. And so the Institute of Medicine concludes that this thing about which we cannot possibly say what causes it, we only know one thing. It's not vaccines. That we're sure of. And this is a kind of, it's not funny, but because it has the result of determining who gets compensated and who doesn't. It has the result of what stays on the childhood vaccine schedule.

So, you know, this is a long answer to the funny parts. The funny parts are what happens in that room when they get together and these esteemed experts begin a process where they already know the ending is embedded in the beginning. They already know what they're being paid for. And that is to conclude that autism is not caused by vaccines, SIDS is not caused by vaccines, child deformity and offspring of Vietnam. Now Mvets is not caused by Agent Orange. Nobody's hurt by burn pits. There's no such thing as Gulf War Syndrome. What are you talking about?

Baby powder causes cancer. And the irony is they do this, and the media waits at the door, and takes all the information and promotes it. And now you're as crazy as Bobby Kennedy, if you think that baby powder causes cancer, which it does. And it took them 50 years to get it off the market. 50 years before the day that Johnson and Johnson walked into the FDA and said, we've got to tell you guys something, we've got asbestos in there, but not a lot.

It's just a little bit of asbestos in the baby powder. 50 years for the FDA to say, let's determine how much asbestos is okay in baby powder. Now, I could have told them that on day one if it's my baby. How about zero asbestos in the baby powder? But no, they're going to figure out the allowable and limits and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. During those 50 years, half the people who worked at FDA end up going to work for Johnson & Johnson. Yeah. So this is the process. It really is the process. And you laid it out perfectly there. And you can, and you do that in this book, which is let's just look at something we all have a problem with, the baby powder causing cancer. We saw the multi-billion dollar lawsuits and they're losing. And then they say we're going to withdraw as though they've done something great. They've made so much money. They finally paid out. huge settlements. It's obvious now. And we see, you know, the emails where you knew this was

happening all the time. And so we keep watching this over and over again. But it does help us understand what we're looking at. I wonder if you could just, you know, read one of those sections, you know, on this meeting, because it's, it's like who's on first, right? It's like the, is that Abbott and Costello or, you know, but. I want to repeat. The outcome is not funny. One woman, oh, by the way, a big thing I forgot to mention. So Agent Orange happens, it's studied by the IOM. The IOM comes out and says, Agent Orange, birth defects, what are you talking about? How could it?

It's just a defoliant. It's not a chemical weapon, but it's a defoliant, you know, filled with one of the most toxic substances there is. And eventually the U.S. government has to acknowledge that it causes all these health problems by a guy named Admiral Zumwalt, who did his own independent study, very respected and he testifies before Congress that in fact the Institute of Medicine report is flawed science done he accuses them all kinds of of corruption and it's really interesting because he is the person who ordered that Agent Orange be used in Vietnam and he is the person whose son died from it Wow, so it's a really dramatic moment discussed in this book. Yeah, but he comes out and says the Institute of Medicine and the CDC were fraudulent the two leading researches

researchers. On the Agent Orange study, what did they do after that? They get promoted to childhood vaccines. So what parent in the world would say, I'd like the people who did that chemical weapon. I'd like them to be responsible for vaccines. But you're talking about Colleen Boyle and Frank DeStefano that are the heart of the movie I made Vaxed. Yeah, exactly. The whole fraudulent study there. And your movie was one of my big teachers on this. Anyway, they open up like this. The point of no return, the line we will not cross in public policy is pull the vaccine

or change the schedule. We wouldn't say compensate the injured, we wouldn't say pull the vaccine, and we wouldn't say stop the program. So what the hell are you doing there, guys? Three years of studies, tens of millions of dollars, but you've already said on day one what you won't do. But then there's Dr. Berg, one of my favorites. He begins the first day.

I don't know how long it will take us to figure out what the question is. I'm a veteran of one panel that took six days for the group to figure out what the question is. And that group was about the same size as ours. It can be a formidable issue to figure out what the question is. I don't know what the question is, whether it is MMR or whether it is measles. And somebody answers that it's MMR. And then somebody says, are we going to look at mercury in vaccines? And one of the doctors says, no.

And the guy says, wait a second. We're not going to look at mercury. If we're going to look at autism, we have to look at three candidates. Can we really fundamentally look at them in isolation? Because people get more than one vaccine at a time. So that's very good point, right? But the question guy, Dr. Berg, he can't let go. He's now continuing, excuse me, this is more important.

We're going to have to have a method for how we focus the question. This is one of the questions we need to focus on. How are we going to define the question? In general terms, what process are we going to use to define the question? How are we going to discuss it? I would like some reassurance about this before we begin talking about M.R. And then somebody says to him, why don't you make a proposal? Because they can see he's a jackass too. And he says, okay, do we look at just burden of suffering or do we look at squeaky wheels?

And another doctor says, I don't understand what you just said. Are you asking whether we should collect the information in order to determine which question you address or is it the other way around? And Dr. Berg answers, yes. Yes. It's one of those two. And by the way, I mean, I have fun reading this. You've got to stop me because it just keeps going. I mean, sometimes they say things like one of the guys says, if we were a group working for Philip Morris, we'd be saying that smoking tobacco doesn't cause cancer.

Because he says, you can choose this study or that study. You can always find a study. He acknowledged it. A couple of times they slip into truth, but boy, do they get rescued in their hurry by the doctors who worked on Agent Orange. They get into all sorts of crazy discussions, like how do we define it, right? Do we say it's an association? I don't know that word association.

It makes anyone feel like that it looks like it causes some damage. And obviously it comes down to, and you know, bring up Bernadine Healy, who I've had, you know, talked about on this show a lot in that incredible interview. This is the time when we do have the opportunity to understand whether or not there are susceptible children, perhaps genetically, perhaps they have a metabolic issue, mitochondrial disorder, immunological issue that makes them more susceptible to vaccines plural or to one particular vaccine or to a component of a vaccine like mercury. The fact that there is concern that you don't want to know that susceptible group

is a real disappointment to me. If you know that susceptible group, you can save those children. The reason why they didn't want to look for those susceptibility groups was because they're afraid that if they found them, however big or small they were, that that would scare the public away. And that's what you see in this conversation going on and they address it all the time. You know, leading anywhere where it sounds like, yeah, there may be a side effect. Vaccines, you know, could they cause autism? Well, let's be very, very careful because if anything alludes to that, people are going to stop vaccinating. And then the big question about safety, which this is a section I want to read because it really does get into the heart of one, because it's so critical to this issue that we're all dealing with.

If you're if you're daring to ask questions, you bring up, Bobby Kennedy gets a tack for saying, I just want to look at the mercury in vaccine. I just want to ask some questions about how these safety studies were done. But this is an excerpt that I think really sort of points out what their real conversation is. I'll read this. This is Dr. Shewitz called it like it was. I do think that we have to have a consistent story of our messages to be heard. I mean, we would like to separate the significance of our decision from the science. But people hear one thing.

Is it safe or is it not? And if we waffle, they will say, well, let's do single dose instead of the combination vaccines like MMR. I mean, I love that you wrote this in here because obviously President Trump just last week was saying, break it apart, break up the MMR, single doses. I don't know if he knows it's not available in America and the moment, but he's making this exact point, which all. of these people in Spanel are probably rolling over now. And and everybody knows that this is going to reduce the vaccinating of children. This is their whole problem. Yes. We can't have any decision that reduces people vaccinating. But you're being tasked not with that question, but is it safe or not? Are these studies real? So it goes on to say this, Dr. Caback, I agree with you. I think what is

badly need in this field is some communication mechanisms for health care professionals who are dealing with vaccinations. Now the suggestion has been made that anything you say about risk is going to decrease adoption of the procedure. That, of course, is the worry. This is what they're obsessed with. It goes on. Then you deal with lowering immunization rates and increasing disease, deaths, and problems associated with it. How do we ensure safety associated with the vaccinations? I don't think that the notion is the right notion. We are not, this is it right here. We are not trying to ensure safety. We are trying to maximize safety. And they're right there. I think that sentence, I've tried to explain it to people.

You are not getting safety trials. They are not doing safety trials. They're doing assessments of the overall thing. And it always has a casualty they're willing to accept. And they're doing it right here. We recognize that there may be some risks. This gets back to the probability issue. There are small risks associated with anything. The question is, how small are they? And finally, we've got a dragon by the tail here. At the end of the line, what we know is, and I agree that the more negative that, presentation is, the less likely people are to use vaccination. Meaning if we say anything that any of these studies are real or there's any issues that these people are complaining about, that there's some

validity, people will stop vaccinating, and then we are caught in a kind of a trap. How we work our way out of the trap, I think, is the charge, essentially is what we are here to decide. And this is, this ultimately ends up the profound statement, vaccines don't cause autism, right? This is, it's this discussion and people go they looked at the science they were you know thorough about it no they were thorough about one thing we've got to figure out how to talk about this in a way that doesn't scare people away and then there's a whole section on all the different categories of you know which words they'll use which words they're going to use this this point you just made here i think the thing they fear most of all is um vaccine hesitancy yeah and the cause of vaccine hesitancy

known that you can identify the cause of vaccine hesitancy is reality right that's the problem you give your baby an injection that night your baby has seizures you end up in the emergency room and they tell you oh seizures seizures is the most normal thing in the world for babies babies get it all the time now if there were an adult product that caused seizures might be when you're driving when you're standing in the kitchen it would be a big deal yeah but a childhood product that causes seizures is apparently just fine. So it becomes normalized seizures. And the studies that have studied seizures that follow vaccination, and they know which vaccines cause seizures more, they know all

that stuff. It's written there in the side effects that you never see the vaccine industry you never get. That's right. No doctor gives you. But what they say is this is a very serious matter. And if you keep reading, the reason those people in CDC and in the vaccine industry, the reason they say this is a very serious matter is not because it's bad that your baby ended up in the emergency room with seizures. It's because this causes vaccine hesitancy. And this mother might be less likely to give this child the same vaccine product that just sent her to the emergency room at 2 in the morning. No, she will be less likely if she's got her head turned on. And yet this whole game with the Institute of Medicine involved no beakers, no lab coats, no blood tests, no autopsy reports. There was no science going on there.

There was syntax, not science. They were just deciding, how shall we say it? And in there, by the way, I don't know if you remember it, but there's a few sections where a guy says, one of the experts, says, let's approach it the same way we did with Agent Orange. Let's say it this way. You know, with Agent Orange, we said, no proof of an association. or no association of proof or and they keep playing these word games and it is it's funny that they're doing it but the end of the day is not funny they come out and tell the united states no problem we don't see any connection between these two things yeah it's actually quite horrifying it's disgusting and you know as you as you worked on you know investigating and looking into this book i mean part of your career is based around motive what we're motivates people to do things. As you look at this, as you read transcripts like this,

a lot of, you know, obviously I speak all over on this issue and I'll see people say it's greed, it's just money. I don't think greed or money really explains a huge part of this. There's power. Maybe it's a religious belief, but these people, they sit around and clearly are manipulating words. to try to make sure that you don't understand that. Here's what you get across and you see here. We don't want to lie. We don't want to be caught lying. Is there a way to say, yes, there is injury,

but in a way that your average person reading it, what would be the best way to say it so that when they read it, it doesn't sound like we say it causes injury? Like, that's the entire discussion. It's true, and there's a couple of times that somebody says quite literally, I don't want to take the time to find it now, but quite literally he says something like, We need to find a way to say this that shows an emotional concern and yet does not communicate an association or a relationship.

And they're literally saying, can we find a way to say it that nobody will understand? And boy, government is expert at it. I want to just comment on what you're asking about in terms of motive. Because putting vaccines aside, you've got the same strategy used for Agent Orange, the same strategy used for silicone breast implants, The same strategy used for baby powder, baby formula, which has got a lot of bad things in it that shouldn't have. And who makes it, by the way? A pharma company. A pharma company makes that, and you got no reason to distrust them, I say facetiously.

So is it greed, is it money? I think it is many competing incentives, meaning if you go back to the COVID lockdowns, for example, if you used to make bumper stickers, now you make stickers that say, Stan seeks fit apart. You used to make perfume atomizers, now you make hand sanitizer. So corporate, you know, the industry catches up with what's going on in the world. And hand sanitizer, which isn't good for you, by the way, alcohol in the skin all day, but hand sanitizer became a massive product, obviously. And so any of these ways, these are the competing financial incentives.

But is it enough to say that these guys and that the pharma companies do it just for financial and that the government does? No. Because that wouldn't explain Agent Orange, that wouldn't explain Burnpits, it wouldn't explain Gulf War Syndrome, for example. And all of these are such easy cases to make, by the way. And they get made later on after the media has died down some university study or some government study, Veterans Administration study, comes around and says, oh, that was wrong.

They debunk the debunkers, right? Almost every time. But the answer is that governments don't want to be a fairer. found to make mistakes. So government, it's about control. Right? And if you, the way governments of course do make mistakes, but what they say is, no, that wasn't a mistake.

So we take one you're familiar with, you know, the definition of pandemic. So pandemic used to mean a serious disease that causes serious injury and death, which is spreading around the world. Guess what it doesn't mean anymore. It no longer requires spreading around the world. It no longer requires making people sick, and it no longer requires people dying. So our use of pandemic in my life and yours was emergency. Pandemic, holy shi, is a problem.

The current use of pandemic is nothing more than a new virus. Right, a new virus. And no one's going back to see, did Webster's, is it changed this, right? We're all going on the assumption of what we knew it to be. Exactly. And you get into the definition of a vaccine. You know, it used to be stops transmission, stops disease, protects you. Now it's just, you know, you know.

Mounts an immune response is all it is today. Right. Which doesn't protect you, which doesn't stop you from getting it, doesn't stop you from spreading it. So these are the new definition. So staying with your question about motive. For governments to work well, they have to have people believe them. It's super important. Even the Soviet Union, which we would say, you know, under Stalin, for example,

we'd say that's a terrible government and it's oppressive. They still had courts. And so you said, what happened to so-and-so? Oh, he went to court. He was found guilty and he was sent to, you know, to Siberia. Why did they have courts? Why even bother? They could just point a gun at you and say, because they want the narrative to work because

the method for controlling large populations is not gunfire. It doesn't work. Gunfire is, you know, far too limited to control large populations. What controls large populations is story. And the story is, India, the story is this life doesn't matter so much, I'm poor, I'm living on the street, half the population of Mumbai is living on the street homeless, how does that work? Because the next life is better. The story of the United States is I'm having a real time in my life. I'm a black kid, 14 years old, I got nowhere to go. But the story

is, oh, I can become president. Or the story is, if I get into court, they'll treat me fair. These are narratives that are very important to how, and this isn't about America, it's about how all populations have been controlled throughout human history by small groups of people. of people. Give you a quick example. The king and the queen, they look over the castle wall, and there's always a wall. Why is there always a wall? Because they don't want people coming over the wall.

They know that people will be angry and focus at them. And if they see their subjects down below fighting with each other, that's good news. Because it means they're fighting down there and they're not climbing over the wall. Is the U.S. government any different? Is the Russian government any different, French, Chinese, et cetera? No. It has to be perceived as credible. So what we tell you has to be true.

So when you have masks, which was so clearly by any measure you could figure it out on your own, you're going to see pictures of Fauci, Biden, and Wienski all wearing two masks, one black that's a little smaller and one white underneath so we can see it's two masks. And they have to do that and they have to show us if they're doing it, well, it must be. So the basic thing I'm trying to break in this book, and that is if you can believe they lied about Agent Orange, then would you just take a small step with me and accept that they lied about baby powder for 50 years? Would you take a small step with me and see that they were lying about vaccine safety?

Let me take a real one, Tetanus. Right? So Tetanus vaccine, which is on the childhood vaccine schedule, I think it's five vaccines, several of them before 18 months. Well, you can't get that tetanus in the United States. You'd have to, you'd need an army to try to find. First of all, it's not transmissible. People often don't know that. And the number of tetanus deaths in the United States was 13 over 10 years.

Wow. And it was all elderly people. And so your kid getting tetanus. Yeah, you get a sense. This is the map you have in the book. Oh, there's the world. So everything orange on that map is less than one in a million. Yeah. And the only place you can get tetanus is you go to Central Africa. 22 countries in Europe, zero. Russia, one case. Central America and the United Central America and South America zero out of a hundred thousand. So the point is you can't find tetanus, right? And yet the five shots. You're right. Like you're giving these kids

something that the odds of they're coming in contact with this thing. You can't, you couldn't find it. And you certainly couldn't get all the diseases. Now I'll go real controversial for me. In this book, I look at each one of the diseases. because what's the question a parent should be asking. Are there any possible side effects from the intervention, the vaccine? Is my kid likely to get the disease? Right. Is the vaccine work? And is the disease really bad, right?

Yeah. So if the disease is what they call every disease, they say it's fatal, right? Well, I want to tell you how many people on the planet Earth, all eight and a half billion people died from polio last year, it is zero. Wow. 540 people on the planet Earth contracted polio last year. 94% of that was vaccine-induced poliomyelitis, meaning it comes from the vaccine. Yeah.

So you know how to say that's that is a true forbidden fact. Why? Because polio is the greatest killer of all time. No, it's not the greatest killer of all time. The biggest killer in the world today, in terms of an infectious disease, is the one we don't vaccinate for in America, tuberculosis. That's the one vaccine we don't give in the United States. That actually has hundreds of thousands of deaths, but go figure why that's the one we don't give. But my broad...

Well, I mean, you allude to the fact that there are many studies showing a beneficial, has some beneficial, you know, unexpected benefit beyond... Yes, the BCG vaccine is far and away the best vaccine product there is. It's 100 years old. It's given in almost every country in the world, but the United States. And it has all kinds of other benefits, reducing cancer of the bladder, reducing other respiratory diseases, and yet that's the one we don't give. And so all your left-

Just put a light, I've covered this, and you don't get specifically this, but they have done studies, very interesting studies, BCG vaccine, studies in Boston, where they give two in one month, and it cures, maybe literally rids people of type one diabetes three years later, almost 100% success.

Why that's not a treatment now? I don't know. And let me be clear, because people freak out, because I'm talking about vaccines. it's a treatment when it's used that way, not necessarily as a vaccine, but similar studies, I believe in France, multiple sclerosis. They have two shots of BCG vaccine. And I had one of the scientists working on the study on Denise Faustman on the show years ago asking about this study. And I said to her, it was really interesting. I said, don't you think that the fact that given this

vaccine somehow the fact that's curing diabetes three years later shows us there's a benefit to tuberculosis and she says oh that's exactly what it shows it used it's ubiquitous it was a bacteria that we all came in contact with we've evolved with it and our immune system is primed by it she says I think many of our immune disease issues are the fact there was too much chlorinated too much all these things that have cleaned our environment so much we're not coming in contact with it anymore and we're not developing that like that priming of the immune system super fascinating by then I think I'd lost three quarters of my audience because I had all already has said, has Dell found a vaccine he likes, but it is. I mean, and that's what I love

about how you're looking at this. It's super logical. Let's not, let's get rid of all of our ideology for a minute and just look at how is this study done. If it's debunked, do you know who is debunked by? How is it done? What were they saying? What do they look at and what did they actually determine? And when you start looking at, you realize there's a formula here of misdirection, I think, at the very least. And so, The reason I think vaccines, you know, is I sort of say this a lot because I ended up, I mean, when I started this, I was a liberal progressive from Boulder, Colorado when I first, you know, started investing in vaccines. My politics started shifting around this. And I find myself speaking to conservative groups.

Well, why this issue? I said, you know, because the more I look at it, we're being lied to about a lot of things by our government. We're supposed to have a government of foreign by the people. We have the only constitution in the world that really celebrates the individual. And I think this may be the one issue that affects every single citizen in this country. We've all gone through this program. We've all been told it makes us healthier. It makes us safer.

It makes us better than we were born, you know, if you believe in God, better than God created you. You'll never have disease. Of course, they've never achieved that. But I've always thought if we can show that that was a lie, over banking, over, I mean, you know, Gulf War Syndrome effects. you know, veterans doesn't affect me, so do I really care? You know, a lot of the things you point out, talk about it, I don't have a baby, I'm not using talcum powder, I don't really care. This is something we're all involved with.

We're all giving it to our kids. And then with COVID, we all had to take this thing. Yeah. It seems to me if you can show how the government has been really, you know, manipulating the truth around this conversation, maybe a light bulb goes off and enough people where we say, maybe I need to get involved a little bit more. Maybe I need to take a look at politics. Maybe I shouldn't trust so completely government health agencies.

But then that has a danger too, which you must be concerned about. You mean the danger that people won't listen when it matters? Yes. Well, of course. I mean, nobody has hurt, you know, vaccine uptake more than the U.S. government through COVID. Right. I mean, they got to a place now where more than 90% of parents did not give this COVID vaccine to their six months old as they were supposed to.

So, you know, anytime I encounter anybody who's all gung-ho, listen to the CDC and who are you and you're not a doctor, et cetera, et cetera, they're not listening to the CDC either. The booster uptake, which would now be either 9 or 11 by this point, if you follow the CDC schedule, and one a year for the rest of your life for your child. So we're talking about a child would get three at six months old and then would get one a year. So you're talking about 80 or so of these, or 90 or so of these vaccines in their life. time. Hey, folks, you better be damn sure you want to be doing that if you're going to be sticking people with this particular MRNA product, which has some problems, obviously, and why wouldn't it? Yeah.

I want to go back to Bernardine Healy for a second, who was the head of the NIH, because she says that what she proposed was, let's study the kids who have autism. The reason that's so important is when you look at something, they say things like, oh, this has been given tens of millions of times with no problem. But I have a very good analogy for this, which is airplane care. crashes. Most don't crash. Most make it just fine. And we all take a chance and it's about, I can't remember what it is right now, but it's something like a thousand deaths per million or something like that. Per billion, sorry, a thousand per billion. But vaccines, just MRI,

is about 34,000 deaths per billion. So we ought to really be thinking about it. But here's the airplane analogy. An airplane crashes, we go crazy to figure everything out. We've got the two black boxes. We're reassembling the parts. We're really focused. on not on the ones that don't crash, we're focusing on the ones that do crash. And that's what she recommended, which is focus on the kids who do have severe autism or brain inflammation or encephalitis. Everyone on this planet believes that that is so obviously what should be done that everyone in this planet believes that is what was done.

Of course, that's right. So that's what's so shocking when she says, we have never done that. The government of the United States of America, the National Institute, to help the most funded, you know, research facility in the world has never looked at the children who appear to have gotten autism, retro vaccine. We've never studied that group. Yeah, we never studied that group. Never studied all the vaccines together. Right. Which we would do with all kinds of other toxins. And if you're just going into, you know, you're making a recipe of spaghetti, it's a combination of all these things. And you don't just study one of them and say,

well, I'm just going to have my spaghetti with just salt tonight. Yeah. That's all. all I want on it. Although it's not necessarily bad, by the way, pasta with just salt. You need olive oil. And it gets better with tomato sauce. The whole thing gets better. Well, they didn't say, what about the whole recipe? And the whole recipe is these, you know, it includes garticil for God's sake and gartersils for cervical cancer. And they want my nine-year-old son to take it. My nine-year-old son, who doesn't have a cervix and isn't going to get one, I guess. I realize I'm in a time when, who knows, that's possible. Careful. It's a third jail. Now, that's the, exactly, that's the third rail for sure.

So in the beginning, as you know, vaccines were cowpox, and they would assume that's close to smallpox. So they take the pus from the cow and rub it into a wound or cause you to ingest it some other way. Vaca means cow, that's the word vaccine, et cetera. Then they went to the heel around the hoof of a horse. If it had pus coming out, ooh, get that stuff. Let's put that in people, and they were doing all these experiments to create things. So in the beginning, over time, vaccines evolved to include a lot of experiments, a lot of ingredients.

Here they are. Dried rabbit spinal cords, duck embryo, chicken blood, human bile. You don't want to throw that out because that's obviously good to inject people with. Ground up rat spleen and boiled pigskin. But enough about the past. That's all when we were crazy. I want to talk about the modern ones, because we've come a long way. Here are the modern ingredients in your current vaccines.

Oh, gelatin from boiled pig skin, just like the old one. Chicken embryo protein. Blood from the hearts of cow fetuses. Human fetus DNA, oil extracted from shark liver, proteins from worm ovaries. You don't want to leave that out. Monkey kidney DNA fragments. Now, when I think of this, I always think of that Macbeth play,

where the witches are stirring the brew and they're saying, I wrote it down, Eye of new, toe of frog, lizard's leg, tongue of dog. And you say, well, that's an insane brew they're making. But that stuff I just read is in the vaccines that are given this morning in hospitals all over America to newborns and other people. Now, I'm not a scientist. They're going to say, oh, well, let me tell you why the monkey's tongue is in there. Let me tell you why the ovaries from the moth is in there. And then real quick, there's the chemical ingredients.

formaldehyde. Well, who doesn't already know that formaldehyde is not. Now, hey, give me some formaldehyde. Everybody knows that's no good for you. Polysorbate 80, which causes infertility. And this is my favorite one, potassium chloride. Now, the reason that's my favorite one is that is the ingredient used as the third injection when we execute people by a lethal injection, right?

Obviously, a smaller dose for infants, I'm not claiming it's the same dose. But all this stuff, phenyl borox, aluminum salts, mercury, Triton X100, which is used in spermicides. You really want to inject my baby with something that's used in spermicides? Okay, I'll do it, but tell me how it makes sense. Just give me a good argument. They gave no argument in the case of moving the COVID vaccine down to six months. They didn't even make a case. And so what I'm hoping is if you can be skeptical about Agent Orange, if you can be skeptical about baby powder, if you can accept that governments lie, and by the way, is this anti-American on my part,

No, this is the most pro-American thing I can do because I believe in that Constitution. And I know the idea is that we want senators and congressmen who represent us, presidents who represent us, and we want to be told the truth because that was the deal of the Constitution. Before that, you couldn't say, you know, you couldn't say to the king, you can't come into my house. He says, what do you mean, your house? You're my subject. I go anywhere I want. But the United States, this beautiful experiment, said, we will have rights as individuals. The COVID-19 mass vaccination program is the worst incursion we've had against that freedom, because they weren't just saying, you have to do what we say.

We have to stick something in your body that you don't know what it is, and you don't know how many times we're going to do it, and you don't know if it works or not, you just have to listen to us. One last quick note. No parent would let a stranger walk up to their kid and inject them with something they don't understand. And yet millions of Americans do exactly that every time they go to someone, CVS, every time they go to Long's drugs, a 23-year-old assistant pharmacist who doesn't know what he's

mixing, doesn't know what questions you're supposed to ask, figures it out, and gives your baby an injection, and people go along with it. And I'm hoping this book says, not about vaccines, but about everything, be skeptical of what you're told to believe and be particularly skeptical when you're told to be afraid of something. You know, one of the things I love, sometimes you'll write on the chapters, like how long it's going to take you to read it. really understand you know the attention span it takes it takes a couple hours to get through it you have QR codes at the bottom of every page with the citations so now you don't have to type it in I can just sit there and click and go and read on it

so it's just it's a perfect manual for anyone that really wants to just enter in this conversation so I love this book I really hope it does well think it's going to be a game changer thank you so much don't don't sign off because I want to tell you something this book wouldn't exist and my interest in the criminology aspect of this, and there's a lot of crime involved with pharma and with government agencies, it wouldn't exist without you,

and starting with Vaxed. I remember seeing Vaxed and thinking, who's this guy, and then learning more about you, and then seeing that the value of Vaxed had for me to show to other people. And that started an interest of mine that led to, at first, skepticism, and then later to the actual criminality aspect,

which is my area, and then I can, I mean, the work you're doing, it's absolutely remarkable. I'd say 40% of the stuff in that book, I would not have, if you hadn't squeezed it out of the U.S. government through all the legal actions that you and Aaron and I can have taken. So the thanks goes both ways. The book is forbidden facts. You've just seen how brilliantly Gavin talks about these issues.

I mean, the plane crash scenario in here, it's so effective. And it's, I think it really is going to be effective for those friends of yours that you have out there, that loved one that just can't hear it from you, can't hear it from Del Batree, can't hear it from a doctor. How about the guy that, you know, protects, you know, presidential candidates and has, you know, just been investigating a criminologist, decided to look into it himself and makes these comparisons in a way that I've never seen it done before. Where do we find this book? Amazon, Amazon, Amazon. Amazon, Amazon. on, check it out, go get a copy for those loved ones. For many of you watching this show, you may say, well, I get this, but these are arguments, I think, that, you know, you're always asking me,

how do I make the argument? These are arguments where you can meet people right where they're at at places they will totally understand. In some ways, I told you, it's, I think it was called transverse theory and geometry of A equals B and B equals C, A must equal C. And that is what I think this book does so brilliantly. I wanted to talk to you, you brought up backstage about the Kissinger report. Is that what we call it? And we are starting to look at eugenics and this moment where essentially America signed on to eugenics in that program. Let's move that to off the record. While we get into that on off the record right after the show, so that's how good? Good.