The Highwire with Del Bigtree - GEERT VANDEN BOSSCHE: ‘MY FINAL CALL’

Episode Date: May 6, 2022

Lockdowns Expand in China; Details of New ‘Disinformation Czar’; New #PfizerDocuments Released; Geert Vanden Bossche’s Final, Dire Warning to the WorldGuest: Geert Vanden Bossche, DVM, PhD#VandenBossche #GVBFinalCallBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

Good morning, good afternoon, good evening, wherever you are out there in the world, we're all going to step out onto a high wire today. I saw a headline today to me that just about encapsulates all that is wrong on the planet today. I know we can talk about all those other issues, but look at this. This is NPR. Vaccine-derived polio is on the rise. Let me read that sentence again. vaccine-derived polio is on the rise. A new vaccine aims to stop the spread.

Now, just that headline alone is about all you need. I don't really need to get into details. Try to wrap your head around what you just read. How many headlines like that do we all just sort of walk by? Oh, yeah, whatever, getting all in my life. When the entire conversation of vaccination always comes down to, well, what about polio? I mean, we eradicated polio with vaccines. And that's what conversation comes up every time you have it. Well, and I've been saying right

here on the high wire for some time now, the polio story is not over. If you've been watching the high wire for more than three years, I have told you that we have a polio epidemic in the world that's being caused by the vaccine. Now, there are people that would say that was misinformation or disinformation or malinformation or whatever you want to call it. But it happens to be the fact that it's such a problem now that even NPR is having to admit. They have a problem, but thank God. Oh, thank God, though. The same people that made the problem have now got our solution and cure.

Let's get in this article just a little bit so you have a sense of what we're talking about. In 2016, eyeing an uptick in vaccine-derived polio, a global health officials altered the composition of the oral vaccine. Previously, the vaccine protected against all three types of wild polio, the virus that circulates naturally in the environment. Then they withdrew one of those types, the one that was leading to most of the vaccine-derived cases but whose wild form had been successfully eradicated. Only there was a development that hadn't been anticipated. Really?

Vaccine-derived polio virus of that type was still in circulation from earlier iterations of the oral vaccine. And now with the reformulated vaccine, increasing numbers of people who were no longer vaccinated against it, so there was further spread. Countries that had previously eradicated polio in Africa, the Middle East, and parts of Asia are seeing new outbreaks of vaccine-derived polio. Those who have been immunized with live virus can shed it in their stool, which can then spread through sewage in places with poor sanitation, literally everywhere we use this vaccine. If the virus stays weak, it can expose the unvaccinated to polio and give them immunity. But if it mutates and regains virulence, someone who isn't vaccinated can become sick with vaccine-derived polio after contact with the contaminated wastewater. Well, there you have the story.

The story, as I have told you here on the high wire, is we have vaccine strain polio. Now, they're saying that they've got a vaccine that will stop the problem they created. But here's the problem. That strain that they were using the vaccine, for some unknown reason outside of their control in an oral polio vaccine, was spreading faster than the wild virus that they were attempting to eradicate. So they just stopped using it. Well, now they're going to reintroduce it. Remember, reintroduced the strain, the vaccine strain that was spreading so fast that they thought before the best thing to do is just to stop using it.

Well, now they're going to use it again. And I guess we'll all sit around and wait to see how well that turns out. But my point when you look at this is if you look at a story like this and really break it down, what you realize is we have been putting all of our faith in the WHO and the CDC and the NIH, these organizations because they've got it figured out. They've got vaccines. They're eradicating disease around the world. But when you look at it closer and closer, you realize,

They don't know what the hell they're doing. This is a giant experiment. And they're entering into situations without all the answers of what will happen when they do it. And I've told you before, we sat at meetings where they were discussing bringing back a new polio vaccine to try and eradicate the disease that they had caused that is now spreading and they were worried about it. There's many worries to it. Will that now vaccine strain is being vaccinated for be something that the other vaccinated, countries that are vaccinated for wild strain, will those two line up?

Or will we cause a problem that could then sweep the world? They don't know. But hell, we'll figure it out sooner or later. Let's just see what happens. This is a guessing game. It is a guessing game that the entire world has been involved in. And they've even already finished their history books saying, we eradicated polio.

But you did not. You did not. You caused a problem that may very well bring it back all around the entire world. I hope that is not the case. But when people count their chickens before they hatch, there can be a problem. And when the entire world invests in people that count their chickens before they hatch, we all have a problem. And that is going to be the discussion for today.

Coming up, I have an interview with Gert Van Den Bosch. We've spoken to before. I wanted to ask him, we're being told we're almost at the end of this pandemic. In fact, the pandemic phase here in America is over by Tony Fauci's. accord. Well, when I asked him, here's just a taste of what you're about to hear. Did people really think that this would be simple? And it is like, you know, everybody gets a shot and that is how we vaccinate ourselves outside of the pandemic. This is an unbelievable, dangerous nonsense. This virus is just preparing. It's the valley of fitness. It is just

preparing itself. It's not going to have a happy end. Believe me. Now, if I wasn't about to deliver what may be one of the most important interviews in the history of certainly my life and maybe science as we know it, I would be covering the fact that the Pfizer dump has begun, a gigantic dump of documents through the ICAN release has come out. We have got 80,000 new pages and documents from Pfizer. Now remember, our lawyer, Aaron Siri, representing many of the frontline doctors, went out and challenged the FDA, saying you have to release the Pfizer documents from their trials. We want to see how the FDA came to the conclusions that this vaccine was safe,

that was ready for the public, that it could be authorized, and the FDA, of course, wanted to hold back for 55 years and then 75 years, and luckily Aaron Siri reigns supreme through appeals and everything else, and the judge demanded that just as every intelligent person in the world should, we need to see your work. Let's see how those trials went down. So we should probably do a whole show on it. We're going to push that down the road a little bit, but you can get a jump on it.

All you have to do is go to our website, I Can Decide.org, and you will find there, get the documents, and you can start reading the 80,000 new pages. We have all of the documents that they've provided. There is some big, gigantic stuff. There's people reporting on it all over the world right now. And just so you know, this has always been available to you. All you have to do is be signed up to our newsletter, and you would have known the second that these documents were released, they would have been in your hands first. So all you have to do to be a member of our newsletter, www.thehighwire.com.

Just go down the page there, the first page, and just put your email in. That's it. We're not charging you anything. We're not selling you anything. You will get all of the latest breaking legal news and stories that we have and know when documents like this are being dumped. I just want to point out in that polio story, there was. no high wire to report on the potential dangers of a wild, oral polio, attenuated virus vaccine that we don't even use in the United States of America because it does cause polio. It always has.

They want a cheaper, easier version to use. That's why it's still used in the third world and that's why they're having problems. Well, the high wire probably would have reported on that, just like we reported on all of the problems with coronavirus and the coronavirus vaccine. The world is changing because we now have people investigating instead of just walking past headlines that on their face are quite terrifying. This is what you do when you sponsor the work at the high wire. So for all of you that have been donating to the high wire making it possible, the revelations and document dumps and the truth that the world is now aware of, you have made that possible. If you're watching the high wire every single week and you're asking yourself, man, I wish I could make a difference in this crazy world.

Well, don't just watch the high wire. How about you support us and our nonprofit and all the legal work that we do? It's not free what we do. It takes a lot of work. We have a huge team and we spend a fortune on court cases. You make that possible. So please go to the highwire or I Can Decide.org. Click on the donate button and become a recurring donor today.

You are the ones changing the world. I'm just here reporting on it. And speaking of reporting, this is time for the Jackson. report. All right, Jeffrey, I know this week, you know, we've all been preparing for the Geert Banden-Bosch interview. So I asked you to sort of focus on the stories that maybe really tune us into what we're about to discuss. So to begin with, you know, what are you sharing with us today? Yeah, just a couple here. Really, you know, one of the bigger stories that I'm seeing across the world is what's still continuing happening in China. So we saw in

Beijing a lockdown now. And this was in Shanghai. So the Shanghai lockdown was the first one. We saw high rises of people screaming because they were trapped in there. People being tested and protesting too, which was very rare for China. Mass protests, mass testing. We also saw people fighting for food because the supermarkets were running low on food because this is the major container port for shipping and for industry. So the food was having a problem getting there quarantine centers they were separating kids you probably see that from the video there that was all happening in shanghai it's been going on for really over a month now and that is now spilling over into Beijing so this is what the headlines have been showing over this past week

when word was coming that Beijing may lock down we saw this new york time shanghai's food crisis prompt residents in Beijing to stockpile supplies so Beijing is comprised it's it's it's It's China's capital city. So a lot of their governance, politics are headquartered there. And it has 16 districts. So of those 16 districts, there's about 12 of them right now that are that are on a mild lockdown with mandatory testing. So this was the headline.

And we saw this same ramp up in Shanghai. So they're now testing in Beijing, 20 million residents. So Beijing expands COVID mass testing to nearly 20 million residents as it races to avoid Shanghai style lockdown. So as we speak, these Beijing residents living and working in 12 of these 16 districts have been ordered to take three consecutive nucleic acid tests. That started Tuesday, Wednesday, and now today. And that was what they're finding from those is basically just over 500 cases. 50, that's 5-0 in the last 24 hours.

Now, again, it's over 20 million residents in this city. So just put that in context. L.A. County has just over 10 million people. And yesterday, they tallied 2,484 COVID cases. New York City, that's a little closer to Beijing, so it's close to 20 million residents. They had 3,100 cases yesterday. So Beijing is doing these lockdowns, measures with just over 50 cases. And we know that this Amicron variant at this moment is mainly asymptomatic cases, as we saw in Shanghai as well.

So it's kind of fascinating that this COVID-Zero thing is still being pursued. not only in Shanghai after seeing the disaster over this last basically two months, but Beijing seems to be entering that. And they're beginning to reopen isolation centers. So this was the headline here. Beijing reopens isolation center in attempt to avoid lockdown. This thing has been closed since the 2020, I get the Wuhan situation in China. And now they're postponing schools, Beijing to postpone school reopening for at least one

week after Labor Day holiday. So they're postponing kindergarten, colleges, all the way up to high schools until May. 11th up until now. We know how that works, these long drip lockdowns that just seem to keep going. But what's interesting here, I found in Time magazine, kind of a window into the politics in China. There's a lot of people guessing about what may be going on. But this was a pretty straightforward article, what a Beijing COVID-19 lockdown would mean for China and the world. And it says here, the Shanghai lockdown in particular has been a grueling test of patients for the city's 25 million inhabitants with reports of tense confrontations with authorities and even rare protests, but the CCP will not allow anyone

to describe the measure as a failure, says Steve Zhang, director of the S-O-A-S-China Institute in London. He says, a full lockdown in Beijing with similar levels of mismanagement in Shanghai will be seen by many outside of China as a demonstration of failure, but will not be allowed to be portrayed in China, Singh tells time. So this is really interesting. Now, they talked in that article about the disruptions to the food supply chain. We talked about that last week. Shanghai had a bigger impact on that because Shanghai is one of the world's largest shipping ports.

It's also one of the largest manufacturing hubs in the world. Beijing is more of a political center. So it does have relevance as far as symbolism. And we know that Ji Jinping, he's going into an election year in the fall here. So for China to steer away from the COVID zero policy at this point seems very unlikely. So we're just kind of tracking this in Beijing. But really one of the big stories coming out of China is the censorship. And you know, we get windows into this.

How bad is it? It is really that bad as we hear. But these are the articles, some of the reporting on it. And it does seem to be pretty concerning. Like Wuhan all over again, as Shanghai protests China censors. And I looked around and I did find a gentleman. He is a China business and finance writer for the Economist magazine. His name is Don Winland.

And on his Twitter account, you can check out what he's been saying. He's been in Shanghai for quite some time. And he says this on his Twitter account, just several days ago. Today is my 46 day in quarantine lockdown in Shanghai since March 3rd. I feel like a prisoner of the Chinese state. He was able to publish an article in The Economist. This was the title. It's an eye-catching title.

Lockdown in Shanghai, I've caught a glimpse of our techno-dispopian future. I pulled some quotes here. I think it's very important for the listeners. and people watching this to read along this with me and check it out. He says here, across Chinese social media, the story of the lockdown has been typed out in a kind of disappearing digital ink.

People take to their phones and computers to rant about food shortages or medical disasters or to post footage of large protests only to see their complaints scrubbed from the internet by China's army of sensors. For a time, the word Shanghai became unsearchable as if the communist party was pretending the city didn't exist, as long as it was ripe with COVID.

He says, scoring meals can mean hours of monitoring your phone with tens of thousands of people trying to purchase the same small quantity of goods at any one time. Quick typing, fevering, fevering, refreshing, and repeated pressing of buy buttons are essential. Digital breadlines form with many ending up empty handed as supplies run out in seconds. And he finishes off by saying the government is cracking down to dissenters. Police visit people who post unfavorable commentary on Twitter, signs in COVID camps, warn patients that posting images of their surroundings and social media could violate the law. Now, some chilling commentary there.

Yeah. Go ahead. Oh, no, I'm sorry. Go ahead. Well, I was just saying, you know, these images that were, I mean, I, with all of this, and I just want to sort of give a caveat here, because I don't know what the truth is. I don't know who this guy is. And to everyone out there, we like to have a reporter on the ground.

We love to have someone from the high wire in China or someone that we know to really report out. But we're seeing these crazy images, right? I mean, we're seeing people being handcuffed, apparently, that, you know, didn't go out and get tested. This is videos coming out that are all lined up. Is this real? Is this staged? Is there some film crew nearby? Is this what China wants us all to believe is happening?

Is this what our own media wants us to believe is happening? I mean, I don't know. Or did you see this image that came out this week of little kids that are going to school in Shanghai in full PPE? I mean, it's just, it's hard to imagine that this is real. As you see, these little children going off, you know, you've got this, a couple of these kids are just a hot mess, their gears falling off. But what I want to say about it, Jeffrey, is that we don't know what the truth is. I don't know if China is propagating this.

I don't necessarily trust our own media or our own government or what they're trying to say. But here's what we do know as we look at this. And whether that guy writing for the economist is a real human being, I guess we can tried to assume he is, I think we should be careful. But somebody, somewhere, especially China, clearly wants us to believe that an approach towards COVID is zero COVID, where a complete lockdown of everything, locking in your house, ripping people out of their homes to turn them into quarantine facilities, sticking in

them in giant stadiums is a possible future for people in humanity. That's an image they want in their heads. something they want us to believe. And even if it's make-believe, it's terrifying that these are images that we're being taught to accept. And that's what I want to put out there is the caveat from what we're doing here. And by the way, if you're out there and you know someone in China would like to be an inside reporter that you know that you can vet and buy for, please go ahead and have them contact us whistleblower at I can decide.org. We'd really like to, you know, get down to what's really taking place from someone we trust. I just want to put that out there.

Right. And those are great points. Always question what you see. Always question what you read. In China, they do have a green health code. And this is something that they use. It's kind of a glorified vaccine passport. And this, if anybody wants to really read about what it entails, this article here, it says, not easy being green. China's health codes define COVID-era life. So right now, in Beijing for instance travel in and out of the of the city by plane or train or even via road because they have spot checks you need a negative nucleic acid test and you have to have a green health code so for example this is an app this health code is an app that people have to have on their phone now it's not mandatory but in order to travel in order to go into stores including

grocery stores and pharmacies need to have a green I guess color on this health app so for instance if if someone has this on their phone and they go into an area unbeknownst to them that has a high transmission rate of this COVID, this phone goes to red and they have to go get tested and they can't get in any place. Or if they go to a pharmacy and they buy something related to COVID, such as like maybe vitamin D or zinc or if Ivermectin if they have it over the counter over there, I'd highly doubt that, but maybe they do. They, that, that automatically leads to a red code. Or I would imagine, you can imagine where this was going with all of the, you know, in a restaurant, you know, we're all, I was saying when we're all

taking the picture of the menu, what are you signing up for there? Well, obviously, they can track our phones into places. So if you went to a restaurant and someone had an outbreak, I'm sure your phone would go red. I mean, that's some futuristic stuff, and the technology is here, folks. It's with us now. Yeah, it's geolocation tracking. And describing that, we think that's really bad there. And over here, United States, we're fighting back against just a vaccine passport, which is part of that green code system in China. But really in America, the nuts and bolts of that is being erected underneath our feet. And this is evidenced by a recent FOIA documents from the CDC obtained by motherboard. Here's the headline. CDC tracked millions of phones to see if Americans followed COVID

lockdown orders. Now, this was something we didn't know what's happening during the lockdown. but the CDC allegedly paid $420,000 to a company called SafeGraph for access to a year of data. This appeared to be a test, but I mean, it's a lot of phones. They had 20 million phones and they used their geolocation. And apparently they used this. The CDC created an open-ended list to monitor curfews, neighbor-to-neighbor visits, churches, kids going in and out of school, people's visits to the pharmacy. This is highly, highly alarming. And the CDC was paying for this with money from the COVID relief fund.

And this is what they're looking at. This is what the CDC was doing. So this is something that was hypothetical. In fact, in their funding document, they said something like this needs to be expedited because it is to get this up and running because it was so important. So these are things, you know, obviously China, if it is doing these things, it can do it much faster because it's an authoritarian government. As, you know, Justin Trudeau once said, he likes their basic dictatorship.

But here in the U.S., it appears to have to inch along and inch along and inch along and inch long, even in the dark, even in these shadows and these FOIA requests really reveal these things. I mean, just look at what you're saying. The exact technology China's using to turn your phone red so that everywhere you go or try to use it, you're going to have to say, I'm not one of the healthy people. I've been in a dangerous zone. That technology was already tracking our phones everywhere we're going and could track every single one of us and could easily have lit up our phone or even put a lot. off an alarm should we step into the wrong space. That technology is all there. The only thing holding it back is this pesky little problem they have called the Constitution of the United States of America, which is clearly under attack in many forms. And every day we're accepting

these things, we're sliding closer and closer to being just like China. Right. And as the writer from the economist said, Chinese censors use this digital disappearing ink to monitor speech and censor speech. And you may have seen the news over here, but a similar thing looks like it's starting to be erected. Take a look at this. The Department of Homeland Security is setting up a disinformation governance board. The Department of Homeland Security unveiling a disinformation governance board, a new push with one wide-reaching goal. You prevent disinformation and misinformation from traveling around the country in a range of communities. Can you clarify what exactly is this? exactly will this disinformation governance board do?

The fact is that disinformation that creates a threat to the security of the homeland is our responsibility to address. You just have to flood a country's public square with enough raw sewage, plant enough conspiracy theorizing that citizens no longer know what to believe. White House press secretary Jen Salky laid out a number of areas.

Been a busy way. Biden administration sees misleading information as a problem. Serious questions are being raised today about how the board will determine what is misinformation as we learn more about who is leading it. There's this woman, Nina Janquitz, who is going to be in charge of the board. The woman you noted has extensive experience and has done extensive work addressing disinformation. Wethering is really quite ferocious. It's when a hoaxster takes some lies and makes them sound precocious by saying them

in Congress or a mainstream outlet so. Disinformation's origins are slightly less atrocious. She'll be deciding what's true, and she will be deciding what gets labeled as fake. Nina Jenkowitz, I'm wondering if you're, you've more information on her today. There's been some TikToks that she has put out. One line stood out to me.

There's laundering disinfo. We should really take note and not support their lives with our wallet, voice, or vote. They're laundering disinfo and we really should take note and not support their lies with our wallet, voice or vote. Oh! She has testified before Congress testified in Europe. She has worked closely with the Ukrainians

and has unique expertise, especially at this moment we're facing. It's how you hide a little, little, hide a little, little lie. It's how you hide a little, little, lie. Hiring decisions are up to the Department of Homeland Security, but this is a person with extensive qualifications. By saying that origin seems likely less atrocious. It appears that the head czar of misinformation, I would guess, went to theater school. Your Wikipedia page says her interests are music.

All right. Well, this is Nina J. Quicks. Yeah, and she's Homeland Security's Disinformation Governance Board leader now. And it's interesting how this came about. So this wasn't announced with a bang. In fact, it was kind of a whimper. So we had the secretary head of DHS, Alejandro Mayorkas. He was in front of Congress during kind of just a routine hearing on immigration at the border.

And he let slip or maybe purposely tried to float it in there. We don't know that, well, we also do have this governance board for disinformation that we just started. And the backlash was immediate. So here's the headlines directly after that hearing. Homeland Security Head says they could have done a better job explaining the disinformation. information board, the DHS rapidly raced to put up a fact sheet on their website because so many people were asking questions and here's that fact sheet. If people wants to read it, DHS internal working group protects free speech and other fundamental rights when addressing disinformation that

threatens the security of the United States. So we have basically a domestic law enforcement agency announcing that it has power to decide what is, you know, information that is true and what is false and does the members of this get elected by congress they need to be approved the directors need to be approved we don't know uh will the department this department have cabinet members oversight um we don't really know any of this information we have a fact sheet it kind of reminds me of the vaccine vaccination trials early on with phase two and threes where they just show that they give us the press release the safety data by press release instead of the actual studies so who is nina jankowitz well there's people that did some research on this.

And we look back into AP Associated Press and kind of just get a background on who she is and what her affiliations are. How does she feel about political affiliations? How does you feel about coronavirus measures and things like that? This was in 2020. This was the AP when the headline, AP explains Trump seizes on dubious Biden Ukraine story. So this was 20 days before the election. This was when the Hunter Biden laptop came out by New York Post.

And it writes here in the AP, the actual oral. origins of the emails are unclear. And disinformation experts say there are multiple red flags that raise doubts about their authenticity, including questions about whether the laptop actually belongs to Hunter Biden, says Nina Jenkowitz, a fellow at the nonpartisan Wilson Center in Washington. So here she's being quoted as an expert. Now she says, about the laptop, we should view it as a Trump campaign product, Jenkowitz said.

So there's her piece on that, which is, you know, really interesting because as we know now, that that was a true story. We do know that the repairman was a real person. He did have this computer. He gave it to several news outlets that sat on this, didn't do anything. New York Post was the one who posted it. And as we reported, and so many others reported at the time, it was immediately censored from Twitter and Facebook as disinformation.

Wow. Yeah. And so in 2020, March on Neogenekwa's Twitter feed, this was, you know, obviously during the COVID lockdowns, things were kind of tense then. she was talking about going out for a walk. She was seeing people that weren't social distancing, and she was telling stories about people not, you know, staying apart six feet. She finally says this. Anyway, long story short, I think we as a country might be too free-spirited, to put it diplomatically, to comply with social distancing recommendations unless they're forced upon us.

So force away, lock us down. People are not taking this seriously. Obviously, probably not a big fan of the Great Barantine Declaration. But I've, Has she ever revealed, you know, I mean, what her political affiliations are? Because I mean, certainly, I, the idea of a ministry of truth here in the United States of America is as chilling as it was in 1984, the novel.

But certainly you would want someone that is completely unbiased, not politically affiliated, yet the Hunter Biden laptop seems to, I mean, that Trump statement, that this is a Trump manufacturer, I mean, it does sound like she has a political bias, which seems like it would be incredibly dangerous. Is there any background into that that we know of? Yeah, not directly, but, you know, the Hunter and Biden laptop piece.

And then also, she did seem to throw some support behind the Steele dossier. This was, you know, right before the election, the Trump election, there was an ex-MI-6 UK spy chief, Christopher Steele. He was funded by the DNC to put together the steel dossier, and it was purportedly showing collusion between the Trump administration and the government of Russia, although this has been discredited. So at the time, she was calling this person, you know, an expert on disinformation, and she was tweeting about him. So nothing directly, but, you know, there are some stories that have been, you know, misinfo that she, I guess, fell for in the past. So it's kind of interesting, it's kind of interesting that there, there seems to be some type of leaning in certain directions. Yeah. But when, when White House press secretary, Jen Saki, was pushed on this disinformation board, she passed the buck and said it was a Trump artifact. So again, with this excuse. So this was the headline here. DHS's disinformation governance board is a continuation of work that was done under the prior administration. Now the prior administration, we have Chad Wolf. He was the secretary.

under Trump for Department of Homeland Security, he immediately took to Twitter and wrote this after that comment. He said, White House wrong again. New DHS disinfo board is not the same as effort to during the Trump administration. We focus primarily on foreign influence in elections, not domestic speech. New board is located in the secretary's office and has much broader authority than anything under CISA authorities. So wrapping this up, I mean, this pushback has been so fast, against this board. Within a week, we come to this article here. We have Senator Tom Cotton. He is putting forward a bill. He leads a GOP bill to defund Biden's DHS Disinformation Board. So he's getting signatures on that. And they're trying to defund this and anything that looks like it.

So even if this board goes away tomorrow, if anything pops up that even looks like it with a different name, no funding for it. So this might be a move in the right direction. But this story is moving pretty fast. But what I think is really the dot-connecting piece on this, is just last week, before this governance board came out in the United States, the European Union voted in a very, very similar, I would say even stronger act, a law. It's called the Digital Services Act. This was the headline out of there. It said, new EU power to find big tech billions and cracked down on hate speech and disinformation and harmful content. So they're able to directly go into big tech and tell them what to center, what not to center. They're able to find

big tech a percentage of their yearly revenue if they don't comply, which, you know, it's could be billions of dollars. So, of course, big tech is going to, so this thing has some teeth in the European Union, and that's going to cover 27 of its member states where here in the U.S. It's kind of, you know, it's kind of like a backdoor deal. This thing was hoping to be erected without anybody really knowing, but there is a major. So let me understand this. So in the EU, because, I mean, look, the high wire, you know, we obviously play the EU. We're all over Europe. I want to, you know, sort of look out to all of our viewers in Europe and just thank you for tuning in here for the truth as we can find it.

But you're saying social media platforms there, should they like play a video by the high wire? If the government says take that down, that's disinformation. If that social media company doesn't do it, they could be fined large percentages of their annual revenue for not taking it down. Is that essentially how that law works? That's my understanding. I do believe the law covers obviously the big ones, the Twitters, the Facebooks, the YouTube's, even Google, perhaps even search engines. I don't know how it governs the gabs out there, the rumbles, and there's so many other platforms. I would imagine the same exact way. I mean, how would they, how would they be free? I mean, they're a social media company. I just want to use this moment to say, you know, when we're asking you to sign up to our newsletter, it's, you know, we're not, there's no advertising going on. I'm not selling you diapers on.

site or anything like that. You're the sponsors. We're giving that information. But we live in this crazy world that at any moment, anything can be taken down. We want to always be able to get you the truth. Can you imagine if the world tries to shut down like Shanghai and we all have disinformation groups trying to stop information being shared? Would you like to know what we're finding and what our investigators are doing? If we have that just that basic email, like that ability to reach out, you send you, even put the show through email if we have. We have. We have. have to. There's only so far that censorship can go. Give us, you know, help us help you. Please just sign under our newsletter right now. It's so simple. It doesn't cost you anything. We keep all

that information encrypted. These are the reasons that, you know, in the future, this may be more important than you realize. And if you wait to sort of take this opportunity, you know, who knows where we're at. So please just sign up to our newsletter so that no matter what happens, we are always able to find you so the truth can find you. All right. Absolutely. Perhaps the most important, thing people can do reading these headlines throughout China. It's absolutely important to keep these communications open. So finishing off here with this last story, just a couple of weeks ago, we introduced the viewers and the listeners to Walgreens data. They had their own COVID-19 tracker outside of the CDC, outside of the FDA and government influence. They had their own in-house tracker,

people that came into their pharmacies, vaccinated or unvaccinated and tested, and the results were posted on their website. And there's updates regularly. And so it was showing that people that were vaccinated, first dose, second dose, third dose, we're making up a majority of the positive cases. Now, this was the same as information we reported from the UK's health data, from Scotland's Public Health Authority. And so it's kind of interesting. Just to be clear, we were having difficulty getting decent information because the CDC's data is so delayed. The systems aren't working. They've been attacked by almost every major news agency, even in this country for having such a crappy system to let us,

know where COVID is at, where the death rates are at, but lo and behold, Walgreens just sort of almost accidentally said, well, we have our data of sites that are all around the country, not just satellites in a couple of states. Every single Walgreens is on a database. So it was really amazing data for those of you that maybe missed the show a couple weeks ago when we talked about this. Right. And so we're seeing these cases really going around throughout the country, but at the same time we're seeing headlines like this from Fauci saying, we're learning to live with COVID because we're not going to eradicate it. Fauci is saying we're in end in an endemic phase. COVID-19 appears to be making a transition to becoming endemic disease. So that means just within the population,

it just circulates regularly on a regular basis. But now just taking a look at the CDC for a second, they have a tracker. It's a community transmission tracker. It tracks, looks at how this thing is moving around communities. And you can see here on the image, this was the most recent poll from this image that the high in red is high community transmission. There's a lot of red in this country. And again, this is according to the CDC, so we have to take away with a grain of salt. But just looking at the data available here, substantial transmission, 17.15%, moderate transmission, 32.29%. The point of this whole graph in this whole chart is there's a lot of community transmission going on, and nearly 30% of it is high community transmission. So this is kind of fascinating. And so as we

approach this new Walgreens data. Hold on one's time before you go there because this is going to be critical. Folks, I want you to look at this map one more time because in this conversation with Geert van and Bosch, this, we're going to reference this issue right here. High transmission rates. Think about where you live right now. Look at the area where you live. Are you in an area where coronavirus Amacron right now is all around you? If you're in those highly locked down places like New York, Look at the shape that you're in. Look at California. You know, there's no blue in California.

You guys locked down like crazy. Forget about New York, New Jersey, the East Coast. Really, really super high transmission rates, okay? None of this. This is not the look of a vaccine that was able to eradicate disease. It didn't do that. Now they're admitting it. This is what we're going to have to learn to live with.

This apparently is what our world looks like from now on. This level of constant infection. in the United States of America and the rest of the rest of the world looks like this. But I want you to remember this image because we're going to reference the transmission rates. It's a huge part of what Geert is going to try and share with us. Right, right. Very important piece there. And so now we have the new Walgreens data. This is recently as of May 3rd.

It shows the entire week. And you can see here on this bar graph that we're going to be looking at at the bottom. The not vaccinated, the people that are not vaccinated, it's that first bar, it's 16. of non-vaccinated people are showing a positivity rate. So COVID positivity rate. So they're going in, they're getting tested. 16.3% of them are showing positive. The most positivity, the people with the highest positivity rate are the people with three doses. In fact, three doses greater than five months ago. It has a 30.1% COVID positivity rate. That's counterintuitive. Now, here's another counterintuitive thing. The people with two doses, that's that third bar, 26.7.

So two doses greater than five months ago has a 26.7 COVID positivity rate. So right here in one graph, we're seeing vaccine waning after the second dose, after the third dose. And this is for all ages. So this is combined all ages positivity rate by vaccination status. So this is a very important graph. You know, I'm surprised it's still up there. It's just having followed these stories. Yeah.

Because Scotland, Public Health, Scotland took their data down. The UK has severely limited their data as well. But being really built in the background here, as we're seeing these community transmission, as we're seeing these positivity rates, in my opinion, it looks like there's a power grab that's just trying to, trying to happen. So this was in the Hill.

This was two weeks ago. We covered this before. But the Hill headline, extended pandemic shows the need for a pandemic treaty. And this is the WHO pandemic treaty. They're supposedly doing this by 2024. They're going to sign on people to this. And it's interesting in the Hill.

They had to remove their comment section because this thing is so dislike that so many people were negatively commenting on this. But Bill Gates has come in with another subsection of this pandemic treaty, if you will. It's not directly in the treaty, but he's coming out with something that would be kind of an addendum to this or an add-on to this power grab, if you will. And he even wrote an article about it and a book. And this is the headline of that article, The World Needs a Pan-A-Rankymp. pandemic protection team. So he's calling it a GERM. He says, I call it the GERM, global epidemic response

and mobilization team. I'd say it's a germ too. Perfect name. And it is the disease. You have named it the disease. It is now, I want to create the disease that's going to mess up all of your lives. Perfect. This is what he's looking for. He says, and the job of its people should be to wake up every day asking themselves the same question, is the world ready for the next outbreak? He says, He's talking about a team of about 3,000 people. He says most of the team would be based at individual countries' national public health institutes, though some would sit in the WHO's regional office as its headquarters in Geneva. So he's talking about embedding this team, these people that see nothing but pandemics,

embedding them into countries public health institutes and institutions and maybe even down to individual state levels or I don't know how fine this detail is going to get, but you can see where this is going here because the WHO is going for full control with this, with this. this treaty. And it's even still at this moment, we've had a guest on about this about a month ago. It's still continuing with its global vaccine passport rollout. So here's the headline on that. This is a great article that broke it down. The WHO is building a global vaccine passport. And it's already working with T-Mobile with something called T-Systems. This was T-Mobile's press release. Checking COVID-19 certificate. World Health Organization selects T-Systems as industry partner.

So they're talking about, you know, over almost 200 countries that are going to use this T-Mobile backbone to basically build this vaccine passport. But the good news, end this on some good news, the grassroots pushback has moved into the politics. So we have a Canadian member of parliament, Leslyn Lewis. She has wrote back, pushback, I should say, against this WHO trading. She wrote this. First of all, to even consider signing onto an international treaty before holding an inquiry into the consequences of our own response to COVID-19 is foolish. This was on her own website. She wrote this.

Of even more concern, if this treaty is enshrined, the WHO would be in full control over what gets called a pandemic. They could dictate how our doctors can respond, which drugs can and can't be used, or which vaccines are approved. We would end up with a one-size-fits-all approach for the entire world. Hats off to you, Leslyn Lewis. Wonderful pushback. I mean, it's amazing when you look at this, and I keep watching these players jockeing around, lots of conversations about Elon Musk, his power taking over Twitter. But Elon Musk may be the richest man in the world, but clearly Bill Gates has used his money to acquire power over the years when we weren't looking at it.

He's still one of the, is my understanding, was still one of the largest contributors to the WHO. Remember the data during the Trump administration. when the United States of America pulled its funding from WHO, that put Bill Gates and together with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation as the number one funding body of the WHO. To think that the WHO is creating this law or this power that it wants all nations to sign on to and all it needs is in a majority vote, I believe it's supposed to happen this year. The WHO will then supersede all national powers when it comes to a pandemic that they determine.

I've said it before. This is no longer the World Health Organization. This is the World Health Order, and it's being driven by one very rich and powerful person now who's also adding germ perfectly named the disease of paranoid schizophrenics that will run all of this country, dreaming about the next pandemic and making sure the WHO is thinking like that. These are all. And then we've said it before putting that with California that was trying to pass a bill that the health department can use the law enforcement to force their demands on citizens, and if they don't, the health department takes the funding from the law enforcement and gives it to themselves. I mean, this isn't accidental. This is a genius. I mean, you've got to really respect your opponents. When we read 1984, when we read Brave New World, no one said that the way we got there was through health, that they used the health departments of the world to change our freedoms

and our, you know, our standing as we know it. So we've got to keep our eye on this, and I want to thank you. Jeffrey for doing such a brilliant job and obviously we're going to stay focused on this. And by the way, behind the scenes, we're talking to politicians. It's great to see that this politician's waking up to this and see things like the disinformation board and how incredibly horrifying that is as a concept in the United States of America where our founding fathers, you know, handed out, you know, letters to each other, trying to get everyone to recognize the problem they have with the British government and how they

had to stand up, a group of founding fathers that believed in the freedom of speech above all else and the freedom of the news and the press to be able to ask whatever question. I don't care if for Obama that question is sewage in the public square. This sewage from the high wires proved to be right the entire time. So it's incredible. These people that I honestly voted for used to respect, used to appreciate, believed that they believed in freedom. I now have regrets over some of the things that I was blind to.

But we're awake now, and the high wire is all about waking up. And so it's probably why we're growing together, folks. We're one big family opening our eyes every single day. Jeffrey, you're a huge part of that. Thank you for your work. Thanks, Al. Great to get you. All right. I'll see you next week. Can we bring up, I want to bring up that Walgreen slide with the bar graphs really quickly,

just to point something out. Now, what can be said here? I want you to look at these blue lines. The not vaccinated have a, of all the non-vaccinated that go into a Walgreens to get a test, whether they have to go to work or they're traveling to Shanghai or whatever they're doing, they're coming in at a 16.3% positivity rate. If you had one dose of the vaccine, you're at 21.5%. If you have two doses, 26.7, three doses 30% rate.

Now, what you have to recognize is the not vaccinated, recognize, basically represent the natural state. of being. So what you can say by looking, this is something Geert's going to talk about, so we want and remember this too. What we see here is proof that the vaccine increases your risk of infection from Omicron. There's no other way to look at that compared to if you didn't get the vaccine, you are more likely to be infected after you receive one dose, even worse after two doses, and even worse after three doses. So remember, this is the data. It's not just Walgreens. We've seen this all around the world.

We've been reporting this for years. Okay. What we're about to play is an interview that I did on Friday. We always like to sit down with Geert ahead of time, though there's a lot we like to do live. When we're going to present information from Geert Van and Bosch, we know that it's going to be technical. We want to be able to sort of add some visuals and try and figure out ways to make it as understandable as we possibly can. I do sit down. Oftentimes, these interviews are very long and try to cut it down so that we get to the basics. And I want to be totally transparent about what you're going to watch.

I am breaking almost every rule in television that I learned when I won an Emmy Award at CBS on the Doctors Television show, which is keep things short, keep it in sound bites, think of everybody as about a third grade mentality, and make sure that third graders will understand this. I will tell you this, third graders will never understand the interview that you are about to watch. In fact, I would guess that most of the population right now that are watching, you may want to turn this off at parts because you won't understand all of it. And what you're about to see is what makes the high wire different than any news platform in the world. Especially at times like this, you are not my main concern. My main concern is that the great scientists around the world that are not aware of all

the details of what Yirt Fendin Bosch has been focused on up in his home and in his office in Belgium that they get it. I could shorten this down to just the parts that we would all understand, but we would miss details that other scientists need to understand. So it doesn't just look like some bumper sticker, oh, well, that's a good theory where he actually lays out the steps with which what he's talking about will work. So folks, this is not going to be your average show where you go, oh, I fully got that and we're moving on. We're going to get into the nitty-gritty details. You are about to watch what may be one of the most important scientific discussions among scientists.

Imagine Gertz is talking to scientists. He's trusting that you will understand a good enough and a large enough part of this, and I know you will. We have a very smart audience. But like when I was a child and probably why I have this job now, when my parents would have friends over and they'd all be discussing politics and religion or whatever at the table and getting all raucous and loud, which my family does very well. I didn't tend to run around with the kids. For some reason, I was more interested in sitting at the adult table and trying to understand what I could.

In many ways, today, this show, we are all going to sit down at the adult table. Some of this will be very technical. But I want to say this. I have had several days to try and process what I saw in this interview and while trying to edit it, it has affected me emotionally. What you're about to see is very powerful. I still am grappling with how I can wrap my mind around what's being said, try to decipher what's true and what I can do about it.

And for that reason, I am going to give a caveat I don't usually give, which is many of you use the high wire as one of your classes for your homeschooling. I will tell you this. I would not have my own children watch this interview, because for my kids, it will bring up questions, questions that I would like to have answers to. I don't have all the answers to what this question is about to be. And for that reason, I think it could be detrimental to have children, you know, pressed with the level of importance with which this conversation is about to have,

without us fully understanding how we embrace them and help them understand what this could mean for all of us and the world. So for that reason, I would say personally, watch this yourself first and decide if this is something that your children are ready to watch. With all of that being said, we interviewed Geert van der Boch fully back in November. We presented many of the videos he had put out before then. This was just a little piece of what that original interview was as we set up for Geert Van der Boch and what he is really calling his final call.

Dear colleagues at the WHO, my name is Geert van der LeBosch. My background is veterinary medicine. I'm a certified expert in microbiology and infectious diseases. I have a PhD in virology and I have a long-standing career in human vaccinology. I'm urging you to immediately open the scientific debate on how human interventions in the COVID-19 pandemic are currently driving viral immune escape. I'm urging you to invite me for a scientific hearing, open to the public and to scientists all over the world, on this very topic, ignoring or denying the impact of the street,

Fringent infection prevention measures combined with mass vaccination using prophylactic vaccines is a colossal plunder. Please do listen to my crime of distress and let's first and foremost deliberate on a scientifically justified strategy to mitigate the tsunami of morbidity and lethality that is now threatening us. And let's meanwhile devise a strategy to eradicate the steadily emerging highly infectious variants. If you are now vaccinating people during a pandemic, that means that the antibodies are mounting while they can be confronted with the virus. There you start to put immune pressure on the virus.

So these combinations of doing massively, putting massively, having a population that massively, because you do mass vaccination, put pressure on the virus, combined with vaccination programs that are conducted in the midst of a pandemic, this can only lead to natural selection of the fittest, And because many people are in a similar situation,

this will be this variant that then can overcome the pressure will of course be enriched in the population and it will ultimately become the dominant variant. In my analogy, imagine you're a scuba diver and you're going swimming and you're swimming in the ocean and there's killer whales in the ocean. Now, the killer whales we know rarely attack human beings. There's also sharks in the ocean.

sharks in the ocean. Sharks we know love to attack human beings and do it all the time. They're much more dangerous to human beings. But killer whales out-dampete sharks in the situation with killer whales, they can eat the sharks so you don't usually find sharks and killer whales in the same water. But if the swimmer, the scuba diver decides I'm afraid of the killer whales and that rare risk that I could be killed by them, so the swimmer kills the killer whales, wipes them out, what you do is you take away that environment where they're out competing the sharks. Now the sharks come in because there's no killer whales around and now the sharks become dangerous to the scuba diver much much more dangerous. They're the more dangerous variant. Now all we have

left is sharks and now all of us are in danger getting to the water. The analogy would even be better if you if one would say the scuba diver is using a weapon that can only kill. you know, the killer whales. Okay. So the weapon, the immune system, so it doesn't work for the sharks. Got it. It only works for the killer whales. What we call innate immunity very often, and I'm very often talking about innate antibodies,

in contrast to the naturally acquired antibodies, the innate antibodies, these are pre-existing antibodies, antibodies that are already, so to say, pre-primed that you have at birth already, not as a result of antigen experience, right? A newborn all of a sudden gets confronted with a number of pathogens, yeah, he or she, you know, the newborn cannot have all these antibodies because he has never seen these pathogens.

So there is, this is providing them with a good start. So this is something that, that we have been completely neglecting, and these are basically the antibodies that protect all these young children and people in good health from a disease that is therefore, that is therefore not a childhood disease, right?

SARS-CoV-2. I'm guessing all of that talk of asymptomatic that we've heard about, those asymptomatic cases, would have been those where their innate immune system reaction, was so strong, they never went into a symptomatic reaction which would have driven more of the production of those nationally acquired memory antibodies. Is that, am I getting that right? Yeah. Andell, that is why we call it the first line of immune defense. The innate. Right? The innate antibodies. This is published early this year.

It's evidence from multiple experimental studies suggest that specific Single mutants may be able to evade spike targeting vaccine immunity in many individuals and rapidly lead to the spread of vaccine-resistant COVID-2. In this context, vaccines that do not provide sterilizing immunity and therefore continue to permit transmission will lead to the build-up of large standing populations of virus greatly increasing the risk of immuniscape. Can you imagine what this means if you are now going to suppress this innate immunity

on a permanent basis? Because that is exactly what you will do if you immunize them, if you prime them. So this is just going to speed up, to speed up the resistance. These people will have their innate antibodies completely suppressed and their acquired antibodies

through vaccination are completely work. We are talking about is driving this virus into resistance, depriving the children from both their innate immunity and their vaccinal protection, and preventing in an irrevocable way the population from ever generating herd immunity. So what we are going to do is instead of the population exerting, selection pressure on the virus. We are going to allow this virus to exert selection pressure on innate immunity of the host. So that means only people who will still have their innate immunity

intact have a chance, have a chance to survive. What is the worst case scenario if you sort of game this out? What type of damage and numbers on a population level are we talking about? I cannot talk about figures, but what is clear, the safety impact will be tremendous and will be of an order of magnitude that is not even comparable. Well, that interview was conducted back in November of last year just over five months ago, And so it is my pleasure now to bring back Girt Van Den Bosch. Geert, I want to thank you for joining me today.

Sure. Thanks for having me down. There's, you know, so many things going on now. And so much has changed since November. We have a new variant in Omicron and even BA2, so even new versions of Omicron. We are seeing mandates changing, restrictions being lifted here in America and in many places around the world. Meanwhile, we also have Shanghai that it seems to be moving in a different direction,

really locking down. I've been wanting to talk to you for some time, so I'm glad you've taken, given us this opportunity. Just to really recap, even though that we just went through a long recap, here's how I see the work that you've done. And I have interviewed, I believe, some of the best scientists in the world that have been willing to discuss this pandemic,

this virus. I've been somewhat shocked at how accurate I believe that you've been. I think of all the scientists I've spoken to, I tell my friends and the people around me, I would be watching what Gert Banden Bosch has to say. So that's why it's really an honor to get to talk to you today. But for people that maybe haven't been following our work and watching your videos, here's how I see it. You originally came out. You said you were very concerned about a mass vaccination program stating that we had never vaccinated everyone in the world at the same time. That has never been done. We tend to just vaccinate a small group of people using the new entries into a population of the children. So to do a mass vaccination program was a pressure we had never put on a virus before.

Also, that by doing a vaccination program while the virus was infecting people, also created a very bad problem where you're pressuring the virus while you're being infected. So the vaccine is able to mount a full antibody response prior to running into the virus. And so it's though it's loading the gun, as we said, as it's running into a war, and it doesn't have a loaded gun. Therefore, it's not going to fight very well. So all of that, you said, would ultimately lead to the virus mutating in a way that it would get around the vaccine. And this is something that you've been saying from the beginning. Doctors like Paul Offutt and them said they did not believe that that would be the case.

So I want to say this. You were accurate. When we last spoke, I think Omicron was maybe a hint and a whisper out there in the distance. We did not discuss it. We were still fully in Delta. Delta was already managing to have some escape, you know, is getting around some people in the vaccine. But you said that you really believe that within weeks, or just a couple of months, that we would see a variant that would fully get around the vaccine.

And lo and behold, Amacron came along. And so I think that your ability to sort of predict these moves is why I think your voice right now is one of the most important in the world. I will also say that when we worked on that last piece, we spent many, many different days on Zoom calls, trying to understand things. And I really push back against you on the fact that you said that once the virus escaped the vaccine, it would also escape the immunity that was being delivered by a natural infection. That went against my understanding and some of my team of scientists on our side that natural

infection is so robust that, you know, it would be able to handle a variant like that. And you said, no, I mean, there will be naturally infuriated. that will be infected by this future variant. That also proved to be the case. To the point where, you know, I truly believe that naturally infected would never get infected again, so did Dr. Peter McCullough. In fact, Dr. Peter McCullough had appeared on the Joe Rogan show,

and then very shortly after, Robert Malone was on the show, and I remember Robert Malone having to say to Joe Rogan. Well, let me just say one thing. Peter called me, and he said, Robert, make sure that he was on the show. And he said, Robert, make sure you talk to Joe and make it clear that although I spoke clearly and forcefully about one and done when I was on his show, that was before Omicron. Yeah. And so Peter wanted me to make sure that your audience knew. No, yes.

We've actually talked about that because I have several friends right now that have tested positive for COVID for a second time. It does appear now that Omicron is infecting people that were previously infected naturally. with the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Now, those didn't end up being very bad cases and the naturally affected handled it very well. In some ways, I guess, you know, I'm sure they were boosted by it. But I just want to be clear that even in the places where my team disagreed with you or wanted to push back,

you have proven that you seem to really have an understanding of what this virus is doing, which is why we're here today. At this moment, most of America, feels like this virus has, you know, has subsided. We seem to be able to open up. Now, I'm not sure whether that's because when we look at deaths, deaths is seems to be down, but infections seem to be still quite high. But if we're to sort of sum it up in America, I want to play a video for you.

This is January, but it's essentially where I think Tony Fauci from Nyad, who's sort of been the voice of of our lockdown campaign. This is what he had to say about where we're at now with Amicron and this virus. Take a look at this. I think in many respects, Amicron 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. So we are hearing this term learning to live with it, which is

a little different than having eradicated a disease, which is what we're promised with this vaccine. It's the only way to eradicate it. In fact, I'm hearing something I've never heard before. This virus isn't going away. In some ways, what I'm hearing is we are unable to reach herd immunity. We are unable to neutralize this virus. We are going to be infected with it.

We're just going to have to learn to live and manage those infections. But he talks about control. And so I bring it to you. Last week, Tony Fauci went as far as to say the pandemic is essentially over here in America. There seems to be some infection around the world. He's vacillating on whether he really meant the pandemic is over. So let me just ask you very clearly, is the pandemic over? Are we in control of this SARS-CoV-2 virus currently being called the variant Omicron?

What is your belief? Are we in the clear? Well, Del, unfortunately, the pandemic is anything, anything but over. And if you hear Tony Fauci telling these stories, I can only conclude that really, with all respect, but he has no clue. He has no understanding of the immunology. And what I heard him say last week, indeed, was that we are ending the pandemic phase. And all of a sudden, we can throw it all together. Natural immunity all of a sudden counts. When you add natural immunity to the people who got the vaccine,

then we have sufficient immunity, and then we can come also with Paxlovit with a number of antivirals. And that is how we are going to control this pandemic. The rules have not changed and the rules are very, very easy. You can only control a pandemic if you generate herd immunity. And herd immunity means that you have to dramatically diminish the level of transmission. We know that these vaccines are not doing this. On the contrary, I mean, now we have, as well in the vaccinated as in the unvaccinated,

many cases of mild disease or moderate disease where people don't even go to the hospital, don't even go to the doctor, etc. So the number of cases that we are seeing right now is tremendously, tremendously underestimated. And as you can see from the curves in the highly vaccinated countries, we see one wave after the other. We never see that these lines join the baseline. basically you have a wave and then the wave declines and then it levels off way above the baseline

to then start another wave. And so the frequency and the frequency of the waves is increasing, the intervals between these waves, even if these are smaller waves, is also decreasing. So the infectious pressure is higher than ever before. So I cannot understand that within that context, you dare to say, you dare to say that the pandemic is over. So, I mean, the vacciners, as we know,

and this has been published, peer-reviewed journals, are now extremely susceptible to infection. So imagine, just to come back to the effect of the vaccines, we are using, right now, completely lousy vaccines. We know that these vaccines are no longer, in inducing neutralizing antibodies. So the virus has become largely resistant to the potentially neutralizing antibodies.

Nevertheless, we are pretending that these vaccines are a blessing because they are preventing severe disease. I ask you, and I ask Fauci, and I ask every single expert, have you ever heard about a vaccine, that does not protect against mild or moderate disease, but that does protect against severe disease. Have you ever heard about a vaccine that enhances,

for God's sake, that enhances the susceptibility of the vaccinees to infection, but decreases the shedding, because there is publications that vaccinees would shed less, for example, than the unvaccinated. And have you ever heard about a vaccine that combined that doesn't protect against mild and moderate disease, but that does protect against severe disease,

while enhancing the susceptibility of the vaccinees to infection, and all this by using a lousy vaccine that we know the circulating variants are almost completely resistant against. So I'm just telling you this to make you and many other suspicious of what's going on, what's going on, this is not a normal situation. We are living in a situation where we have high infectious pressure, cannot at all control this, we are not diminishing transmission or

whatever, and we are seeing something like protection against severe disease. So this cannot all be coincidence. It cannot be that all of a sudden Omicron popped up and you know what? People are more susceptible or the majority of the population or more susceptible to this variant, the majority is or of course the vaccinese. And at the same time, you know, nobody understands, you know, this, this Omicron is not causing severe disease. It's predominantly causing mild disease. And so all this would be a coincidence

or would it be related maybe to the vaccines? Well, if it is related to the vaccines, what we know is that these vaccines are no longer inducing neutralizing antibodies against the circulating variant. But we do know that they induce non-neutralizing antibodies. There are a number of publications that are no showing. All right.

So before we get into that, let me just recap for everybody watching the things that I hear you saying. To begin with, and you're right, for the first time ever, Tony Fauci and others in the health departments here in America and around the world are saying, we are going to be able to live with this. And they're finally mentioning natural immunity. That's so many people that didn't get the vaccine, that's okay. They have natural immunity.

And those that got vaccinated have immunity. Therefore, we've built this level of immunity so we can get to this place of control. So they are admitting now that natural immunity plays some part in this, even though you've been demanding that they admit that from the beginning. and in fact celebrate and allow more of the young people and those that were healthy enough to achieve natural immunity, which is going to be far more robust, have better neutralizing capabilities, and will constantly be being boosted by the variance that are out there. So it remains strong against in its protection versus the vaccine,

which, as you said, is a lousy vaccine as it becomes less and less in an affinity to the, variants as they're changing. I think you're also pointing out, though, that that because we have this massive pressure, both by naturally immune and the vaccinated and transmission is not going down, that is where you see there's a problem. As you've pointed out, what we would normally see is, you know, we see a wave, and then it gets down to baseline. We've hit herd immunity and it basically disappears. Every flu season, flu goes like this. It gets back to the baseline. It's gone. Nobody has to worry about the flu as we go into the summer and maybe next winter, some new variant comes along.

We do it all over again. But Amacron has never gotten back to the baseline. In fact, it is staying above the baseline and having shorter and shorter periods where it's just going in waves. So it's staying up here in a high transmission space, which is where you're very concerned when Tony Fauci says we can learn to live with it. We are just seeing a virus that is not getting back to baseline. It's not being controlled by herd immunity.

Can we say is this is one of the first times that we've ever seen a virus in a population that does not sort of adhere to herd immunity that just sort of hangs and stays? Are there other examples of that throughout history? No. I mean, if you have a natural pandemic, you will always see, first of all, that you have a limited, a limited number of waves, that after every single wave you get back to the baseline and that the mortality, morbidity rates follow very closely the case rates. Here we have completely disconnected morbidity and mortality from the case rates, right? And since these guys think

that control of a pandemic per definition, almost, means control of hospitalizations. I mean, they are completely, completely missing what in fact is the purpose of nature, which is to re-establish a natural equilibrium between the virus and the host, and that is only possible if the host population manages to control the transmission of the virus.

In order to do that, you need sterilizing immunity. sterilizing immunity. Sterilizing immunity can be provided as we discussed in the past, and I wrote many articles already on this, by innate immunity and also, of course, to some extent, by acquired immunity. But now all of a sudden, all these things, whether this is immunity induced by the innate immune system or by natural disease or by the vaccines, they are, consider this all these things being the same and they are mixing it up whereas we know very clearly that vaccine induced immunity is enhancing the infectiousness of the virus whereas the natural immunity innate and the acquired as a consequence

of natural disease is going to eliminate the virus and that is the reason why during natural pandemic and natural and that you see the way and then the vacuum cleaners come in. The part of the population, you know, that has the innate immunity or that has built it sterilizing immunity and that eliminates the virus. We are not seeing this. We are having infections all over the place.

It's just that they are underreported. So some people tend to say, well, infections, even infections are diminishing. And secondly, of course, because the whole system, you know, is based on a stupid criteria, that has nothing to do with controlling a pandemic, which are the hospitalizations, they are making people believe that the pandemic is ending because the hospitalization rate is low and the mortality rate is low. This is not what conditions, what is conditioning,

the control of a pandemic. As I was saying, okay. So let me let me. By her immunity. Yeah. Yeah. We don't have. Great. So to summarize that and I think you've done very clearly, but just to make sure I've got it right, that we've essentially then created a completely unnatural environment. We have, through this experiment of the largest mass vaccination program and the history of mankind created a scenario that we have never lived in before, which is we have a virus that is not getting back to baseline. And we may, I mean, I don't want to put words in your mouth, we may have vaccinated so many people that we are on, we are, we are, may not be capable of achieving herd immunity because the vaccinated, keep the transmission,

keep pressuring it, making the virus more and more transmissible. We don't have enough natural immune or innate immune to just neutralize this virus and end its rain here. And so we are seeing, as you said, this unnatural space. And yet they are claiming, and this is something else you're saying is unnatural about it. Not only are we not seeing it get back to baseline, but for the first time ever, are you you tell him that usually we see case rates and mortality rates go with each other. They move together.

And so for the first time ever, the case rates are still up, but we've watched the mortality and the hospitalizations and morbidity sort of go down. And what they're saying is this matters, but you're saying what we should still be worried about is that the case rates are still high and are probably even higher than we think because so many people are having mild disease. And so I guess the next question then is in Tony Fauci's world, It's all okay because all we care about is people aren't dying and hospitalizations aren't happening. Therefore, we're good and we're almost through this.

We've separated the two case rates may be high, but who cares? It's really just mild. So to be clear, we have a variant right now that is mild as far as hospitalization and death. But that could change. Is that what we're worried about that another variant might come along that because of this continued infection rate? that it is mutating still and there are future variants that could be far more virulent, maybe even leading to death. Is that where we're going with this?

Well, yeah, and in fact, they'll put things in a very simple way. When you're dealing with a pandemic and, you know, this is an interaction between the virus and the host immune system, a viral host ecosystem, if you like. There is only two possibilities when you have a virus coming in. Either the immune system is going to eliminate the virus. That is what you see after a wave during natural pandemic. And that is what is going to generate herd immunity. Anything else that the immune system does and that does not achieve this goal

is simply going to put immune pressure. And immune pressure, within a context of a virus that can still replicate, because there is no sterilizing immunity, will, of course, escape to that immune pressure. The only thing is that, you know, everybody, including, to be honest, to some extent myself for a very short time, we all of a sudden taught that Omicron was a blessing because we didn't understand how all of a sudden

we could have enhanced susceptibility to a virus. On the other hand, reduced severe disease, vaccines that induce primarily non-neutralizing antibodies, instead of neutralizing antibodies. And at some point I said, this is unprecedented. We have never seen this, this is not logic. Is this coincidence or is there a common denominator? Is there a common denominator that could explain this?

And the common denominator, and that is important to say, to answer your question, because your question is, is the immune pressure, according to my opinion, still continuing, and are we therefore still promoting selection of more infectious or more virulent variants? And the question is the answer is yes. And in order to understand this, you have to understand, and that is thanks to the contribution of a number of scientists that for some reason don't speak out. I don't understand why because they are doing a fundamentally important.

analysis they have shown that these non-neutralizing antibodies that are induced, what they basically do is that they bind to the virus and by binding to the virus, they are enhancing the infectiousness of the virus. So that is the first important thing to understand. We are no longer dealing with a situation where the infectious behavior of the virus can be solely explained by the virus, by the properties of the virus itself. The infectious behavior of this virus, Omigron, needs to be explained within the context of its binding in the majority of the population that are the vaccine is, within the context of its binding to non-neutralizing antibodies that enhance its infectiousness. That is one thing. So we already

understand now why vaccinees are more susceptible to the infection. The other thing, why are they less vulnerable to severe disease? Well, other scientists have shown that the very same, the very same non-neutralizing antibodies at the level of the lower respiratory tract, they can prevent fusion of infected cells with non-infected cells and therefore they prevent the formation of syncytia and those syncytia have been correlated with severe disease. So in other words the common denominator that is now determining the infectious behavior and the virulence behavior, the pathogenic behavior of this virus is a combination of the virus itself and an environment that has been has been generated in the majority of the population, namely the vaccineease, and which consists

of non-neutralizing antibodies that bind to this virus at the upper respiratory tract will enhance the infectionness while the same antibodies by a mechanism that I've recently explained and that has been explained by others, whereas at a lower respiratory tract, it will prevent severe disease. So that has nothing to do with, in fact, Let me make sure. Okay, so let me make sure I've got this right. What you're saying is a lot of the descriptions of Omicron, that Amacron has milder disease,

that when we're listening to Tony Fauci described that, and different scientists described that on the news, they're acting as though it's the virus that has these attributes all to itself. What you're saying is it is not, what we're describing is not a virus by itself, but it's actually the combination of the virus in with the vaccine. antibodies inside the vaccinated person that that high infectiousness when they say Amacron is more infectious it itself isn't more infectious but the antibodies from the vaccine that are attaching to it which aren't the neutralizing ones that should be killing it but are just

sort of grabbing on or doing and we've talked about this on our show the vaccine is helping and we've talked about antibody dependent enhancement disease enhancement in a way it's enhancing the infectiousness the binding of these antibodies, which aren't neutralizing antibodies, are helping the infectiousness of Omicron. So what we're describing as an attribute of the virus is actually an attribute being given to the virus by the antibodies caused by the vaccine. And then what you're saying is so that makes it infectious. We now are getting it through the mucosal, all of our upper respiratory track, our throat. But then what's happening is these antibodies, which aren't neutralizing, Once they go into the lower respiratory track where severe disease happens, this is where when we have where you can't breathe and the issues that really start to kill people is my lungs, you know, crystallize. We have pneumonia that develop. What you're saying is those antibodies are protecting right now as they go down to the lower respiratory area, even though they're creating more infection. They're helping the infection. Once it gets into our lower respiratory area, they're doing a good thing.

They're keeping those infected cells from infecting other cells. It's sort of keeping a transmission between cells from happening in my lungs would be very dangerous. And so that's a good thing, right? Isn't that what we, I mean, even though you're saying we've never seen this before, I would think most people that made the vaccine would be saying, see, look, we didn't know this is how this would work, but it's stopping the severe disease in the lower respiratory tract.

So what's the problem? Yeah. So, well, what is the problem? We have seen, first of all, remember, remember Del at the beginning of the pandemic and the mass vaccination, we were told, well, these vaccines are going to diminish the transmission and the infection rates. Okay, and I was saying together with a number of other folks, you know what? What is vaccines are primarily doing is exerting immune pressure via the population, of course, immune pressure on viral infectiousness. So what you guys think is happening, namely blocking transmission or dampening transmission, is in

fact a very bad thing because at the end of the day is putting more and more immune pressure on viral infectiousness on the spike protein, which is responsible for viral infectiousness. And guess what? What we got was something like Omicron, the Omicron family, which has overcome this immune pressure to a level that it is almost like completely resistant to the antibodies generated against by protein. Now we still didn't learn our lesson. Now we have a vaccine, so to say the same vaccine, where folks are saying, you know what?

This is a very, very good vaccine because it is pretty, pretty, very, very, very. preventing severe disease. Don't we understand if we have a little bit of insight in the molecular mechanism that we just explained, that in fact what is happening is that now the population is exerting immune pressure on viral virulence, no longer via the neutralizing antibodies, as happened before, but now via the non-neutralizing antibodies. antibodies. What I was saying is that the non-neutralizing antibodies are preventing severe disease at a lower respiratory tract. Do we think with this level of transmission, of infection that we just were talking about, where we put the virus under more and more pressure, that there will be

no selection on the virus to overcome this? Because remember, I mean, also this is just immune pressure exerted by antibodies. The first phase was on the infectiousness via the neutralizing antibodies. And then if you like, this neutralizing antibodies, the virus has become resistant to the neutralizing antibodies. That makes now the non-neutralizing antibodies becoming predominant. We know the non-neutralizing antibodies, they prevent trans-infection at the level of the the lung and the trans infection is responsible for severe disease. So in fact, what is happening is that we are converting, we are converting immune pressure on viral infectiousness via originally denutilizing antibodies.

We are converting this now to immune pressure on viral virulence via the non-neutralizing antibodies, right? And the fact that the antibodies of the antibodies are so important, Del, in determining the infectious behavior and virulence of the virus. That explains where nowadays, you can have almost whatever Omicron variant provided, it has these 20 mutations

in the receptor binding domain and is resistant. You can have plenty, plenty of variation, like we have every second day, there is a new sub-variant, because their behavior is primarily determined by the non-neutralizing antibodies, those in common-conferralizing antibodies, those in combination with the virus are determining in the majority of the population, the vaccine is, are determining the behavior of this virus, right?

This also explains why this is becoming pretty age-independent. This is also why it is seasonal independent. When you have high antibodies, high non-neutralizing antibodies, you're susceptible, you're very susceptible to getting the infection, no matter whether it is winter or summer or whatever. I don't know how the situation is in your country, but in my country, people get infected all the time. We're having nice weather, you know, the last time. It's independent because the infection, the antibodies are now determining to a large extent the behavior of this virus. So essentially what you're saying is they bragged that this vaccine would stop transmission, that it was going to stop transmission.

you said what you're going to do is pressure that transmission space, that infectiousness space. And eventually there will be a variant because you're putting so much pressure on it that the evolution of a virus will be to select for that virus that the infectiousness gets around that pressure. That pressure coming from the neutralizing antibodies developed by the vaccine. It did that. It started doing that in Delta. Ultimately, Amacron came along a full escape where the neutralizing. antibodies from the vaccine no longer are binding or having any effect over the current variant. And so it has gotten free. It no longer has a problem with transmission is highly transmitting.

It is highly infectious. It is getting around the vaccine. And so now what you have left are these non-neutralizing antibodies that, as you're saying, in the lower respiratory tract, are protecting us at the moment. But all of the focus of this virus mutation is no longer spending its energy trying to figure out how to be infected. It has achieved that. It has gotten around the vaccine. Now is working on its last issue, which is all I have to do is figure out how to get around these non-neutralizing antibodies. And lo and behold, now I'm going to be virulent. Now I'm going to be it right now. Those non-neutralizing antibodies are stopping trans infection between cells in the lungs. And that is what's protecting us. But this virus is studying those non-neutralizing antibodies. And it is working to figure out a way to slow. for a virus, a variant that will get around those non-neutralizing antibodies. And once that happens, trans infection will then happen in the lungs. And we will start seeing people getting a severe disease in the lungs.

So let me ask you this. Why are you so convinced that this virus will figure out a way around the non-neutralizing antibodies? Is it possible that a virus will just give up and say, you got me, I'm not going to figure it out? you know, what makes you so sure it is going to evolve to get around these non-neutralizing antibodies and become incredibly virulent, which means deadly for a lot of people? Well, I mean, again, the basic rule is if you continue to exert immune pressure on the virus without being able to block the transmission and without being able to induce sterilizing immunity, the population very definitely cannot.

That's the reason why we don't have hurt immunity because we have been vaccinating like hell. So if you like, I mean, initially remember, we were putting immune pressures on essentially the receptor binding domain of the spike protein. This was the major target, the major target. The connector, basically the connector to the ACE2 that was grabbing on and being able to get into the cells.

We said that the vaccine said, let's stop that connection. And so that was the goal was to keep it from connecting so it could get into the cells. The receptor binding domain. Okay. What you have to realize and these are things that have been published. I mean, it's not me. It's not my imagination or whatever. So when the neutralizing capacity of the vaccinal antibodies diminishes,

then the affinity of the non-neutralizing antibodies become stronger. They can more strongly bind to their epitopes. You have to imagine this. If, for example, the neutralizing antibodies they bind to spike, because of this binding, you will have a structural change of the spike, a conformational change, which prevents the non-neutralizing antibodies from binding to their target. If now the non-neutralizing antibodies, sorry, don't bind or only very weakly bind to the spike protein,

then the non-neutralizing antibodies can find their epitopes and bind to this, right? Because the structure is different. So in fact, what people have shown is that these non-neutralizing antibodies are not directed at a well-defined side within the receptor binding domain, but within a well-defined side in the N-terminal domain, an antigenic side that on top is conserved amongst all variants. Now to your question, I mean, every single time that you know get reinfected with Omicron, for example, these non-neutralizing antibodies are going to be boosted, even, even if there is like sub-variants or whatever, all these folks have the same antigenic side at which the non-neutralizing antibodies are directed.

So what in fact is happening is when the vaccine is get now reinfected, and we were just saying they get reinfected all the time, they are very, very susceptible. You get a tremendous boost of these non-neutralizing antibodies that are directed. at this antigenic site within the N-terminal domain, and that is exactly what is preventing severe disease. So we are preventing this virus from, you know, becoming more and more virulent. So we are putting this under tremendous pressure, and the virus will, of course, find a way to come around this immune,

pressure because this is simply a general rule if you cannot sterilize immunity like during a natural pandemic where people's innate and natural immunity has not been compromised by vaccine primed immunity. If you just you know it's like this I mean if you have a wave during a natural pandemic you still have the population that has sufficient immunity or that has gotten the disease and that has built natural immunity or those who have sufficient innate immunity, they are the vacuum cleaners,

and they will eliminate the virus. That's how you go to the baseline. If you don't have this, but you have these folks that normally, you know, or the vacuum cleaners, you start to vaccinate them. You're going to increase the immune pressure. And what you're going to see is that the viral infectivity

will go up all the way to resistance, right? So with this system, there is no way around this. but to also induce resistance against the non-neutralizing antibodies that target this conserved antigenic side within the end terminal domain and the antibodies are continuously boosted against those. And I mean, what I have been describing in a recent article is how mutations could easily overcome this. Because remember, this is important, sorry to be that long.

Okay, so let's get into your theory on how it's going to happen, but let me make sure I've got this right. We have the spike, which is what we use as the vaccine to create immunity to the spike protein, which is really the most deadly part of the virus. I think there's some questions to whether that was what we should have made the vaccine focused on or not. But when we have neutralizing antibodies, the non-neutralizing antibodies have a hard time attaching because the neutralizing antibodies are taking over, and they were blocking what was called the receptor. binding domain. This was the part that grabbed on to what we heard the ACE2 receptors and allowed it to enter the cells. So blocking that seemed like a good idea. That way it can't, in fact, it found its way around that.

And now the neutralizing antibodies are no longer grabbing onto the spike correctly. Maybe it's sort of off to the side. It's not getting a good hold or it's not there at all, which allows the non-neutralizing antibodies to find a place. But what's interesting is they're not going after that receptor binding domain. The non-neutralizing antibodies are not trying to stop infection. That's over. That's where past that. It's going to a different part of the spike called the N-terminal domain, a different area. And if I'm correct, you're saying this end terminal domain is a part of the virus that it doesn't matter what variant you're talking about.

It shares such similarity that no matter what variant it is, these non-neutralizing antibodies are all attaching exactly. the same way, whether it's Omicron or some Delta or some future, which means that they're all exerting the exact same kind of pressure on the virus, no matter what version of the virus. So all the mutations are focused the exact same way on the same place, the same enemy. You've basically lined up your last line of defense in a way that this virus is understanding it, it's seeing it, and it knows what it has to achieve to finally break fully into the castle. In some ways, I imagine, it's like you have the big gates to the castle that you're trying to defend and you've got your archers and everything. And eventually those being the infection, the virus broke through and they've gotten into the castle.

But lo and behold, this castle has a second set of doors, this end terminal domain, which is protecting people from dying inside. But now the battle is just on those inner doors. And once those inner doors open into the death or the mortality of this virus, now it's in. And there's no getting back to those front doors, the receptor binding domain that was supposed to block this. That's over. You only have the second door that will give in on the end terminal domain. And now you have a serious problem. I know that at one point, Paul Offutt said what Geert's saying will not happen because the virus will burn itself out.

mutates so much that it won't be, it won't have any mutations left. I would say on the receptor binding domain, but let me play this and let me see if I can get some clarity here. This is what Paul Offutted said in an interview with Z-dog. This virus also mutates, but much slower than, say, influenza does. We'll see. I mean, it's like, I mean, the notion that we're, that, you know, you're creating a, you've created a population, either from natural infection and immunization, that is likely to have several years of protection. That's a good thing. And although this virus may mutate to the point that it escapes recognition by current immunity from vaccination or immunization, then you come up

with a second generation vaccine. That's what you do. I don't think that's going to happen, actually. I think that the virus is there's probably been already about 12,000 mutations on this virus already. I mean, and I think you may get to the point if they're resisting all immunity, or meaning that it's as if you never got a vaccine, you've never got naturally affected. I think that's probably a lethal mutation. Yeah. So in other words, you're kind of running the runway out on the virus's ability to change itself. Rethal to the virus, not lethal to us. That's right. Leithel to the virus, right. So he says here that it's a lethal mutation, that the reason your theory was never going to work out is the vaccine will hold up, which clearly he's wrong. We didn't get three years of

immunity. He's wrong. We're inside of the two years of this vaccine and we have Amacron. So it's getting past it. So he's wrong there, but he talks about a lethal mutation, meaning it has burned itself out. It has mutated so much really, you know, in the spike or the receptor binding domain that there'll be no mutations left. Is it burned out? Has it run its course, as Paul Offutt said on some part of this virus? Is he right in some way? Well, of course he is not right. and I'm so sick of this talk of virologists who have no clue whatsoever about immunology. That is the biggest problem in the whole debate that we have major contributions of virologists who have no understanding. Let me tell you already one thing to completely,

completely undermine his credibility in this regard. If you come, for example, with second generation vaccines, right? What are you going to do? You are basically going to change a number of epitopes, but you are not going to change, for example, the full spike protein. You are not going to change, for example, this very conserved antigenic domain that I was talking about that is eliciting non-neutralizing antibodies. So that means as soon as you come with the second generation vaccines, remember about the antigenic sin, the first antibodies, the first antibodies that will be stimulated, or those that have been primed by this conserved antigenic domain of the non-neutralizing antibodies. And of course, the new antibody, so to say, against the epitomes that were changed,

it will take time for them to establish. Remember, this is again a kind of mass vaccination during a pandemic. These new antibodies will take time to build. They will first be at low concentrations, they will immature. Whereas the non-neutralizing antibodies, they will immediately go through the roof

because they are boosted, right? And they will simply dominate these new, these new ones, neutralizing antibodies. So these guys have still no understanding that despite all my explanations, they are still using these vaccines as if we were outside of a pandemic, as if we were using them in a prophylactic way where you first tell people, wait a minute, we give you plenty of time to first build your new, full-fledged immune response against the change, epitopes and then we will bring you in the pandemic or we will bring you to the

country where you know the infection is this is a second mass vaccination during a pandemic a pandemic of a high infectious virus this time right with non-neutralizing antibodies that have been boosted that are going to be boosted because they are directed against an antigenic side so your new neutralizing antibodies have no chance whatsoever. And with regard to his mutations, I mean, does this guy has any clue about the evolutionary capacity of the virus to come up with new mutations? I mean, there is not just the mutations, of course, in the, sorry, the receptor binding domain. There is also the mutation in an interminal domain. And I've not spoken about one aspect, Dell, that is completely, completely

in this whole debate, which is the crucial importance of glycans. This virus is covered for 40% of its surface, is covered by glycans, which we know, glycans, sugars for the audience, that are synthesized by the machinery of the host, that are therefore self or self-like glycans, that are therefore not recognized by the immune system, but that can shield underlying epitopes so that you're completely masked. One sugar can shield all the potentially neutralizing epitopes that are situated within the receptor binding domain. One mutation, right?

I mean, what nonsense are these guys talking, right? I cannot understand this. I mean, it should be forbidden for any virology. you know, to mingle in this discussion because they have no clue of immunology. Look at Fauci. Inate, natural immunity, vaccine-induced immunity, it's all the same, right? Of it, vaccination outside of a pandemic or during a pandemic, it's all the same. And the number of mutations are limited, right?

I mean, these guys have no understanding of evolutionary biology, let alone of the evolutionary capacity of the virus when it is put under tremendous immunity. Immendous immune pressure while leaving the door open for the virus to replicate and it must do so because the infections here with Omicron are too mild This is not the most of them are asymptomatic. This is not a good situation for the virus if it doesn't do anything if it doesn't react it will get eradicated because you know the best way for the virus to propagate is when people get moderate disease severe disease etc So it is under tremendous tremendous immune pressure and it is very very very very very clear that it will mutate and it is even clear or very likely how this will happen. Because remember, it cannot afford to just become virulent. It has to maintain its high level of infectiousness.

So it needs to combine boating, enhanced binding of the neutralizing antibodies to ensure enhanced infectiousness at the upper respiratory tract while preventing, you know, through this very same antibodies, trans infection at the level of the lower respiratory tract. And that is how I figured out that, you know, glycans need to come in to be able to meet both of these challenges because responsible antibodies are the same, the non-neutralizing antibodies. But at one hand side, they need to bind to the virus at the upper respiratory tract to make sure you get enhanced infectiousness,

whereas you have to prevent them from binding to the virus that is absorbed on the migrating dendritic cells that brings the virus from the upper respiratory tract to the lower respiratory tract. There you have to prevent their binding in order to enable virulence, right? So these guys don't do homework, right? They talk, they talk, they are loaded by administrative questions, but they don't do the signs anymore. That's the problem. Let me see if I understand what you're saying. No, I appreciate the passion because we're talking about the future of humanity here. I get it.

You care. You've obviously put a lot of focus on this. And I feel like I just understood something that I haven't quite understood before. So you're saying that this mutation, the current Omicron, got around. the neutralizing antibodies so the receptor binding domain you know was freed up in fact and and that the way that the neutralizing antibodies are grabbing on is helping it in fact cells faster it's enhancing the disease that the vibe but those same antibodies that are enhancing infection are limiting once they get in the lower they're they're doing two different jobs

very beneficial to the virus and infecting but stopping the virus from trans infecting cells which is how it gets to virulence. But what you're saying is this virus is not going to try and mutate a way to get rid of the neutralizing antibodies. It doesn't want to totally block those. It needs them to be infectious. So what it's going to try to figure out how to do is how to use them, the neutralizing antibodies caused by the vaccine. It wants to use them because it helps infect. It uses them to get through the doors and infect. But it wants to figure out a way then how to continue transinfection, which is being blocked. So you're saying it's not going to mutate a way that Paul often might think in the receptor

binding domain or maybe not even in neutralizing binding domain, but it's going to use a sugar in some way to sort of coat itself and hide itself so that then that blocking of transinfection can happen and it can trans infect by hiding that, you know, those antibodies that are using it to be infectious, hiding it in sugar so that then it will get in and then it will get in. then we have serious problems. Is that sort of the basic idea you're getting across? And the way why this can happen is simply, and this is really to simplify,

is because the non-utilizing antibodies at the upper respiratory tract, they bind at the spike that is presented on a free virium, on a free virus particle, right, at the upper respiratory tract. A number of these virus particles are bound on dendritic cells that are resident at the nasal mucosa, the mucosa of the respiratory tract. And that is the way how they vehicular the virus through the lower respiratory tract or other distant organs, right? The virus is absorbed on the dendritic cell. And the dendritic cells serves as a vehicle to bring the virus. The dendritic cells, the taxi cab is the taxi cab.

It's the taxi cab that takes the virus to the other parts of the body. They take the virus and they... Remember, I was saying at the upper respiratory tract, it enhances, is it's enhancing the infectiousness of the virus. Whereas at the lower respiratory tract, it exactly prevents this. It prevents the transfer from the dendritic cell to which it is absorbed to a susceptible cell in the lung. prevents the transfection. In one hand side it prevents the transfection in that the lower respiratory tract that the upper respiratory tract it enhances the infection. This is simply due by the fact that the

confirmation of this antigenic side to which this non-utilizing antibodies bind is different depending on whether the spike is present on a free virion or a viral particle that is absorbed the dendritic cell. And that is how this different behavior can be explained. Of course, somebody who completely has no clue says, wow, you know, that is fantastic. We prevent severe disease and we have a virus that spreads, you know, very massively.

So you're going to have herd immunity in no time. And then you also add to that the vaccine-induced immunity. So all immunity is good, folks, don't bother. And we have no hospitalizations or low rates of hospitalization, low rate of morbidity and mortality. So this is the end of the pandemic phase. I mean, this is an unbelievable, dangerous nonsense. This virus is just preparing.

It's the valley of fitness. It is just preparing itself. And it is fostered by an enormous force to do that, namely a high level of infectiousness that is fostered by this non-neutralizing antibodies and it's just preparing to overcome this hurdle. And as I was saying, a glycan, it can hide, it can shield the whole receptor binding domain, for example. So with one mutation, you overcome all this, you substitute, so to say, all the mutations

that Omicron has incorporated the 20 mutations within the receptor binding domain, one glycan can simply substitute for that. So you can easily maintain that level of resistance to the neutralizing antibodies while using the same glycan at the lower respiratory tract to shield the conserved antigenic side to which the non-neutralizing antibodies are binding and by then.

by doing so preventing virulence of the virus, right? I know this is very, very difficult, but what else? Did people really think that this would be simple? And it's like, you know, everybody gets a shot, and that is how we vaccinate ourselves outside of the pandemic. I mean, this is just. So let me ask you this. And I think we all have a basic understanding clearly.

I mean, by the way, how much time, I mean, you are so, of all the people I've talked to, you are so deep into this virus. How much work have you put into this? I mean, how much time does it take to have the understanding you have of Omicron? Well, you know, Del, I told you, this is putting pieces of a puzzle together. And, you know, there is only one principle. You cannot leave any stone unturned.

You cannot leave any question unanswered. And you come up with a theory and you need to see whether this matches with what you're seeing in reality, for example. And, you know, it takes an awful amount of time. Of course, it takes weeks and night. And I was already well prepared because, you know, I do have, I think, some substantial insights in immunology, vaccineology, virology, etc. But then you, instead of, you know, like these folks, like these key experts do, they're talking all the time, they're all the time on TV, they are, you know, politicians

playing a political role, they are engaging in press conferences, etc., etc. I mean, this time, all this time, I'm investing in doing the research, in looking at the science. Of course, it's a full-time job, but it's worth doing this. Somebody needs to do this, but my frustration is that the message is so difficult to convey, whereas this naive narrative that these guys are spreading is so easy for people to understand. It's basically, you know, shut up and get yourself vaccinated and also get your kids vaccinated, which is the biggest disaster ever because this is the biggest reservoir for herd immunity. They have innate immunity. They can clear this virus. You know, this is.

from a public health viewpoint, a disaster, not only for the child, but also, and the more children we will vaccinate, the more we will, of course, expedite, is immune escape and get to this kind of variant that will not only be highly infectious, fully resistant to the vaccines, and also highly virulent, right? And that is where these guys, you know, if they don't believe me, they should simply wait and see what is going to happen. But it will be too late. It'll be too late at that point. So here's my next question.

That variant, that variant that's going to use a glycan to finish its job. It's super infectious now. All it wants to do is figure out how to be, you know, to be raising mortality, to be infecting the lower respiratory tract. How long do you think it is before a variant? figures out how to do that with the amount of pressure that this vaccine program has put on it and what we're watching in science. How much time do we have? Well, it's of course, well, what I can say very fast. The virus has now an enormous, an enormous choice of all possible mutants because,

remember, first of all, the infection rate is very high. Second, we have plenty already of animal reservoirs. We have plenty of opportunities for co-infection where you have recombinence, etc. Some of those have already been described. And you also have to imagine that we have already identified, well, I didn't do this, but researchers do this, to glycosylase, glycosylation sites, so where these gligens would be inserted on the end, on the terminus of the receptor binding domain and those glycosylation sites already available. It's just that the glycans are only present right now in trace amounts. But these sides would be ideally situated.

They simply need to grow. And then you have to have some mutations in the end terminal domain that can accommodate, make sure that when there is a conformational change due to the growing, to the growth of these glycans, that it will not disturb. the spike protein to an extent that it would no longer be infectious, so to say, but it doesn't need to be two or three mutations. You have plenty of mutations that could easily accommodate. And in this end terminal domain, and all this has been published,

you have plenty of opportunities for mutations that would match perfectly to do this. So within that being said, I cannot imagine that this will take more than like a, than like a month or two months before we start to see the first combination of highly infectious variants that are also more virulent. Remember, these glycan chains can grow and the more they grow, the better they will be able to do the job. So it's not like we will have only one variant and that will be the super variant. No, we will have a serious of variants that have more extensive glycosylation that will manage better and better to overcome the immune pressure that we are putting and that will lead to a series of rapidly

successing variants that have a level of infectiousness that is even higher than Omicron. So this will not be prevented by the glycans. the glycans will not cover this small receptor binding motif within the receptor binding domain that will be responsible for enhanced infectiousness. So the glycans, they will do it all together. So it's easy for the virus to do. People have already shown that in reconvalescent syria, from, well, people who recovered from the disease, that upon a few passages in cell culture, they ended up

with a variant that has this oak line oscillation chain and that rendered the virus completely resistant to the reconvalescent serum, right? This was of course in vitro. So if you would ask me to set up an experiment where I can induce this resistance and generate a highly infectious SARS-CoV-2 virus with a high level of virons

that is completely resistant against the COVID-19 vaccines, The experiment that we are doing is exactly what I would do, exactly that, right? The experiment we're doing on humanity. Preferably immunize all the children, right? It's criminal. It's not going to have a happy end. Believe me, it's not going to have a happy end unless we do a dramatic reduction of the infectious pressure.

We do, of course, we will need anti-vinal treatment. So before we get to the solution, let me understand. Just a couple quick questions, because we've been at this a long time. I feel like the scientists that really understand what you're talking about, you're speaking, you know, very specific language. But from a lay position, my understanding is this, that the mutations, as you say now, you believe, and I was hoping, I was thinking we're going to say, like, next fall, maybe, the next flu season, six months, you believe within the next month or two, these types of mutations that will figure out their way using glycans to get back to this transatlose. infection, which is where serious illness and death occurs, we'll start seeing variants that are going to get better and better at doing that starting a month or two from now. It'll probably be in the highly, the nations with high infection pressure because the highly vaccinated nations will be where we'll see this happen. Now, am I to understand that this problem, and it will probably be deadly for some, will it be specific to the vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated?

Will there be a difference between how the vaccinated will handle this new variance compared to the unvaccinated or will they both be in danger? No. I mean, as I was always saying, for the unvaccinated, just for the record for guys like Fauci and others who don't understand the difference, as we have discussed multiple times, you first have, for example, innate immunity, right? But we know that these innate antibodies are broadly protective. They don't care about, they recognize, that is what they do, they recognize self-glycant patterns on pathogens, for example. That is what they have been conceived for, right? And if you have a change, for example, in the glycosylation, that is not going to prevent

them from recognizing. I'm not saying that these people cannot develop mild or moderate disease, but basically, basically think about this, it's just common sense. The Omicron, for example, is like a live-attainuated vaccine for the unvaccinated. I've published a number of things, articles about this, just pulling from other authors, is that through epigenetic changes, the immune system can adapt, the innate immune system can adapt and do a better job the next time around. time around. Of course you can get mild disease, you can maybe get moderate disease, be a few days in bed, but next time around, you will do better. Let me just so to say the unvaccinated and the innate especially, when we're talking about we didn't get back to baseline, we're in this highly infectious space where the virus is not going away.

So all of us that weren't vaccinated, we're constantly coming in contact with the virus. It's all around us. Someone around us is infected. you're saying that's acting for us like a booster shot. If there's any mutations that our immune system hasn't seen yet, it is learning from that. It's re-boosting itself. We might get a light cold or something or moderate if it's bad. But for the most part, all of the naturally immune are constantly being upgraded

by the contact with this infection that's out there so that this is just going to look like another mild mutation, this new variant that you're worried about. out for the unvaccinated, we're already just this far away. We need a slight adjustment. That immune system will do just fine. You might get a light cold. But the vaccinated are going to have a severe experience with this because they're not getting

this upgraded immunity. They're not taking in all the glycans, all the, you know, the whole virus, the whole thing. They're not going to handle it well. Is that pretty clear? The vaccinated are going to do much, much worse than the unvaccinated. Is that what you're saying, essentially? Well, yeah, it is simple, I mean, in the vaccinated, unfortunately, they are mounting antigen-specific responses, right? And these antigen-specific responses, they are doing a fantastic job outside of a pandemic,

but they are just putting immune pressure if you vaccinate them during a pandemic, whereas the unvaccinated, they are still relying on, we call this pathogen-specific immunity. and that is what is to a large extent going to protect the unvaccinated, certainly as long as they are in good health. So the situation is completely different, and therefore it makes me so sick when these guys not understanding anything about immunity or mixing up all these different things.

They don't even understand what natural immunity is, let alone innate immunity, there is vaccine-induced immunity. They are mixing it up, and it just like it fits in their agenda. Natural immunity didn't count. Now all of a sudden it counts, and they add the vaccine-induced immunity, and then vaccine of it, and that is how we get rid of the pandemic.

Okay. It's shame. Shame. So from the very beginning, your first concern was that pressuring this virus was a bad idea with a mass vaccination campaign during a pandemic. Now, when you look at, we are in the final stages. This virus has mutated in all the ways. in many things you said, I'm guessing some things not exactly how you thought, but it has mutated.

It's made this journey. It's in the final part of the journey that you were always concerned about. As you watch for this final mutation or this final set of mutations, and I only say final in that it truly achieves that goal of being both more virulent and also more infectious, which is the perfect storm, as you will. Do you feel now that the situation is as dire, especially for all of those we've had now, I think over a billion people vaccinated, hundreds of millions vaccinated just here in America? Do you think the situation is more dire or less dire than when you originally sort of projected that it was a concern? Are you as concerned or less concerned about what damage this future variant could do? Well, I am more concerned and the reason is that when I launched my initial call, I think I understood 75%, maybe 60% of what exactly was happening. As a matter of fact, I now understand that the virus is even more sophisticated in working in two stages. I'm now very, very, very concerned that because we are already having a second mass vaccination ongoing,

namely the Omicron vaccination, that there is no way we can stop this unless we massively, we massively diminish the infectious pressure, you know, which can only be done with mass antiviral hemoprophlaxis campaigns. and at an individual level, also with antivirals, to treat people. So it could be very, could go very, very fast. So I hope that the antiviral treatments and the early treatments will be sufficient to help these people, but at the population level,

in highly vaccinated populations, if we don't do this, if we are not going to massively intervene with antiviral chemoprophylaxis, and I don't care whether it's either mectin or paxilovit, it should be safe, If it should be readily available at low cost and, you know, it should be very effective, then we are for sure going to face a disaster. And if these guys like Fauci, Ovid, etc., think that this is just going to die out,

you know, the end of a pandemic phase, just spontaneously because we have O'Migron. And then from time to time, we will give an additional shot and we will come with a new Omicron vaccine and you know if that doesn't help we we add a little bit of pacts of it. I mean this is just a shame. This is an insult to science. This is an insult to all people who have been coerced and forced into the into these vaccination campaigns. I have no words for this. Yes. So you're a short answer. Yes, I'm more concerned more concerned than before. And to be clear what you just stated is the solution. So let's let's end this you know with with a way out. And your way out, as you're saying, as I understand it, is we need to use

prophylaxis of antivirals like ivermectin, Pax-Lovid. Now, are you saying who should be taking that? If you were, if you had your choice, if you were a king for a day, is your idea that in all of these highly infectious pressure countries where there's a huge high vaccine uptake rate, the UK, the United States of America, others that should they immediately put everybody that's been vaccinated on these prophylactic drugs? And then the result of that being that it would sort of take down the pressure on the virus so that we stop it from mutating. We just release the pressure so that we're not like putting it on steroids and making it really focused on having this variant shift that could be deadly for countless millions of people?

Yeah, well, we need to diminish, of course, this infectious pressure. Is this going to be a solution? Well, we will have, of course, to repeat this, right? To repeat this after six months, maybe one year, but I guess at the beginning after six months. And we will need, let's be very clear, to do this for as As long as the part of the population that is capable of generating genuine herd immunity is represents only a small part of the population. This population will need to grow again. They are the vacuum cleaners. These are the people that naturally are responsible for inducing sterilizing immunity and herd immunity and terminate the pandemic.

So as long as that population has become very small in highly vaccinated countries, we will need to do this on a regular basis. So there is no other way we could reduce this infectious pressure, because the infectious pressure, as I was saying, comes with the immune pressure, right? Those both in highly vaccinated countries are intrinsically linked. So you have to start somewhere, and I prefer to start with the virus rather than to start with the people. Because of course, if you eliminate those who are generating the immune pressure, then of course you will also diminish the infectious pressure because the virus will no longer be put under pressure.

Do you want to do this? I mean, if you let nature do the job, that is what is going to happen. People are going to die. So essentially, what you're saying is if we leave nature. nature to do this. If we step aside right now, that nature will eventually bring down the level of pressure, am I to understand by killing people, by killing hosts, and ultimately getting rid of so much of the population that there's not enough population to pressure it, and thereby those with the innate immune system still intact will become a large enough percentage of the population

to get to herd immunity. That's what you're saying, that at this, point that the only way we are going to have to use drugs, prophylaxis for those that have been vaccinated in order to compete and try and give some advantage to the innate and naturally immune to do the job of getting to herd immunity, or nature will reduce that pressure by bringing down that size of that population so that those that are naturally immune are a larger part of the population. Nature will reestablish the equilibrium in that ecosystem, right? It's not like divisive. virus has a plan or you know the host has a plan this is simply the equilibrium right

in this in this ecosystem let's be honest and just to finish this up to really sort of get a full understanding between you and i unless this video is spread far and wide and the scientists of the world jump on board and get through to the WHO and the CDC um and the the the NHS these large, you know, health bodies around the world. If they, if we do not get this word out, odds are they will not use a high prophylaxis campaign amongst those that really need it. And so as you sit, you know, in your home now and you brace for this variant that is coming and recognize that the likely scenario is nature is going to have to establish its

equilibrium because anything else would require Anthony Fauci and Paul Offutt to admit that they were wrong, that we have a serious issue that we've created. We've created a man-made, unnatural scenario and an environment that should have never happened, and we now need to use a drug to try and get out of it. I doubt they're going to say that to the public, and therefore you won't have the uptake that is necessary. So when we look into the future over the next few months going into next fall, what are you,

What is your, what is, again, I'm going to, I asked you last time, the worst case scenario as nature attempts to find this equilibrium, what type of percentages are we looking at as far as severe illness and death? I don't know, but what I can say, and I mean, I'm really very serious about it because I've been thinking a long time about it, the losses will be unprecedented. I'm always saying Africa will win the countries that barely vaccinated their people. You know, you see this, for example, now in South Africa, I don't know whether you have seen these curves. You have a steep increase of one omecrum variant, and then it was calm, like, for a few months, and then you had another steep curve. You don't see this in our countries anymore, in the highly vaccinated countries. South Africa has approximately 30, 35 percent of a...

of vaccinated people. So you still have an important young population that can clear the virus. And that is how these waves can still be brought down. But yeah, as I was saying, this is going to be dramatic for highly vaccinated countries. And I really cannot imagine if we don't intervene with mass antiviral chemoprophylaxis. I, you know, yeah, of course you could say we need a baby boom. I immediately dilute this whole thing so that we have earth immunity, but that cannot happen within a short time.

You could say we can have massive immigration from people coming from poorly vaccinated countries. But like, for example, now with Ukraine, etc. What I'm seeing is that they get already vaccinated at the border when they come in, right? So none of this is going to help. And, you know, this cannot be put back into balance without major sacrifice. If you don't act on the virus, if you don't want to do this, and you just drive it into more and more infectious variants, then the other alternative is, of course, the host population. I mean, what else? it's not 25 different factors that are contributing to this.

You hear us all the time talking about infectious pressure and immune pressure, right? And that is the two factors you can play with. When would you dare to speculate? We have 340, 30, 40 million Americans people, 60% of which, you know, I think are fully vaccinated or in that space. So, you know, two-thirds of the nation vaccinated. So if we're looking, you know, at 200 million people that are going to have trouble with a future variant, what are the potential numbers? I don't know, I don't know, Del, but, you know, I don't want to think about it even.

And of course, there is nothing we can base it. There is nothing we can use as a comparison. This experiment is completely unprecedented and it is massive. It involves all age groups, right? It is massive. So that is why I'm saying the damage will also be massive. But don't ask me to, you know, for numbers, but the only thing I can say is that according to my humble opinion, it will really be unprecedented.

It will be unprecedented. You know, I still hope somewhere that, you know, one or the other force will convince those who are in charge to change their mind. But as you were saying, it's very unlikely because it seems like they prefer to die themselves before, you know, admitting that they were completely wrong, right? And for people it's extremely difficult because for them it's very, very difficult to understand. There was only one thing we needed and you started the interview with my first video. We should never have had vaccine mandates. We should have had debate mandates, a mandate for debate. Scientists should have been obliged to get together to discuss with us so that people could understand.

like we are doing right now, that it's not all that simple, and that is very complex matter that have been shaped throughout, you know, millions of years through evolution, and that it's just like, you know, during a war where you destroy one piece of architecture, where people have been working for tens of years, sometimes, you know, hundreds of years, to build something fantastic,

and then they just throw one bombshell on this, and it's all gone, right? That is the kind of image that I have in my head, the stupidity of mankind and the stubbornness that will have, of course, major, major consequences that are unpredictable, but, as I was saying, unprecedented. It's devastating. I mean, it's, yeah. Well, Geread, I want to thank you. for your continued passion for your work on this subject.

It is clear, as I've said before, that of all the people that have looked at this, I don't know anyone that seems to have evaluated so many different aspects of the science from all around the world. You have predicted, in many ways, very, very accurately where we have come to this point. I will end this, I think, probably the way I ended the last time. I pray to God that you are wrong.

I hope that there is some greater power than all of us that somehow finds empathy for our arrogance and the mistakes that we have clearly made and goes light on us. But for the rest of us, I think the message still stays the same. If your kids have not been vaccinated, for God's sakes, leave them alone. For everybody that is questioned whether your natural immunity is the right way to go. stay away from the vaccine. You are the future of the world. The future of the world is hanging in the bodies of those who have not touched this vaccine. And whether through nature or science, we need to make that the dominant population in order for our species to correct itself in this time. Yeah. I absolutely agree. And thanks Del for conveying, helping to convey this message, which is basically my last call to have things changed.

And if some of these experts want to react to my document, want to fact-check it, right? I've distributed it broadly widely. It has plenty of references of the literature. It's also, of course, on my website. And, you know, I mean, if they really think they have an argument that is still justifying mass vaccination, they should react to this.

This is pure science. But yeah, I'm afraid we will not hear from them once again. Well, they have any opportunity. If they want to make it public, they can do it right here on the high wire. We put our call out to Anthony Fauci, Paul Offutt, all of you out there. If you want to challenge Geert, I'd love to hear how

geared is wrong. Nothing would make me happier in this world. Geert, I have. I hope you continue your great work. We will do our best to get this message out. I know we're not the only, you know, group you're doing this interview with. We are not in competition. We work with everybody.

Every great film crew out there should be interviewing you. We need to reach all of humanity now. I want to thank you once again for your time. And I look forward to brighter, better conversations in the future. However, that has to happen. Take care. Thank you. Thank you, Del.

Thanks. It's difficult to know what to say at this moment because I know many of you, you've just watched this. I've had several days to try and absorb what Geertz has just shared with us. And let's be clear, even if you only understand 50% of the science that was just laid before us, it is terrifying. It is absolutely shocking. And let me also say this, if you understood 50% of what Geert just, said, you know more than any doctor that has ever injected a vaccine into your body. They never studied this.

They don't understand this. Paul Offutt himself has clearly proven he doesn't even understand what he's talking about. We are in a totally different world now that we have created. Now, I also want to say, I think it's very important to also remember that, as Geert said, this is all unprecedented. We are in an unprecedented world, so even his theories are still just. theories that we don't know if they will play out the way he has said. He has no reference point.

There's never been a time in the world where we have removed herd immunity as our way out, which is what we have done. We now live in a time where we're being told to learn to live with it. Now, I want to just go through a couple of things just to be clear. For all of us that are out there, I saw a lot of, you know, there's a lot of questions being asked, well, what if I've been naturally infected? Or what if I haven't got the vaccine, but I haven't been infected? Don't think I've been infected. I believe all of that was covered there. There is no way that you are not boosting at this point in this world. If you've been walking around in this world,

you have everyone has come in contact with Omicron, especially. And it is highly infectious. And so you, if you haven't felt it, your body's been reboosting, you are in a great position. In fact, those who have either had the infection naturally, never got vaccinated, or those that have had such a strong innate reaction, maybe they've been asymptomatic and didn't know it. You are the future. You are that equilibrium that nature is trying to find. It needs those people to reach herd immunity, and it needs it to be a large enough part of the population, or we have to do something else to deal with an unnatural situation like we're in right now. That leads us to those of you that watch this show that have been vaccinated. I'm just going to say what Gert is saying is you need to go out and start a prophylaxis process. Your body has an antigenic sin, is what we call it, an original antigenic sin. I've done the football scenario.

If you haven't seen it, go back and watch it where the X's and O's, your body is only looking for the old version of this virus. It is blind to all new variants. And when that variant comes along that is not only infectious but deadly, your body doesn't know how to fight it and you're going to be in trouble. So all of these things that when you got vaccinated said, well, Ivermectin doesn't work and hydroxychloroquine doesn't work. He mentions Pax-Lovid. That's a brand new drug.

We're going to do some investigations of that, some questions to whether that's as effective as Ivermectin or as safe. But what he's saying is you need to reduce the pressure using those, that those that are vaccinated now all need to start, probably eventually. very light dosage of a prophylaxis so that that prophylaxes makes sure you can't be infected, that you're taking a drug that blocks infection so that your body can't mount any more mutant resistant and drive this thing. We need to remove pressure now off of the virus. And so that is his solution. Will it work? Who knows? Who knows? We've never been here before. To me, this is him

grasping at whatever opportunity now. How do we get ourselves out of this natural situation. If you are naturally immune, know this, that whatever happens, you're the one that can rush into the burning building now. We are perfectly set up now with strong, robust immunity to help in whatever scenarios come into our future. And let's just think into that for a moment. And what has been on my mind? What does this look like? What does it look like if he's right, in a month or two, the same antibodies that are inside of the vaccinated people, that have been helping this virus infect them. Remember, we've talked about immune enhancement.

That is already happening. It's no longer a theory. Immune enhancement is happening or disease enhancement. The antibodies from the vaccine are helping this virus infect people. I showed you that with the Walgreens data. Compared to the unvaccinated, the vaccinated are catching it more,

meaning it's making them, you know, the vaccine is helping them be infected more. And so what he's saying is one more step. only is going to help them be infected, it will help them die, which is the ultimate antibody dependent enhancement we saw in all of the animal trials. The high wire has been warning you since before this vaccine was ever delivered into a single human being. We said this was our concern. And it was hypothetical, but Gerbendin Bosch has been laying out accurately the entire time every step, as I pointed out in the very beginning. So what happens? This is clearly a what if.

that I think we have to sort of think about, but not dwell on. What happens if large portions of the population that are vaccinated suddenly start getting severely ill and dying? I can assure you there will be a panic like we have not seen before. Will we immediately look like Shanghai? I don't think it's out of the question. Will the media say that everybody is having this problem? Definitely.

They will never tell you that it's not the, it's the, the unvaccinated or not in hospitals, that it's only the vaccinated or getting the severe disease, they will probably even go as far to say that the reason that this new variant came along that we didn't see coming was because of the unvaccinated, as we've heard them say before. They will try to blame us for the mistake that they have made. We need to be prepared for all of that. What does that world look like? What happens if so many people start getting sick, they lock us down like Shanghai?

Can we eat? Where's my food going to come from? Do I know a local farmer? All of these things are, I think, practical discussions that you should have. Hopefully, and as I said, I pray that we look back on all of this and say, well, it was scary. It was a little over the top, but we were wrong. I hope at that moment we can say, Gert van den Voss was wrong, who was right about everything else, but that final closing, you know, call that he made was over the top and didn't end up coming to fruition. But let's be clear, everyone that has been against here at Van Den Bosch, the Anthony Fauci's of the world, have been wrong every single step of the way. They promised us the vaccine would end this pandemic by creating herd immunity. It no longer does that. Can we see the headline one more time? Tony Fauci says,

learn to live with COVID because we're not going to eradicate it. Let me make this clear. If we get nothing else out of Geert's interview, here is what is happening. For the first time in the history of man and viruses and bacteria that we know of that has ever been documented, we did not eradicate this disease. We did not make it to herd immunity.

Enough people did not develop a natural resistance, create neutralizing antibodies and destroy this virus as we've done with every single virus that we have ever come in contact with since the dawn of man. These fools, these people experimented on us and it is the greatest failure that has ever happened. Now they are telling us that we have to live with constant sickness, with high rates of infection that are never going away. Do you realize this is their brain trial? is their dream, they got it. Oh, good for you. You managed to talk enough governments of the world

to letting you try your experiment, where you were going to overcome God and natural immunity. Because remember, we have only with vaccines ever vaccinated the children, and we were basing its ability to achieve herd immunity on the fact that we already had natural herd immunity, and we're just vaccinating the remaining few and claiming, we did it. No, you did not. Your vaccine never created immunity, just like you're already having problems with polio that I pointed out before. No, when you finally had the opportunity to say, let us step in and do what God has done, or for those of you that have trouble with religion, then let's call it evolution, the perfect design of your body. When the pharmaceutical industry and these geniuses said, no, let us take over, what did they

achieve, they did not achieve herd immunity. They achieved something far worse, a constant state of unending illness. That is what they've achieved. So whether or not Geert van den Bosch is wrong about how severe this is going to get, which in many ways when you think biblically, this could be biblical if it plays out. This mistake, this arrogance, this hubris that we've been warned about through every religion known to man, where our egos or Satan or whatever you want to call it, make us do something that overrides our humility and our understanding of nature around us. We are in that moment. And I mean it, may God spare us and have empathy for what we have done here. We have created a world where at the moment, herd immunity does not exist for the first time ever.

Does nature get us out of this? Is it going to be some horrific event? Can we find balance through homeo or chemoprophylaxis or anything else? We will be looking for all of those answers as we move in the future. Today's show is intense. It is a time capsule. I put it all in here. His original interviews, all of it.

Because we need to be able to say, the science was. known. It was completely and fully stated, not a sound bite, not letting anyone guess, it was all there for often and everyone to study. They should have told you the truth. They should have come together. Stop the freaking censorship for God's

sakes and let all the doctors in the world speak to each other. Let Malone on his LinkedIn. Let Peter McCullough. Let everybody come together to try and find a solution together for the mistake that we made. That has to happen now. But,

no matter what, let us learn this lesson that we are not smarter than nature, that we are not better and that these scientists have no clue what they are doing to us. Let's get out of this world where we just saw what they'll do if science gets to run the world. We will be forever sick, unable to make it to a equilibrium of health. Sure, they'll have drugs to deal with the fact that we are always sick. And imagine not just coronavirus, but flu and measles and chicken pox and all of it, constantly infecting us because we cannot eradicate it because all of those who had natural immunity have already passed away.

As I've said many times, the baby boomers being the last truly immune. Do we let science take us into this dark place that is a state of constant illness? Or do we wake up and say, let's get back to the human body when it won this battle every time it came in contact with a virus? When it won the battle every time it came in contact with a bacteria, where it persevered and reached herd immunity, sure, there were a few people that were very sick that didn't make it through that battle, but we got back to zero. We got back to perfect health. Let's get back to winning the battle with nature, which means working in concert with nature instead of this

future where we lose every single day to virus, where we lose and we have to learn to live with being losers. That is what science has done to us. because we have not studied the science. We have a lot of work to do. There is still hope because we are here speaking the truth. But no, if this horrific moment takes place, censorship, lockdowns, all of it could be back upon us. What will we do?

We'll have to work together. And that's what the high wire is all about. Thank you for taking the time. to understand the potential future of our species. Obviously, we take it very seriously here with the high wire. I'll see you next week.